The English author and convert to Catholicism Graham Greene once penned a short story entitled “The Hint of an Explanation,” which is well worth the read, not least of all for Graham’s prose and haunting slow-burn of a narrative. The story tells of a young altar server who dutifully attends his priest at Sunday Mass and regularly receives Holy Communion. “I hated it,” the boy recounts of putting on his surplice in a Catholic church, instead of the nearby Anglican church, which he says he considered the “proper” church. Gradually and somewhat reluctantly, the boy is befriended by one of the town’s two bakers, known as Blacker. “What’s the difference between a progressive Catholic and a Satanist?” The Satanist believes in the True Presence. “He was hemmed in by his hatred — his hatred of us,” the boy recalls. “That poor man was preparing to revenge himself on everything he hated — my father, the Catholics, the God whom people persisted in crediting.” Blacker seemingly manufactures encounters with the boy and, aware that the child serves at Mass, eventually offers him a magnificent toy train set in exchange for a consecrated Communion host. “It may seem odd to you, but this was the first time that the idea of transsubstantiation really lodged in my mind. I had learned it all by rote; I had grown up with the idea,” the boy narrates. “[B]ut here suddenly I was in the presence of a man who took it seriously, as seriously as the priest whom naturally one didn’t count — it was his job. I felt more scared than ever.” To find how the story ends, you’ll have to read it yourself. (READ MORE from S.A. McCarthy: The Pernicious Persecution of Traditional Catholics) It is perhaps excusable for a child not to think too deeply on the doctrine of the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, especially if his head is filled with visions of electric train sets and terrors of secretive bakers. But the initial thoughtless apathy of the boy in the story has, sadly, essentially become the norm for adult Catholics. A 2019 survey from the Pew Research Center found that only 31 percent of American Catholics really believe that, as the Church teaches, “during Catholic Mass, the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Jesus.” According to a more recent study from the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate, only about 35 percent of American Catholics believe in the True Presence. Perhaps unsurprisingly in the present age, nearly 10 percent of American Catholics noted that they are familiar with the Church’s doctrinal teachings on the True Presence but choose to reject them. Contrast these abysmal statistics with the recent story of a priest charged with battery for biting a woman during Mass — in order to protect the Holy Eucharist. According to Catholic News Agency, a woman and her same-sex partner attended a First Communion Mass at St. Thomas Aquinas Church in St. Cloud, Florida. The woman stood in line to receive Communion but neither held out her hands nor opened her mouth to receive on the tongue. The priest, recognizing that something was wrong, asked her when she had last been to confession and recommended she attend the sacrament before presenting herself for Holy Communion. The woman and her partner attended Mass again just two hours later and she once again presented herself for Holy Communion before the same priest. He asked her if she had had an opportunity to attend confession and, according to his account of events, she replied, “No, I don’t need to explain to you, I don’t need to give an explanation, you don’t have authority, you don’t need to judge me.” The priest responded, “I’m not judging you, I’m asking you only, did you confess after the other Mass [to] receive the Communion now? Because if you did not confess, I can’t give you the Communion.” Then, just as Greene’s Blacker no doubt sought to do, the woman reached out and grabbed a handful of consecrated Communion hosts and began breaking them into little bits. To one who recognizes what Greene called the “infinite value” of the Blessed Sacrament, such an act is one of heartbreak and horror: the mangling and desecrating of the Body and Blood of Christ Himself, as helpless under the appearance of bread and wine as He was hanging bruised and bloodied and battered upon the cross. In an effort to protect the Body of Christ and to keep the Communion hosts from falling to the ground, the priest leaned forward and bit the woman’s arm. (READ MORE: The Bogeyman: The Leftists’ Hatred of the Catholic Church) The Diocese of Orlando released a statement saying, “[W]hile the Diocese of Orlando does not condone physical altercations such as this, in good faith, Father Rodriguez was simply attempting to prevent an act of desecration of the holy Communion, which, as a priest, Father Rodriguez is bound by duty to protect.” Police have charged the priest with one count of battery. The woman told police present, “I just wanted a cookie. That’s all.” She added, “He wouldn’t give me a cookie.” Far too many self-professed Catholics today would no doubt say that Father Rodriguez overreacted or caused a scene. Perhaps his behavior wasn’t “pastoral” or “inclusive” enough. An old joke — less funny than it is saddeningly poignant — asks, “What’s the difference between a progressive Catholic and a Satanist?” The Satanist believes in the True Presence. For those who consider a priest a madman for biting a woman over “a cookie,” there is perhaps no sensible explanation for such behavior. But for those who see that this priest would not only bite to safeguard the Blessed Sacrament but would surely die for It, that may perhaps be the hint of an explanation. The post The Holy Eucharist and the Hint of an Explanation appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

WASHINGTON — Rapper Cardi B told Rolling Stone magazine that she won’t vote in November. It was bad news for President Joe Biden, since the influential entertainer, who describes herself as Afro-Latina, endorsed him in 2020. The Morehouse remarks were the 2024 version of Biden’s efforts to woo Black voters in 2020. At 31, Ms. B stands out as one of many younger and minority Americans who feel that the Biden administration isn’t delivering what they wanted. She told Rolling Stone that between the high cost of living and U.S. aid to Ukraine and Israel, “I feel like people got betrayed.” In November, a survey by The New York Times and Siena College found that 22 percent of Black voters in key battleground states said they’d vote for former President Donald Trump — a big leap from the 8 percent of the Black vote Trump won in 2020, according to the Pew Research Center. A more recent Times/Siena sampling of voters under age 45 found that 70 percent disapprove of Biden. (READ MORE from Debra J. Saunders: Biden v. Trump Debates: Deja Vu All Over Again) Team Biden is acutely aware of the need to boost enthusiasm — and participation — among these two heavily Democratic-leaning demographics. So eyes were on the president’s Sunday commencement address at the historically Black Morehouse College in Atlanta. “You started college just as George Floyd was murdered and there was a reckoning on race. It’s natural to wonder if democracy you hear about actually works for you,” Biden, 81, told the graduates and their families. “What is democracy if Black men are being killed in the street?” Of course, Biden is free to engage in grievance politics, but his remarks about democracy not working for Black people may have turned off those who see more progress than the president chose to acknowledge. It’s instructive that Biden’s speech generated what Politico described as “mild applause” among Morehouse graduates, a small number of whom turned their backs as Biden spoke, while others wore pro-Palestinian accessories. (Before the speech, Morehouse President David A. Thomas told students the college would not allow disruptive behavior. “I have also made a decision that we will also not ask police to take individuals out of commencement in zip ties. If faced with the choice, I will cease the ceremonies on the spot.”) The Morehouse remarks were the 2024 version of Biden’s efforts to woo Black voters in 2020, when he told radio talk-show host Charlamagne tha God, “If you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t Black.” Mockery ensued. Back to Biden and his efforts to retain a hold on registered Black voters who, according to Pew, say they would prefer to vote for Biden over Trump by a margin of 77 percent to 18 percent. Biden can’t afford to lose a modest percentage of that voting bloc, so Biden is resorting to fearmongering. He’s telling Black Americans: You’re nothing without me. This is not a first. In 2012, the then-vice president told a racially diverse audience that if Republican nominee Mitt Romney were elected president, “They’re going to put you all back in chains.” (READ MORE: Protest Much? An Academic Reckoning Is Overdue.) Now he’s essentially saying that democracy doesn’t work for Black people. So why would Black people or young Americans vote for him? Contact Review-Journal Washington columnist Debra J. Saunders at dsaunders@reviewjournal.com. Follow @debrajsaunders on X. COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM The post Biden to Black Students: You’re Nothing Without Me appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Upon crossing the Danube by car into Bratislava’s central business district, one of the most conspicuous sights is political graffiti adorning a line of construction barrier walls. The messages are unambiguous. Fico wants Russia here. Fico = dark times. Death to the Russian Nazis. Over a week after Prime Minister Robert Fico suffered four gunshot wounds in an assassination attempt, the graffiti remains. For Slovakians, the neighboring war is an omnipresent burden. According to recent statements from hospital and government spokesmen, Fico is in stable condition and no longer in immediate danger. He is in life, as in politics, a consummate survivor.  Western leaders offered mostly languid responses reminiscent of their banalities after an Islamic terrorist attack. Journalists barely attempted to hide their contempt for the victim. “It’s not surprising that this sort of event might take place,” opined one Sky News commentator. The Financial Times published a piece titled “How Slovakia’s toxic politics left PM fighting for his life.” Politico asserted the “Roots of Robert Fico’s shooting lie in Slovakia’s bitter divides.” EU luminary and former Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt reposted the article and added, “The road to violence starts with violent rhetoric…” (READ MORE from Michael O’Shea: Why Isn’t Poland Smiling? Just Ask the Protesting Farmers Attacked by Police Last Week.) In some ways, the landscape is emblematic of the modern West. Slovakian society is politically divided; Fico even seemed to predict an assassination attempt on a high government official a month before the shooting. Wealthy Bratislava, the country’s political and economic hub, which sits less than an hour from Vienna, reliably votes in line with Brussels federalist principles. The rural, more-religious central and eastern regions are less confident this serves their interests.  Debates over populism also should seem familiar. Fico, who sports the mug of a hockey enforcer and possesses considerable political and personal baggage, is serving his fourth term as prime minister. He has inhabited enough parts of the political spectrum to defy easy classification. Survey a few Western media articles, and you’ll see a myriad of descriptors: left-wing, center-left, left-wing nationalist, right-wing, populist. Of these, only the last is largely accurate. Even his number of terms as prime minister poses problems for journalists: many articles claim this is his third stint. Fico also confronts the familiar accusation of pro-Russia sympathies, a talking point that arguably superseded discussion of his health in the days after the shooting. Foreign Policy’s pre-election categorization of “anti-Europe, pro-Russia” is characteristic for the Western establishment press.  The setting for these events is also uniquely Slovakian. Questions of independence and federalism are prominent in Slovakia’s history and politics. After an abortive period of independence during World War II, the country gained its long-awaited permanent independence after splitting from Czechoslovakia in 1993. The timing and degree of support for the divorce among that era’s politicians still color Slovakian politics today.  Most of the country’s architectural gems date from the Habsburg era, an enduring protestation of the twentieth century’s convulsions. Cession of territory to the Hungarians and reunification with the Czechs both materialized in the last century. Just a decade after gaining independence, Slovakia joined the EU and began ceding federal powers to Brussels, raising the question of what it was all for. It’s an environment that privileges the status quo. In this context, Fico’s longevity is logical. Unlike in neighboring countries, where Christian democrats and nationalists have united on the Right, and socialists, former communists, and liberals have coalesced on the Left, Slovakia has remained fragmented. Governments often fracture and collapse. It can be difficult to determine right from left, or who is allied with whom. Last year Fico prevailed and formed a government with only 22.95 percent of the vote; by comparison, in neighboring Poland, the Law & Justice party’s plurality of 35.4 percent left if out of government. Fico thrives in this environment.  Last year’s triumph occurred after Slovakia astoundingly endured almost a full year without an elected government. When the previous government resigned after a vote of no-confidence, left-wing President Zuzana Čaputová delayed calling elections in the hope that time would aid her political allies. She appointed a caretaker technocratic government that failed to gain parliamentary approval or deliver meaningful policy outcomes. Despite having noted economist Ľudovít Ódor at the helm, the ostensibly apolitical, technocratic government oversaw spiraling inflation, economic stagnation, and consistent weapon shipments to neighboring Ukraine, all which Fico decried. For Americans — and even Western Europeans — the war in Ukraine can consist of lines on a map and theoretical narratives about freedom and democracy. For Slovakians, the neighboring war is an omnipresent burden. Like their counterparts in Poland and elsewhere, Slovakian farmers are struggling with the reality of cheap Ukrainian agricultural imports. Food and energy prices are debilitating. Cyrillic advertisements on Bratislava buses attest to substantial demographic developments. The country has suffered one of Europe’s highest inflation rates since the war began. The technocratic government committed a faux pas by refusing direct rescue to Slovak tourists stranded by last summer’s Greek wildfires, while simultaneously donating military aircraft to Ukraine. Fico ran the ideal campaign for those circumstances. Western journalists and politicians perceived fealty to Moscow, while Slovakian voters sensed empathy for their grievances. Just a half-year after restoring Fico to office, Slovakian voters passed on a chance to check the prime minister’s power. In April’s presidential race to replace the outgoing Čaputová, ostensible Fico ally Peter Pellegrini (a onetime prime minister who previously broke with Fico and formed his own party) defeated the consensus Brussels choice by a comfortable six points. The opposition has resorted to catastrophizing. Progressive Slovakia’s ads for the upcoming European parliamentary elections vow: They can’t have everything! We will keep Slovakia in Europe.  Brussels holds a decidedly stronger hand than domestic opposition forces. Frustrated by the choices of Slovakian voters, the European Commission has threatened rule-of-law infringement procedures resembling those deployed against Hungary and Poland. Once again, the contrast with Poland is instructive. European Commissioner Ursula von der Leyen just closed proceedings against Slovakia’s northern neighbor in a thinly veiled gesture to political ally Donald Tusk and his newly installed pro-EU government. How the Slovakian tension with Brussels will develop after the shooting is anyone’s guess.  Paradoxically, Slovakia, with all its complexities and contradictions, presents an ideal laboratory for observing the state of Western liberal democracy. Fico represents delivering to voters what they want. Brussels, cheered on by Bratislava’s professional-managerial class, purports to give them what they need. “[T]his is how parliamentary democracy works,” wrote Slovakian journalist Eva Čobejová. “It upholds the will of the people, not the enlightened ideas of a few intelligent people.” (READ MORE: Poland’s Liberal-Democracy Has Adopted Martial Law) Komárno, in the heart of Slovakia’s ethnically Hungarian southwest, boasts the quirky Courtyard of Europe, an Epcot-style pavilion showcasing Europe’s countries and regions. Days after the shooting, several men gathered there before a projector screen to watch the Slovakia national hockey team defeat France at the World Championships. They chattered in Hungarian while attentively cheering their team. It was a fitting snapshot of a Slovakia that, like its prime minister, defies easy characterization.  The post Robert Fico, Consummate Survivor appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Ever since the February day in 1989 when Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini declared Salman Rushdie’s novel, The Satanic Verses, “blasphemous against Islam,” I have pulled for Salman Rushdie. I confess to having read none of his books and knew little of his politics, but this Indian-American author struck me as the ultimate embodiment of man’s fight for freedom.  READ MORE from Jack Cashill: Why Republicans Should Make January 6 Their Issue And then — sigh! — I read his new memoir, Knife. The “knife” in the title refers to the weapon used by a young New Jersey Muslim named Hadi Matar. Matar stabbed Rushdie very nearly to death on the amphitheater stage of the Chautauqua Institution in August 2022. The stabbing was inconvenient. Had Rushdie been shot, ideally by a guy in a MAGA hat, the shooting would have justified his anxiety about America’s “insane gun violence and equally insane Trump and Trumpublicans.”  Although Rushdie sees himself as “an icon of free speech,” Chautauqua is not exactly a hotbed of the same. In 2002, I was banned from ever again speaking at this liberal enclave as a result of a talk I gave on the media’s pro-Islam, anti-Christian bias. “Islamic extremists in America,” I argued, “have proven to be exactly the bogeyman that the media have long imagined the Christian right to be — patriarchal, theocratic, sexist, homophobic, anti-choice, and openly anti-Semitic.”  This was too much reality for the Institute’s director of religion. She took to the pages of the Chautauqua Daily to report, “Jack Cashill stepped outside the boundaries of civil discourse. Several of his comments were not only provocative, but potentially harmful.” Unknown to me, this historically Christian community was desperately trying to attract Muslims. If no one else, they got Hadi Matar. So convinced were the Chautauqua worthies that Islam was a religion of peace, they left Rushdie defenseless. If Rushdie himself were unprepared, it was because he had been focusing his attention on the wrong enemy. For all his international experience, Rushdie has the knowledge base of a guy who gets his news — and his attitude — from the ladies on “The View.” In one very telling passage, he comments favorably on the human ability to learn from one’s own experience, a talent that he attributes to himself as well. (READ MORE: Banned Books Week in the Age of Biden) “There were probably exceptions to this principle,” he writes, “but very few of the people who ought to regret their lives — Donald Trump, Boris Johnson, Adolf Eichmann, Harvey Weinstein — ever do so.” Do we need to know any more about this man? Trump was nearly two years out of power when Rushdie was attacked. At the time, Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, the White House, the media, Silicon Valley, Hollywood, and the intelligence community. And yet as he saw things, “America was torn in two by the radical right.” “The right had a new agenda too,” writes Rushdie, “one that sounded a lot like an old one: authoritarianism backed up by unscrupulous media, big money, complicit politicians, and corrupt judges.” He offers no evidence for any of this Bizarro-world nonsense. Yes, conservatives championed the First Amendment, he concedes, but for all the wrong reasons: “The First Amendment was now what allowed conservatives to lie, to abuse, to denigrate. It became a kind of freedom for bigotry.” An American citizen since 2016, Rushdie contemplates leaving should Trump win in 2024. “If he is re-elected this country may become impossible to live in,” he tells his son. What might keep him here, he continues, is that “Brexit Britain is pretty awful too.” Rushdie mentions President Joe Biden only once and that is to thank him and Jill for the condolences they sent him after the attack. Wrote Biden, “”And today, we reaffirm our commitment to those deeply American values in solidarity with Rushdie and all those who stand for freedom of expression.” Those “who stand for freedom of expression” definitely did not include the sitting president. A year after the 2022 attack, well into his recovery, Rushdie had no excuse for his ignorance of  Missouri v. Biden. The judges of the 5th Circuit Court nicely summed up Biden’s disdain for free speech: “On multiple occasions [White House] officials coerced the [social media] platforms into direct action via urgent, uncompromising demands to moderate content.” For those free speech icons who cared to know, the judges added specifics: “Privately, the officials were not shy in their requests — they asked the platforms to remove posts ‘ASAP’ and accounts ‘immediately,’ and to ‘slow down’ or ‘demote’ content. In doing so, the officials were persistent and angry.” Said the judges in summary, “The Supreme Court has rarely been faced with a coordinated campaign of this magnitude orchestrated by federal officials that jeopardized a fundamental aspect of American life.” I guess they didn’t talk about this ruling on Manhattan’s dinner party circuit where Rushdie remains a prized trophy guest. Rushdie does not just pick on the powerful. What I found most troubling was his gratuitous abuse of the one man in America who knows what it is like to live as Rushdie has. In February 2012, George Zimmerman ran into his own Hadi Matar, a young aspiring MMA artist named Trayvon Martin. Nearly a half-foot taller than Zimmerman, Martin beat him nearly to death and might have succeeded had his victim not pulled out his gun and shot him. Having watched the trial, written a book about the case,  and consulted on another book and film, I have gotten to know George well. He was transparently innocent from day one. Without the corrupting influence of racial groups, he never would have been arrested. (READ MORE: Mammas, Don’t Let Your Babies Grow Up to Be Cops) Following his acquittal by an all-female jury, George has had to live his life in the shadows. In 2015, a would-be assassin’s bullet missed him by inches. In 2020, rap mogul Jay-Z put out the equivalent of a fatwa on his life. George lives today under an assumed name. He never stops looking over his shoulder. It is people like Rushdie who have kept him on edge. Writes Rushdie after watching a BLM rally, “The spirit of Young Trayvon Martin, whose murder by George Zimmerman, and Zimmerman’s disgraceful acquittal, had inspired the movement that became Black Lives Matter, was also in the air.” If Rushdie knows no more India and Islam than he does about America, he may deserve the enemies he has. Jack Cashill’s new book — Ashli: The Untold Story of the Women of January 6 — is now available for purchase. The post The Surprisingly Shallow, Stupid World of Salman Rushdie appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

What is Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s stance on abortion? Apparently, he doesn’t know himself. In a recent interview with Sage Steele, Kennedy not only expressed support for legalizing abortion through all nine months of pregnancy, but for any reason whatsoever. Even his own running mate, Nicole Shanahan was taken aback. “I don’t know where that came from,” she replied. Protecting unborn life is too important a duty to chance on a waffling candidate like Kennedy. Kennedy has since been forced to walk back his comments. It’s no surprise why. Legalizing abortion up until birth, according to polling, is extremely unpopular. Even Joe Biden’s campaign attempted to seize upon public sentiment, (falsely) claiming the president “doesn’t support full-term abortions” and that he “thinks that Roe got it right” (despite the fact Roe allowed for full-term abortions). However, Kennedy’s hedge — allowing abortion to “be legal up until a certain number of weeks, and restricted thereafter” — still doesn’t come close to assuaging pro-life concerns. In fact, it would leave the door open to overriding laws in states that protect the unborn, including in circumstances where the child is capable of feeling pain. (READ MORE from Frank Cannon: From RFK to Donald Trump: 50 Years of American Populism) Moreover, it turns out the interview with Steele was not the first time Kennedy changed his tune on the matter of life. Last August at the Iowa State Fair, when asked what the federal law should be on abortion, he responded, “I believe a decision to abort a child should be up to the women during the first three months of life.” He added that once “a child is viable, outside the womb, I think then the state has an interest in protecting the child.” But after Kennedy was blasted by the left, his campaign sprang into action, denying he would support any federal limits. It even lamely blamed his response on not correctly hearing the question in a “crowded, noisy exhibition hall.” Elsewhere on the campaign trail, Kennedy has proudly identified as a pro-choice candidate, declaring that he would never “tell a woman to bring a child to term.” Meanwhile, Shanahan has said that protecting the life of the unborn by legislation is “coercive” and “wrong,” even as she herself claims to be uncomfortable with abortion. One seeking out his position will fare no better by reading his campaign website. The official platform on the issue, “More Choices More Life,” lays out lofty goals of “universal childcare” and strengthened “adoption infrastructure” while saying almost nothing specific about abortion policy beyond a pledge to “safeguard women’s reproductive rights.” Kennedy thinks spending more money on caring for children ought to relieve our government of its obligation to protect them in the first place. All of the wishy-washy, pseudo-compassionate rhetoric coming from Kennedy’s camp is cultivated to serve a particular purpose: obscuring the candidate’s inability to answer the simple question of whether unborn children should be legally defended. Perhaps he hopes that by appearing to be a “moderate” on abortion, voters will lose sight of his actual position, or complete lack thereof. This equivocation is by no means exclusive to abortion, either. Kennedy has taken a similarly elusive tack on, for instance, protecting children from the transgender industry. He has been equally slippery on issues ranging from energy policy to the 2020 election. Fortunately for pro-life conservatives, at least two things about this election are unambiguous. First, a second term for Joe Biden would be a disaster for the unborn. Biden has promised to support abortion until birth for any reason with the full backing of the federal government — and, given his radical track record, we have no reason to doubt him. And second, another Donald Trump administration would block left-wing attempts to impose abortion extremism on the entire country. (READ MORE: RFK Jr.: Biden’s and the Democrats’ Ongoing Nightmare) Protecting unborn life is too important a duty to chance on a waffling candidate like Kennedy. The choice for pro-life Americans this November is clearer than ever. Frank Cannon is founding president of American Principles Project. Follow on X: @frankcannonAPP The post RFK Is Many Things, but He Is Not Pro-Life appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

In this election year billions will be spent for control of the House, Senate, and White House. Immigration, abortion rights, and the economy already poll as major issues assuring substantial blocks of votes for Republicans and Democrats. The majority may be won or lost, however, by razor thin margins in swing districts, on issues outside of those big items. Supporting issues bringing in 10, 5 or even 2 percent of swing votes will play a big role in swaying elections.  These four issues have been the subject of legislative proposals and debate for years, yet action has been wanting.  Two new polls indicate care for mental illness is a decisive issue for voters. Bottom line up front: an overwhelming number of survey respondents said they are more likely to vote for a candidate who makes treatment of mental illness a high priority: 89 percent for individuals and families dealing with mental illness and 79 percent among women. (READ MORE from Tim Murphy: It’s Time to Debunk the Marijuana Myth)   First, some background.  Several polls over the past two years have consistently found a mega majority of voters believe more needs to be done for mental health. A Kaiser Foundation/CNN poll reported 90 percent of U.S. adults surveyed in October 2022 said America is experiencing a mental  health crisis, 20 percent defined their own mental health as poor and most of that group said they could not access services.  A National Alliance for Mental Illness/IPSOS poll from November of 2023 reported 86 percent wanted their elected officials to do more, and a mere 7 percent thought their elected officials were doing enough. Difficulty accessing care also stood out as a problem.  A Newsmax/TPP poll from February 2024 echoed the concern that 87 percent feel we are in a mental health crisis, and nearly half of 18-24 year old’s rate their own mental health as poor. A Gallup poll in May of 2024 found three out of four adults believe the U.S. health care system treats mental health worse than physical health.  When such a large plurality of voters say they are concerned, candidates better listen. But what specifically needs to be done?  The two surveys were conducted May 9-12 by Schizophrenia and Psychosis Action Alliance and by Women2Women network. S&PAA surveyed persons with mental illness, their families, and providers (Mental Health or “MH” group). W2W is a non-partisan network of women ages 40-60 from suburban areas (“Women” group). Surveys were sent out to thousands in their email lists.  Seventy percent of the Women group self-reported they or a family member have a mental illness. Over 300 survey responses were received from each group, (a typical response rate). Responders are viewed as those who are highly motivated on the issues.  Our two parallel surveys indicated overwhelming support for four major issues: As medical and recreational marijuana is legalized in more states, multiple studies indicate there is a strong link between use of marijuana and an increase in mental illness (psychosis, schizophrenia, depression, drug abuse), and poor school/job performance. Respondents overwhelmingly said tax revenue from marijuana should be dedicated to the treatment of mental illness: 83.9 percent for MH, 78.1 percent for Women. Currently marijuana taxes are spent on a wide range of community projects, administration, education, the state’s general funds and some states put a portion into drug treatment. Across the nation 50 million go without any treatment, and there are massive shortages of mental health providers and treatment facilities. Homelessness is an immense problem in many cities. Up to 90 percent of homeless people have a mental illness, and 30 percent suffer from severe mental illness (e.g. schizophrenia). Respondents strongly support subsidized housing for the homeless, but only if the housing has on site access for treatment services: 82 percent MH, 83 percent Women. Providing free or subsidized housing with no treatment is only supported by 12.8 percent of MH and 13.1 percent of Women. Half of those with severe mental illness such as schizophrenia are not in treatment in part because they are not self-aware that their symptoms of delusions, hallucinations, and paranoia are a problem. When treatment is refused the risk for incarceration, violence, unemployment, and inability to care for themselves greatly increases. In most states courts may order treatment only when a person is an imminent danger at that moment to harm themselves or someone else. Otherwise, the patient would be released from treatment. A change in laws to permit judges to take into account a person’s ability to understand they are ill, and the likelihood of harm to themselves or others if not treated is supported by 75.8 percent of the S&PAA group and 72.2 percent of the W2W group. Support for court ordered treatment only in cases where the person is a current threat is supported by 17 percent of the SPAA group and 19 percent of W2W. There is an urgent and worsening shortage of psychiatric  hospital beds for those who would benefit from inpatient treatment. Since the 1960’s the federal government had prohibited Medicaid payment coverage for psychiatric hospitals with more than 16 beds. The current shortage in beds is between 70,000-100,000. This crisis has directly led to more homelessness and incarceration for those with severe mental illness not in treatment. The largest psychiatric facilities in most cities and counties are jails, where most receive no treatment at all. The two groups surveyed overwhelmingly support lifting the 16-bed limit: 83.9 percent MH and 85.9 percent Women. Although these issue surveys are not a random sample of the general population, they do define strong beliefs among a highly motivated subset of voters. Ninety percent of the MH group plans to vote this November.  Control of the U.S. House may be decided in the 22 districts (evenly split between Democrats and Republicans) now considered toss ups, with an additional 13 Democrats and 9 Republican in highly competitive races. In the 55 battleground districts, 39 percent of Independents are undecided. Even if mental health issues sway a small per cent of voters, they may make the difference between victory and “almost.” (READ MORE: Veterans and Suicides: It’s Worse Than the VA Reports) Candidates would be wise to place treatment of mental illness high on their list of campaign priorities.  It is not enough, however, for candidates to say they are in favor of doing something. They need to have something specific to say. These four issues have been the subject of legislative proposals and debate for years, yet action has been wanting.  Meanwhile the numbers of those with mental illness grows.  Deaths, costs, and incarcerations soar for those who cannot find the care they desperately need.   Families are looking to vote for those who will deliver.  If candidates are interested only in the numbers, support for these issues is a good thing to do. If candidates are interested in helping people and saving lives, then these are the right things to do.  Tim Murphy, Ph.D., is a psychologist specializing in trauma recovery. and the author of three books, including The Christ Cure: 10 Biblical Ways to Heal from Trauma, Tragedy and PTSD (2023). He served as a psychologist in the U.S. Navy,  is on the board of Schizophrenia and Psychosis Action Alliance, was elected eight times to the U.S. House of Representatives, and authored major mental health reform legislation receiving wide bipartisan support. His weekly podcasts on mental health are available at DrTimMurphy.com and LinkedIn.  The post Mental Health Is an Important Swing Issue This Year appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Repeatedly misgendering fellow employees and harassing a coworker over their pregnancy status could contravene updated federal harassment guidelines. Is having a crucifix on one’s desk disruptive? How about wearing a cross necklace? You heard that right. In its first workplace harassment guidance update in 25 years, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission released new guidelines that protect LGBT and pregnant workers, among other groups. Harassment at in-person or virtual workspaces based on employees’ decisions around contraception and abortion are now covered, as well as protection for an individuals’ bathroom choice and pronouns based on their gender identity. (READ MORE: Universities Must End DEI and Implement DEI) While the rules are already subject to legal challenge, as free speech and religious rights clash with the newly expanded interpretations of U.S. civil rights laws, the Biden EEOC helpfully attempted to hedge off those concerns, stating that employers are not required to accommodate religious expression that fosters a hostile work environment. The harassment guidance is not the only controversial statute recently put in force by the EEOC. Last month, the EEOC delivered its final rule that implements the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. The bipartisan (and U,S. Conference of Catholic Bishops-supported) PWFA requires employers to accommodate pregnant, post-partum, and infertile workers unless doing so would cause undue hardship to an employer. That’s an initiative we can all get on board with. However, due to a surreptitious line of text appended by the EEOC in their final rule implementing the Act, companies will also have to accommodate time-off requests so female workers can access an abortion. Naturally, religious employers immediately decried this addition, stating that forced accommodation of abortion amounted to religious discrimination. Back to the harassment guidance, it’s clear based on the examples the EEOC gives that many of these newfound protections are designed to benefit liberal Democrats’ preferred victim categories. Just see this one, where a working mother is shamed for her career choices by … another working mother: Dara and Sloane are lab technicians at a pharmaceutical research laboratory. On multiple occasions, one of their coworkers, Rose, makes dismissive comments to Dara, who has three children, such as, “shouldn’t mothers stay at home with their kids?” and “don’t expect to move up the career ladder with all of those children.” Rose also makes dismissive comments to Sloane, who has no children and intends to remain childfree, on a handful of occasions, such as, “women who don’t want children are frigid,” “it is sad to watch you choose a career over a family,” and “are you sure you don’t want a baby? Every woman should want a baby!” Based on these facts, Rose’s harassing conduct toward Dara and Sloane is based on their sex even though they all are women. And another, where a man who identifies as a woman is persistently misgendered by his supervisor: Chloe, a purchase order coordinator at a retail store warehouse, is approached by her supervisor, Alton, who asks whether she was “born a man” because he had heard a rumor that “there was a transvestite in the department.” Chloe disclosed to Alton that she is transgender and asked him to keep this information confidential. After this conversation, Alton instructed Chloe to wear pants to work because a dress would be “inappropriate,” despite other purchase order coordinators being permitted to wear dresses and skirts. Alton also asks inappropriate questions about Chloe’s anatomy and sexual relationships. Further, whenever Alton is frustrated with Chloe, he misgenders her by using, with emphasis, “he/him” pronouns, sometimes in front of Chloe’s coworkers. Based on these facts, Alton’s harassing conduct toward Chloe is based on her gender identity. The EEOC includes other more conservative-friendly examples of harassment in an attempt to cover their tracks, but their efforts are undercut by another example, wherein they do not hesitate to highlight the left-wing ideology of intersectionality. Intersectional harassment occurs when someone makes fun of two of your protected characteristics, not just one. This double whammy “may, in fact, compound the harm,” warns the agency. (READ MORE: Claudine Gay: Another DEI Success Story) The slippery slope that has emerged since the 2020 Supreme Court ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County is clear. Bostock held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act’s prohibition on employment discrimination due to sex also included sexual orientation and gender identity. In light of the ruling, the EEOC has decided that employers banning transgender employees from using their preferred bathroom (i.e. violating other people’s rights) is discriminatory. Harassment based on gender expression is covered by their guidance. Outing someone as gay, lesbian, transgender, or some other orientation is a potential violation. Repeated and intentional use of an inconsistent pronoun could lead to disciplinary action — just don’t ask the agency how they define “intentional.” It’s likely that definition will get worked out by the courts before long. The EEOC correctly notes that another Supreme Court case demands that companies accommodate religious expression as long as an accommodation does not cause the business undue hardship. However, they show where their allegiances lie by stating that if a worker expressing their religion disrupts the work of another employee or even merely threatens to constitute harassment, that behavior can constitute undue hardship. Is having a crucifix on one’s desk disruptive? How about wearing a cross necklace? Are you “merely threatening to constitute harassment” if you recognize biological reality and call someone by the pronouns that match their appearance? According to Biden’s bureaucracy — which assures us that it “fully recognizes the importance of the constitutional right to free speech” — maybe? It is clear that intersectionality and other DEI initiatives have been instituted as this administration’s catechism, in what I have described elsewhere as a new form of Christian nationalism. As always, small businesses and corporations will be left to comply or face the Inclusion Inquisition. The post Federal Bureaucrats Make All Businesses Support Abortion appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

from The Pete Santilli Show:  TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

by Derrick Broze, Activist Post: A newly published study is the latest to find an association between pregnant mothers consuming fluoridated water and an increased risk for neurobehavioral problems among their children. Exposing pregnant mothers to fluoridated water may increase the risk of neurobehavioral problems in their children, according to a new study published in […]

A social media manager who thought the way to punish someone with opposing views was to endanger him and his family is now looking for a new job. Kansas City Mayor Quinton Lucas announced during a Thursday interview with conservative talk radio host Pete Mundo that the city has "separated"...