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"...

A Wheel of Fortune contestant went viral after giving a bizarre guess to a phrase on the show. During a recent airing of Wheel of Fortune, a man who goes by the name Tavaris was given the phrase  “_ _ _ _ I_ T_E B_ _T!” to answer. After taking a second to think, Tavaris hit the buzzer and guessed the phrase was “Right in the butt?” Tavaris’ answer immediately drew laughter from the crowd; host Pat Sajak, however, told Tavaris he was wrong. Another contestant guessed the phrase correctly, which was “This is the best!” Watch the hilarious moment here: Welcome to the Wheel of Fortune Hall of Fame pic.twitter.com/FuMkPPSoS6 — Barstool Sports (@barstoolsports) May 24, 2024 Per People: Things are getting a little NSFW on the Wheel of Fortune! During Thursday, May 23’s episode, a contestant named Tavaris had the audience laughing with his “Phrase” category guess — and left host Pat Sajak, 77, equally surprised in a video shared on X (formerly known as Twitter). Contestants were left to solve the puzzle and fill in the following missing letters, “_ _ _ _ I_ T_E B_ _T!” “Right in the butt?” Tavaris, from Port St. Lucie, Florida, guessed, seemingly unaware of the fact “right” has five letters, not four. While the audience and his fellow contestants laughed, Sajak simply responded, “No.” A Wheel of Fortune clip you will be seeing many times throughout the rest of your life pic.twitter.com/C6C2soweYB — Jomboy Media (@JomboyMedia) May 24, 2024 Per NBC News: “Wheel of Fortune” just had another laugh-out-loud moment. With longtime host Pat Sajak‘s final episode fast approaching, the May 23 episode started off with a hilarious moment when a contestant named Tavaris made a daring guess when solving a “Phrase” puzzle. As the letters appeared on the board, he said, “Right in the butt!” before making an “oops” face. “What?!” a stunned fellow contestant said as the audience gasped and laughed. ‘Wheel of Fortune” contestant makes an INSANE guess. pic.twitter.com/LXVSTW4F8s — DramaAlert (@DramaAlert) May 24, 2024 Many people were comparing this moment to an absolutely CLASSIC moment from the old Newlyweds game. Does anyone remember this? Stay classy now!