The anti-ICE insanity continues on the streets of Minneapolis, and from the mouths of Democrat elected officials, while the liberal media continues to stand firmly behind the radicals who are impeding and attacking ICE officers. On Friday, The New York Times published a piece on the shooting of Renee Good titled, "Video Analysis of  ICE Shooting Sheds Light on Contested Moments". Friday evening on CNN's "Erin Burnett OutFront on Friday night", she welcomed in one of the contributors to that piece, who basically admitted he couldn't be totally sure about what the officer went through. Aric Toler, Visual Investigations Reporter for the Times, was one of six names on the byline of this report. He joined Burnett, who led into the segment by claiming that the analysis "sheds a lot of new light on those crucial seconds and milliseconds" during the time Renee Good was shot. After playing a a short clip from the video report, she turned to Toler. BURNETT: ..So when Trump and others in his administration are adamant that Good, quote, weaponized her vehicle... that is something that they've all used again and again. The President said (Officer) Ross was run over at the beginning, but they've said weaponized her vehicle consistently against the ICE agent. When you synchronized all the videos, including some new ones that maybe viewers haven't seen, again and again, was that what you found? TOLER: Well, the videos don't quite show that...if we had more videos, it would be nice. But from what we can see, she's trying to crank her steering wheel away from the agent, and he doesn't get, like, hit full on by the car. I mean.. President Trump said that she was run over, that she ran him over, which isn't what happened. If you watch the videos, especially the cell phone footage that came out, much of the impact that comes from is when he has his hand up against the car and it's pushed up against his body. So he's not hit full on by the front of the car. But we can't say exactly how much. If he was sideswiped or anything like that. But there's nothing that shows from the video clips, at least that she was trying to run him over or anything intentionally. That is huge. The New York Times reporter verifies that Agent Ross suffered the  impact of the car, and he can't say exactly how much impact, or how "widespread" it was! One might think that Burnett would feel the same way, but apparently she chose to focus on Toler's last sentence, claiming that the video clips he's seen does not indicate that Good was intentionally trying to hit him. BURNETT: Which is crucial. No, it's not really crucial. If the officer, who had a split second to react, was hit and felt threatened, it really doesn't matter what Good was thinking at that time. Burnett continued.   BURNETT: ..So the administration is then also pointed to the video that that many of us have seen, Aric from the officer's cell phone .. .ICE has been encouraging officers to also film interactions. And so his phone jerks up... And they're saying, well, that's because he was in danger, right? He lost control of his phone. That's that's what they're saying. Okay. So you've gone through that. Aric, let me show your analysis there TOLER: Well, it appears the agent's getting knocked over. We can see that's not the case from the other angle, which shows he's standing with his hand near the headlight, his torso and legs away from the vehicle. In the cell phone footage, the agent's face flashes on screen. Then it goes black. The other angle shows us why. We can see the agent's foot sliding, his hand bracing against the SUV and his arm getting pressed into his chest. It is impossible to determine if this is happening because of the SUV's movement or the icy asphalt, or more likely, both. BURNETT: Also a crucial conclusion there, the ice. Whoa! The video says "It is impossible to determine if this is happening because of the SUV's movement or the icy asphalt, or more likely, both." Did Burnett not hear this? TOLER: ..The phone, he's holding his hand out the phone and it flips up because it hits up. And so it points up sky, but he's still on his feet... But it's important here when you think about kind of deconstructing exactly what happened. What parts of his body were touched and not touched and hit and not hit by the vehicle. And we've done the best we could of kind of with all the available evidence of showing that. BURNETT: .. It's important somebody is doing it. You know, we wish there were there were a full investigation that would give everybody in this country the confidence... Toler said his team did "the best we could."  Burnett seems to ignore the fact the her guest is attempting to acknowledge that piecing these videos together is hard work, and the analysis of them, may not paint a totally, 100% accurate picture of what lead up to those shots being fired. That automatically gives the benefit of the doubt to the officer, who had a split second to react, which is certainly not the desired narrative.  

Sudden respect for religion over the (previously) public airwaves? In the wake of the confrontations in left-wing Minneapolis over the shooting death by an immigration enforcement officer of protester Renee Good, who drove toward the officer after being given a lawful command to exit her vehicle, NPR is discovering the virtues of activist faith, at least when it can be turned to anti-Trump and left-wing ends (as opposed to stopping abortion). But first, note how NPR’s Jaclyn Diaz’s story on Saturday helpfully reduced leftist protest violence in Minneapolis, which included fireworks and rock-throwing, to a benign-seeming "throwing snowballs at federal agents and blocking ICE vehicles." NPR's Weekend Edition’s church-based story appeared Sunday morning: “Amid ICE clashes, New Hampshire bishop urges clergy to prepare their wills.” Reporter Tovia Smith’s piece wasn’t wholly one-sided, but her coverage ennobled with an unearned halo of piety the anti-immigration enforcement mobs currently out in the streets in Minneapolis and other leftist enclaves. A New Hampshire Episcopal bishop's stark warning to his clergy is resonating across the nation, drawing fervent praise from some and rebukes from others. Bishop Rob Hirschfeld was one of several community and faith leaders gathered in Concord, N.H., for a vigil for Renee Macklin Good just days after she was fatally shot by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent in Minneapolis. Hirschfeld called out the "cruelty, the injustice and the horror … unleashed in Minneapolis," and warned his clergy to prepare for "a new era of martyrdom." "I've asked them to get their affairs in order to make sure they have their wills written," he said, "because it may be that now is no longer the time for statements, but for us with our bodies to stand between the powers of this world and the most vulnerable." …. Wells, a community organizer who regularly prays outside ICE offices, said he and many others took it as a great relief – and a validation of sorts – to hear the bishop speaking openly about the mounting anxiety felt by faith leaders around the nation who've been stepping up their public prayers and protests against ICE, and getting pelted with pepper rounds, roughed up and arrested. That's quite a change from this 1995 NPR take on the Christian belief of The Rapture: "The evaporation of four million people who believe this crap would leave the world an instantly better place.” It wasn’t all positive: Others, however, took issue with the bishop's words. "My initial reaction is 'Oh boy, this isn't diffusing tension at all. This feels like a war cry," said the Reverend Tom Gartin of Faith Episcopal Church who heard about the bishop's comments from his parish in Cameron Park, California. Hirschfeld’s pomposity seems as extreme as his paranoia, as when he said Christians today are “increasingly called to go into places that feel dangerous." His example? His fear of a neighbor’s political yard sign, presumably one Trump-related. That could be anything, he said, from his venture into the home of a neighbor whose political yard signs made him feel unsafe, to attending public demonstrations against ICE. Hirschfeld demonstrated religious condescension, liberal style, to NPR's approval: "It's definitely our Christian responsibility to extend love even to our enemies," he said, and to love all God's children, even those who may be "swept up in a maelstrom of hatred and fear and power that is not godly." Hirschfeld added, "I pray for everyone's conversion of heart." NPR also linked to a Central Florida Public Media piece by Joe Mario Pedersen, which noted “ICE arrests in Orange County are on the rise, faith leaders call for action. Pedersen cited radical Rep. Maxwell Frost of Florida. On Thursday, Democratic Congressman Maxwell Alejandro Frost posted on social media about reports of increased ICE activity in parts of Orange County, urging residents to remember their rights. Did Frost push doxxing-lite tactic here, and did NPR skip over it? “We’ve also received reports of heavy ice activity at certain hotels in the area, as well,” Frost said. “They have made pretty large hotel reservations in surrounding hotels, as well.” Florida’s Lt. Gov. Jay Collins responded: “If you threaten or DOX our law enforcement, including ICE, you are proving that you’re unfit to lead.”

After about a month, CBS finally aired the 60 Minutes item on Salvadoran megaprison CECOT that was held for “additional reporting” at the direction of CBS News Editor-in-Chief Bari Weiss. The report finally aired today, and after watching the end result we can conclude that Weiss was right to hold it. The report was pulled from air at the last second, but aired in Canada and was subsequently leaked online. Our own Curtis Houck reviewed that report and found thusly: The now-infamous 60 Minutes segment pulled by editor-in-chief Bari Weiss seemed to have self-deported and aired up in Canada on Global TV, one of its broadcast networks. With it now available to the masses (thanks to social media), we can now give it a full viewing and not a she-said, she-said between Weiss and correspondent Sharyn Alfonsi. Spoiler alert: the piece was biased as hell, lacking the balance and nuance Weiss asked for. Between the two sympathetic interview subjects, the use of a far-left so-called human rights group, lying about the administration’s lack of responses to comment requests, and chatting it up with Berkeley students, Alfonsi’s piece had it all. The reason the report was initially pulled was due to its failure to provide balance via an administration response- even if it was a tear sheet of a press release. As Axios noted, reports of no statement provided were false. According to a source familiar with the "60 Minutes" team's correspondence with the administration, journalists reached out to press officials at The White House, State Department and DHS, all of which provided comment to CBS News ahead of the piece's anticipated run date. None of those comments, which varied in length and substance, were included in the piece, which has been made public from a recording that was distributed via an app owned by Global TV, which airs "60 Minutes" in Canada. The outcry over the pulling of the report triggered a reworking of standards and practices at CBS News. When we reported on this, we also observed that Alfonsi’s own reputation for partisan hackery was to blame. We wrote: CBS News, and 60 Minutes in particular, was broken long before Weiss took over. Alfonsi is the poster child of that brokenness, what with such previous lowlights as the attempted smear of Gov. Ron DeSantis using selectively edited footage, and her cheering of German censorship.  A “broader overhaul of standards and procedures” is certainly welcome at CBS, but it should have come well before the CECOT fiasco.  We further noted that what made the issue really blow up was Alfonsi’s whiny all-hands e-mail crying over the fact she’d been asked to fix her shoddy piece. Which brings us to today’s airing of the CECOT report. Without further ado, here is the “additional reporting.” Sharyn Alfonsi redid the segment’s opening, bringing it up to date with a reference to the raid that captured dictator Nicolás Maduro, and mentioned the administration’s refusal to sit down with Alfonsi. Redone opening to the "60 Minutes" CECOT item, with a tie-in to the Maduro raid, and a mention of the Trump administration's refusal to provide comment. pic.twitter.com/Ss9GvZ7cPd — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) January 19, 2026 SHARYN ALFONSI: Nicolas Maduro, the former president of Venezuela, now sits in a federal prison awaiting trial. The White House touted his capture as a blow to narco terrorists who it says flooded U.S. streets with drugs. The repression of the Maduro regime, over more than a decade, forced 8 million Venezuelans to flee, nearly a million of them to the United States. Last year, in the biggest U.S. immigration crackdown in recent history, hundreds of those Venezuelans were deported to El Salvador, a country most had no connection to.  The White House claims they were a part of a violent gang and designated them as terrorists. The administration invoked a centuries-old wartime power, the Alien Enemies Act, to rapidly deport some of the men. Between March and April of last year, the U.S. sent 252 Venezuelan men to a brutal maximum security prison in El Salvador known as CECOT. You will hear from two of those men. They describe torture, sexual, and physical abuse inside the prison. Since November, 60 Minutes has made several attempts to interview key Trump administration officials on camera about our story. They declined our request. Tonight, our report from inside CECOT. The “additional reporting” here consists of a single sentence at the end of this introduction, which should have been included in the original report. The original item as originally prepared and aired in Canada ran in its entirety. The report was followed with an all-new addendum: Here is the new closing to the CECOT report, which includes the "additional reporting" Bari Weiss rightfully requested. SHARYN ALFONSI: "60 Minutes" has repeatedly asked the Department of Homeland Security for the complete records and criminal backgrounds of all 252 Venezuelan… pic.twitter.com/ZrKfpcxyiE — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) January 19, 2026 SHARYN ALFONSI: "60 Minutes" has repeatedly asked the Department of Homeland Security for the complete records and criminal backgrounds of all 252 Venezuelan men the U.S. sent to CECOT. It would not provide them. This past week, DHS told us: "We are confident in our law enforcement's intelligence, and we aren't going to share intelligence reports and undermine national security every time a gang member denies he is one. That would be insane." Because of this, we relied on the ICE data that is available for our reporting. Of the 252 men, that data shows that 33 had been convicted of a crime in the U.S. Again, eight of them for violent or potentially violent crimes. Another 70 had pending charges. But we don't know the nature of those charges, because DHS refuses to share that information. Neither of the two detainees in our story has been convicted of any crimes in the U.S. Nine days ago, DHS sent "60 Minutes" a photo of William Lozada Sanchez' left arm, with a swastika tattoo. When we interviewed Lozada in November, this is what his arm looked like. He told us he got the offensive tattoo at 15 and didn't know what it meant.  He claims he regretted it and had it changed just before the U.S. sent him to CECOT. Five gang experts told us that swastikas and 666, another tattoo on Lozada's arm, have no connection to the violent Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. In a statement to "60 Minutes", The White House said President Trump is committed to keeping his promises to the American people by removing dangerous criminal and terrorist illegal aliens. The administration's statements are available in full online. DHS deflected all questions about abuse allocations at CECOT, saying the men are not under U.S. jurisdiction while in El Salvador. But last month, a federal judge ruled that the U.S. had maintained what was called "constructive custody" over the Venezuelans who were sent to CECOT under the Alien Enemies Act. He ordered the Trump Administration to give those men the due process they were denied. In a declaration to the court, Secretary of State Marco Rubio explained in part that bringing the deported Venezuelans to the U.S. for hearings or holding remote ones at this time would risk, quote, "material damage to U.S. foreign policy interests in Venezuela." Again, we get things that should’ve been included within the original report. This includes further context on how the DHS determined the detainees were a threat, a summary of the requests made to the administration (and subsequent denials) and, finally, the statements made by the administration for purposes of the report, which are listed here.  Of those, the only one made after December 19th was the DHS saying they stood by their December 19th statement. In other words, CBS had everything they were going to get in terms of statements and chose to air them because they refused to provide Alfonsi with a spectacle. This isn’t to say that the report between the addenda still isn’t partisan slop because it totally is. But the slop now has enough context wherein viewers can assess for themselves. Given what we now know and having seen the report with context and addenda, we can conclude that Weiss was right to pull the report and send it back for further context. The media morality clerics will undoubtedly howl, but they were always going to howl. The fact is that the First Amendment didn’t self-incinerate and the Republic did not fall.  

The Elitist Media’s Sunday shows, in furtherance of preserving MInnesota’s civil unrest over interior immigration enforcement, booked Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey for another round of softballs and patty-cake. With perhaps one exception, they all enabled his inflammatory rhetoric. The most provocative bit of rhetoric by Frey was this bit he rolled out across the dial: that the quadrupling down on sanctuary city policy and subsequent violence it begets are not the result of obstruction of federal immigration enforcement, but acts of love and resistance. Watch as Frey rolls this out on CNN’s State of the Union: WATCH: Tapper lets Jacob Frey cruise with "love and resistance" unscathed pic.twitter.com/9lFcuXiSpA — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) January 18, 2026 JAKE TAPPER: Earlier this week, the Minneapolis Star-Tribune editorial board wrote that your state is, quote, “under siege" and compared the situation in Minneapolis to a, quote, “military occupation.” Is that how you see it? Is Minneapolis being occupied by the federal government? JACOB FREY: Invaded, under siege, occupied. You know, use whatever word or superlative that you want to attach. But the bottom line is what is taking place is designed to intimidate. It is not fair. It's not just and it's completely unconstitutional.  But one of the beautiful things that's taking place is that the people here in Minneapolis are not just resisting. They're standing up. They're standing up for their neighbors. They're lovin’ people. They're making sure that they got a ride to the grocery store, a safe walk to their car. They're making sure that they have those basic necessities that they need, because we got a whole lot of people that are afraid to go outside at the risk of getting torn apart from their own families. And so in the face of a whole lot of adversity, I'm so proud to be from Minneapolis. I'm so proud to be the mayor of this awesome city with these extraordinary people. They're peacefully protesting. They're standing up for one another. And, you know, like I said, it’s not just going to be resistance here in this city. We’re not backing down. We’re not going to be intimidated.   Tapper offered Frey a chance to deescalate, which he passed upon. What is most notable about this interview is that immigration enforcement doesn’t get substantially mentioned until the end of the interview, and here Frey doubles down again.   The pattern repeated at ABC’s This Week, with Jon Karl enabling Frey’s “love and resistance” gimmick: Abetted by Jon Karl, Jacob Frey explains that resisting ICE, effectively quadrupling down on sanctuary city policy, is not about resistance but about "love." pic.twitter.com/t3EOYGTzuG — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) January 18, 2026 JON KARL: It is remarkable in your city right now, as you have just laid out, that federal law enforcement officers outnumber local police by five to one. What is your message to protesters on how they should handle that situation? I have heard you say several times, don't take the bait. What is your message now to protesters? FREY: The message hasn't changed. And at the same time, we have had tens of thousands of people in Minneapolis stand up and protest peacefully. We have got people sliding down these hills of ice to attend the protests and making sure that people would have food that are scared to go outside because they're afraid of having their families ripped apart. You know, I think it's important to tell the whole country that this is not just about resistance here in Minneapolis. It's about love. We are showing something far more powerful and consequential here, which is love. We are standing up for one another. You have got neighbors helping neighbors. You've got people uniting and coming together in this beautiful way. Obviously, we have got these threats out there from the federal government that were literally designed to intimidate Minneapolis residents, to intimidate me. But here’s the thing. We're not going to be intimidated. We've got this beautiful city full of extraordinary people. I have never been prouder to be from Minneapolis.  Karl very subtly set that up by pointing out the number of federal agents versus Minneapolis Police officers, thus reinforcing a siege narrative. Karl offered no pushback to the idea of resistance, except to question whether telling ICE to get the f*** out of Minneapolis was turning the temperature down, setting Frey up for a “no regrets” moment. And then the interview wrapped. Over at NBC’s Meet the Press, it was wash, rinse and repeat. Host Kristen Welker elicits that response as a rejoinder to DeputyAttorney General Todd Blanche’s statement calling Walz and Frey’s obstruction “terrorism: WATCH: On Meet the Press, Frey again characterizes his quadrupling down on sanctuary policy as "love" and claims to eschew violence while characterizing ICE as an "invading force". pic.twitter.com/Vi31kviZx3 — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) January 18, 2026 KRISTEN WELKER: Well, let me ask you because on Tuesday the Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche posted this. I'm going to read it to you, get your reaction on the other side, quote: "ICE operates in thousands of counties without incident. Men and women doing their jobs, protecting us from criminal aliens. Minnesota insurrection is a direct result of a failed governor and a terrible mayor encouraging violence against law enforcement. It's disgusting. Walz and Frey, I'm focused on stopping you from your terrorism by whatever means necessary. This is not a threat. It's a promise." He is accusing you of terrorism, Mr. Mayor. How do you respond? FREY: Yeah, never once have we pressed for violence against any law enforcement officer. My primary job in Minneapolis is to keep people safe. That safety is being put in jeopardy. Not by our Minneapolis residents, not by our local law enforcement that is working tirelessly, but by an invasion that is taking place in our city. I mean, we have around 600 police officers, and there are somewhere in the range of three to even four thousand ICE agents and border control. If the goal is safety, if the goal is maintaining peace, I'll tell you, there's a very good antidote to some of the danger we've been seeing. It's just to have ICE leave.  And so we have been working very hard with a number of different jurisdictions to keep the people of our city safe. People in our city have been working very hard to keep themselves safe. I mean, it's been completely inspiring to see tens of thousands of people in our city standing up for their neighbors. It's not just about resistance. It's about love. It's about love for the people of our city. You know, sliding down icy sled hills to attend a protest or making sure that somebody's got an escort to the grocery store and they're not just randomly picked up in the meantime. I mean, this is the concerning kind of stuff that’s taking place in Minneapolis and I think people around the country should be very concerned about it. Welker rebutted by playing a carefully curated segment from Walz’ video address where he talks about taking cell phone video, and not his earlier press tough-guy conference wherein he likened ICE to The Battle of Gettysburg. But as you saw above, she let Frey pontificate. No interruptions or pointing the pen while hissing and saying “just to put a fine point on this…” Welker was a spectator as Frey put his own fine points on his dangerous rhetoric. The closest thing we got to pushback on Frey came, believe it or not, from CBS’s Margaret Brennan. There was no Faces of Brennan-level of hostility here, but nonetheless: The only effort to push back on Jacob Frey's "love and resistance" Sunday came via, I KID YOU NOT, Margaret Brennan pic.twitter.com/7zmZs5rJRq — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) January 18, 2026 MARGARET BRENNAN: In terms of what's happening in your city, the Minnesota National Guard was mobilized Saturday by the state, which the police chief supported as potential support for his local law enforcement. They have not been deployed. Do you think your city needs them and how would you describe the protests this weekend? FREY: We are doing the work to keep people safe in our city. And specifically, it is our local police officers. It is the state of Minnesota and our governor. We are doing everything possible to keep the peace, notwithstanding this occupying force that has quite literally invaded our city. I mean, we've got 600 cops in the city of Minneapolis and we're talking about 3,000 plus ICE agents and border control that have come in. They're not making our city safer. In fact, our city has been safe. Crime is down in virtually every category in virtually every neighborhood of the city. BRENNAN: You said "occupying force." Don't you think that's a -- it's a bit much? FREY: I mean, look, you can go through whatever rhetorical flourish you want, but when you have 3,000 ICE agents and border control come to the city, when you've got this supposed threat of 1,500 military coming to the city, yeah, that's very much what it feels like. When you outnumber local police officers five and six to one, that is the vibe. And so, the bottom line is, if the goal were safety, this is not how you get there. If the goal is safety, can I give you a very antidote to some of the violence we're seeing and that is have them leave. BRENNAN: Well, they argue- the administration, that is- The argument is that this is a sanctuary county and sanctuary city and they are enforcing federal immigration law. And that therefore this is called for. That they're cleaning up a mess that the last administration created. I mean, is -- how do you prescribe in this unprecedented situation for local and federal officials to work together here? FREY: We have worked together. We do work together when this is about getting murderers and rapists and all the other bad stuff that Kristi Noem just said off the street. We have worked with the DEA and the FBI. We've worked with the ATF and the U.S. Attorney's office to drive down crime, get violent criminals off the streets and on the north side, shootings are the lowest that they've ever been, I believe, on record. And so, nobody's against that, but that is not this. This is not about safety. What this is about is coming into our city by the thousands and terrorizing people, simply because they're Latino or Somali. And yeah, people in Minneapolis are speaking up. They're speaking up peacefully. They're standing up for their neighbors. And this is not just about resisting Trump. This is about loving and caring for the people that call this city home.  To her credit, Brennan was the ONLY Sunday host to bring up the prior open border regime that led to this situation, and that Minneapolis is a sanctuary jurisdiction. Frey’s response was to dismiss these concerns over inflammatory rhetoric as…you guessed it, love and resistance. Dehumanizing rhetoric from Jacob Frey, referring to ICE's presence in MN as an infection: pic.twitter.com/HHoixHG74m — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) January 18, 2026 BRENNAN: Well, on the ICE actions themselves, your attorney general out in Minnesota, Keith Ellison, has asked Minnesotans to gather information about federal actions and post them on his website. What's the intent of those incident reports, and I understand the- in theory what this is, but if you are saying that it is not safe for civilians to be inserting themselves in enforcement operations or even surrounding enforcement operations, aren't you asking them to do something that is endangering them? FREY: No. Civilians should not be involved in enforcement operations. Taking a cell phone out and videotaping what's going on is not enforcement. That's transparency. You know, sunlight can be the best disinfectant. And in this case, yeah, they’re disinfecting some of the really horrible things that are taking place on our street. Because, you know, to the extent that ICE agents are doing things that are unconstitutional, by the way, they are. This is their opportunity to make sure that it is seen, it is judged and that we get our day in court. BRENNAN: Well- I think the whole country is hoping for civility and peace and security. Mr. Mayor, thank you very much. We’ll be right back.  You can hear Brennan sighing throughout that statement, before she moved to wrap him up- especially the part where Frey alludes to ICE’s presence as an infection upon the city. Pretty dehumanizing stuff. Other than Brennan, there was no interest in challenging Frey on anything he had to say. The elitist media are as invested in Frey’s dangerous narrative as he is.  

Remember during Covid when liberals kept insisting that they were the ones who believed in "THE Science?" Well now that "THE Science" has proved to become politically inconvenient for them we see the hilarious spectacle of those same liberals denying basic science such as during a recent Senate hearing when a leftist doctor refused to answer the simple question of  "Can men get pregnant?" We can now also see that same pathetic denial of obvious scientific reality taking effect in the current arguments surrounding the Supreme Court case about upholding state bans of biological males aka trans-women participating in women's sports.  One periodical that has leaped full scale into the denial of reality abyss on this topic is Atlantic magazine. On Friday at The Atlantic, new hire (and former longtime Washington Post sports columnist) Sally Jenkins went through the silly motions of pretending that there is at present no scientific conclusion as to whether "trans women" (men) have a natural athletic advantage over women as you can see in "The Question That the Lawyers Representing Trans Athletes Didn’t Answer." The subhead said the common-sense biology argument was "meandering and unsatisfying." Many will find those words an apt description of this piece.  When she took a buyout at the Post, colleagues gushed over her "moral compass." Now watch Jenkins inadvertently entertain the readers with her absurd ideological kvetching over how we just don't have enough scientific information as yet to make a determination of the athletic advantage of biological males over women: At the core of the matter is whether trans-women athletes have a lingering testosterone advantage — a question that remains scientifically disputed. Until that point is settled, a resolution to this painful issue is hard to envision. Would that also be the excuse for the leftist doctor not answering if men could get pregnant? Because the science is still disputed, so no resolution on the matter can now be attained? The dockets for Hecox and B.P.J. were loaded with amicus briefs that showed contradictory medical opinions. For the state petitioners, half a dozen sports doctors submitted 90 academic papers asserting that “even before puberty,” males have denser, stronger, and longer bones, and can “throw faster and kick harder than women.” They wrote, “No amount of testosterone suppression” would “eliminate these male athletic advantages.” According to one of those reports, boys had more speed, limb strength, and power as early as age 3. The briefs in support of Becky Pepper-Jackson, the 15-year-old shot-putter and discus-thrower at the center of the West Virginia case, were equally adamant. Pepper-Jackson began transitioning from male to female when she was in third grade, and from sixth grade onward has taken medication to block male puberty, as well as estrogen treatment. The incredibly bizarre thing here is that Jenkins completely overlooks the sheer barbarity of commencing sex changes in children including interference in the natural growing process via puberty blockers. Where the respondents’ lawyers faltered the most was in addressing the potential harm to cisgender athletes. Whenever someone uses the term "cisgender" -- meaning normal women or men -- they are sure to be leftists with a highly unscientific agenda to spin. ...when it comes to whether there is a legacy testosterone advantage, we don’t know. Separating people by sex, unlawful in most areas of civic life, is potentially vital to fairness in sports, just as we accept other classifications, such as weight and age, in the quest for an even starting line. A person can support trans civil rights with their whole heart and favor open competition for children yet also wonder whether athletes should compete in their birth category at the higher levels, for fear that a meaningful number of women may be harmed by transgender inclusion. Americans as a whole have yet to tease out a consensus philosophy on this, much less the biology of it. Until that happens, the justices would be wise to say that the issue lacks certainty, and to ask for more clarity and science before making a broad ruling. Aw gee! We just don't know! Do larger bones, bigger muscles, and more testosterone really make a difference in sports? We, or at least Sally Jenkins, need to somehow tease out a consensus philosophy on this because this issue lacks certainty. Let us just wait and wait and wait for more clarity and science. The same uncertain science that prohibits obvious agenda folks like Jenkins from providing answers including if men can get pregnant.