Profiles of Tyranny: Eric Garcetti

shutterstock_1564900294
Mayor Eric Garcetti

On March 24, Eric Garcetti, the mayor of Los Angeles, began his COVID-19 briefing by sharing that the virus had taken its first teenage life in Los Angeles County. Then, like his colleague Lori Lightfoot in Chicago, he felt the need to point out that the actions of individuals impact lives. “Your behavior can save a life and take a life,” Garcetti said. Is that not true all the time? Before anyone had ever heard of COVID-19, didn’t the actions of individuals potentially take and save lives? Actually, is that not the very argument made regularly by opponents of gun control—that it is the actions of individuals that make the difference, not the gun? But I digress…

During the same briefing, Garcetti said that the “Safer at Home” restrictions would not be extended “one day longer than we need to.” Keep that in mind, as we will come back to it.

Garcetti then deployed some beautiful political doublespeak, announcing a “business ambassadors” program. Sounds great, right? The point of the program was to identify and shame non-essential businesses that had not shut down. Calling the behavior of such business owners “irresponsible and selfish,” Garcetti announced that the Department of Water and Power would shut down services to businesses that did not comply. Furthermore, neighborhood prosecutors would implement safety measures. Businesses would receive a warning first, but misdemeanor penalties, citations and fines were all possibilities that Garcetti left on the table. “You know who you are. You need to stop it,” Garcetti blustered. “This is your chance to step up and to shut it down, because if you don’t, we will shut you down.”

Strangely, Garcetti also announced that restaurants and bars would be permitted, as a means of stimulating business, deliver alcohol. Funny how alcohol was deemed essential, given that there is literally nothing essential about alcohol in any definition of “essential” that has been used in these COVID-19 crackdowns. Funny how Garcetti was interested in stimulating business while saying, out the other side of his mouth, that business owners who were operating were going to have services for which they were paying shut down.

By the way, this was all announced at a time when Los Angeles County had all of 669 confirmed cases of COVID-19 with a mortality rate of 1.6% and California as a whole had a mortality rate of 1.9%. So how has Garcetti responded in the weeks since?

On April 5, Garcetti told the Associated Press that he was considering requiring people to stay mostly in their neighborhoods, rather than travel longer distances for shopping and exercise. In a press conference the next day he admitted how un-American such action would be, and used that as way to try to scare Angelenos into voluntarily restricting their movements. “We can’t yet do that, nor do we have an enforcement mechanism, nor are we a country where, thankfully, we monitor people’s cell phones or where they are all the time and I don’t think we’re gonna do that anytime soon,” Garcetti said. If any mayor, anywhere in the United States, had floated such a possibility in January, February, even the first week of March, they would have been laughed at and ignored. Unless they were impeached!

By mid-April, LA County has over 8,400 cases and a mortality rate of 2.9%. By that point the county’s beaches, piers, bike path and trailheads had been closed and anyone going to an essential business, either as an employee or as a patron, was required to wear a mask. Per Garcetti’s order, businesses would be permitted to deny service to customers not wearing masks or some covering of the mouth and nose.

On May 4, California governor Gavin Newsom, who has been rather tyrannical in his own right, announced that COVID restrictions would begin to be eased in California. Not so fast, responded Garcetti. Newsom “isn’t talking to all of us in exactly the same way” he announced, and he—Garcetti—would lift restrictions in Los Angeles when he was good and ready. “I will reopen our city with careful consideration, guided by the advice of public health professionals. What we should all ready ourselves for, is the new normal, no matter what is open or closed.”

Earlier this week, at a Board of Supervisors meeting, Barbara Ferrer, the Los Angeles Public Health Director, said “with all certainty” that the county’s stay-at-home order would be extended into July. Garcetti said that did not necessarily meant that the restrictions would look the same way they do today for the duration of that time, but that the city could not fully resume normal activities until a vaccine has been developed for COVID-19.

If he is serious about that, I suspect Los Angeles will see either mass protests against the Safer at Home restrictions or a mass exodus of people fleeing LA, because the likelihood of a vaccine in the near future is slim. Just days ago the Mayo Clinic said that while the development of a vaccine is “perhaps the best hope for ending the pandemic” the medical professionals “don’t know yet whether an effective vaccine is possible for this virus.” And if it is possible? “Realistically,” the Mayo Clinic report stated, “a vaccine will take 12 to 18 months or longer to develop and test in human clinical trials” and then, if a successful vaccine is developed, “it will take time to produce, distribute and administer to the global population.”

If Eric Garcetti thinks people in LA are going to sit back and wait for that to happen, he’s got another thing coming. Instead of “Safer at Home” many Angelenos will likely decide they will be “Safer Somewhere Else.”

 

Photo credit: Shutterstock/Featureflash Photo Agency

Profiles of Tyranny – Lori Lightfoot

40567348493_f4ca402839_b
Mayor Lori Lightfoot

Chicago mayor Lori Lightfoot has perhaps not has as much national media attention as Bill de Blasio in New York City, but she has stepped gleefully into the role of tyrant none the less.

Illinois governor J.B. Pritzker issued a stay-at-home order that began on March 21. It was originally to run through April 7, but it was extended to April 30 on March 31. When NBC Chicago reported on Pritzker’s original order it also quoted Lightfoot as saying, “I want to say to be clear, this is not a lockdown, it’s not martial law.” She said that grocery stores would remain open and stocked and no one needed to change their shopping habits or hoard anything. At the same time, though, Lightfoot shut down the city’s parks and libraries.

An Associated Press report on April 11 quoted Lightfoot saying of people who had gone to Chicago parks and trails during a day of 70-degree weather, “Your conduct — yours — is posing a direct threat to our public health.” Lightfoot reported that she has personally ordered groups of people outside in one Chicago neighborhood to “break it up” and said, “I mean what I say. We have to protect ourselves. We have to be smart about what we’re doing in the course of this pandemic. And if it means that I drive around and check whether or not people are in compliance, I am happy to do it.”

Around that same time Lightfoot was announcing to national media that COVID-19 was killing a disproportionate number of African Americans because, in her words, “In many of our African-American households, they don’t have three, four floors where they can separate themselves.” She told PBS News reporter Yamiche Alcindor that she was 100% right in suggesting that social distancing is a privilege for some and that, nationwide, African Americans are more likely to have to take public transportation and less likely to be able to work from home. She told Alcindor that data on the racial breakdown of COVID-19 deaths was “absolutely essential.” I am not sure what racial data has to do with combating COVID-19, but since Mayor Lightfoot thinks it matters I would like to remind her that the rate of abortions among African Americans is nearly three times higher than it is among Caucasian women according to the Guttmacher Institute. It is true, according to the website blackdemographics.com, that the percentage of African American COVID-19 deaths is higher than the African American percentage of the state population in a number of states. But it is also true that it is lower than the population percentage in Massachusetts, Minnesota, Ohio and Washington and is exactly the same in New Jersey. According to APM Research lab, African Americans do have a disproportionate percentage of COVID-19 deaths overall, but in Texas, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Oklahoma, Minnesota, Washington, Idaho and Colorado Caucasians are dying at disproportionate rates, in Alaska, Oregon, California and Vermont Asians are and in New York, New Hampshire and Missouri Latinos are.

Interestingly, just yesterday the Chicago Sun-Times reported, “Four weeks ago, Latinos comprised 14 percent of Chicago’s coronavirus cases and 9 percent of the deaths. Now, it’s 37 percent of the cases and 25 percent of the deaths — in a city where 29 percent of the population is Hispanic.” How did Lightfoot respond? She “expanded the scope of the ‘racial equity rapid response teams’ first created to address the spike in cases among Chicago’s African American residents.” I think the fact that there even is such a thing as “racial equity rapid response teams” speaks for itself. COVID-19 is a big enough mess already without trying to make it a racial issue, but Lightfoot couldn’t pass up the opportunity. “There are consequences of the president’s hateful, xenophobic demonization of this community,” she said, insisting that President Trump’s position in immigrants was responsible for the surge in Latino cases.

On May 3, the AP reported Lightfoot as “warning decisive actions will be taken against city residents who flout Illinois’ stay at home order by holding house parties.” The day before, Amanda Vinicky, of WTTW News, had provided more detail, reporting that Lightfoot had complained of the lack of compliance with Chicago’s restrictions, saying of them, “Your actions are going to make a difference whether we get out sooner than later. Whether we have a summer or not. I’m not going to allow any individuals to upend the progress that we’ve made.”

Indeed, Lightfoot had said on May 2, regarding people having parties,

We will shut you down. We will cite you and if we need to, we will arrest you and we will take you to jail. Period. Don’t make us treat you like a criminal, but if you act like a criminal and you violate the law and you refuse to do what is necessary to save lives in this city during a pandemic we will take you to jail, period.

She added, “We are watching.” Then Chicago Police Superintendent David Brown said that the CPD would “be on the lookout for gatherings large and small.” He continued, “Don’t leave your house unless absolutely necessary. Don’t invite people over either. Chicagoans have done too much good thus far to risk a spike in cases of this deadly virus.”

Of course, what good the restrictions have done and what progress has been made is unclear. Last weekend Chicago passed 1,000 COVID-related deaths. The Chicago Tribune reported that Lightfoot said at that time that the city had made only “slight progress” in dealing with the virus. If you look at the reports of numbers in Illinois as a whole and Chicago specifically, there is virtually no evidence that the city’s strict shut down orders have made any difference.

Some folks are starting to notice the use of power and accompanying lack of success. Many people are willing to abide a temporary excessive use of authority when it proves to be beneficial, but Lightfoot is not showing any results. So unhappy with Lightfoot’s use of power during her COVID response that, according to Crain’s Chicago Business, “City Council’s budget chair has convened a working group of rivals to meet weekly and keep an eye on COVID-related spending.”

Oh, and by the way… Lightfoot might not mind patrolling the streets to yell at everyone else to get inside, but she doesn’t seem to think the restrictions she has placed on others apply to her. In April she got a haircut from a stylist despite the fact that Governor Pritzker’s state-wide order shut down salons and barbershops. When Lightfoot faced criticism for her choice she did not back down or acknowledge a lapse in judgment. Instead, she whipped out the “I’m more important than you” card, explaining, “I’m the public face of this city. I’m on national media and I’m out in the public eye.”

Maybe so, Mayor Lightfoot. But don’t be surprised if the voters of Chicago decide they want a different “public face” next time they go to the mayoral polls.

 

 

Photo credit: lightfootforchicago.com/about-lori/

Profiles of Tyranny: Ralph Northam

49722270498_2639cde49f_k
Gov. Ralph Northam

Ralph Northam, the governor of Virginia, put a Stay at Home order in place on March 24. It is currently set to remain in place until June 10. That’s not a typo. June 10 at 11:59 p.m.

Virginia’s state web site has a FAQ regarding the order and one of the questions is, “Can I leave my house?” First of all, can we just pause a moment to reflect on how ridiculous it is that this would even be a frequently asked question anywhere in the United States? But here’s the answer:

Yes. However, Governor Northam is urging Virginians to limit all non-essential travel outside the home, if and when possible. If you choose to go to the park, for a walk, or exercise outside, please practice strict social distancing and keep six feet apart from others. All public and private gatherings of more than 10 people are banned.

There are obvious problems with this answer. “If and when possible” it says. Who gets to decide that? The answer assumes that people—at least some people—will choose to go to the park or take a walk. Is that considered essential travel? If so, why is that and not many other things that someone might choose to do? Northam’s order required state parks to close visitor centers and required privately-owned campgrounds to stop accepting reservations of less than 14 nights. So outdoor exercise, and even hiking, is okay, but going to a visitor’s center or going camping is not.

And notice that Northam’s order bans all private and public gatherings of more than 10 people. That includes religious services. The FAQ states that people may drive to their places of worship and participate in services from within their vehicles, but absolutely must remain in their vehicles other than to use the restroom. “There must be no more than 10 individuals leading the religious ceremony or functioning outside of the church in support of the religious ceremony,” the FAQ states.

I have already addressed elsewhere the myriad reasons why such restrictions on religious worship is unconstitutional, and the courts are beginning to rule accordingly. One pastor in Virginia was given a criminal citation for holding a Palm Sunday service with sixteen people present. And while a judge denied the church’s petition for a restraining order, the Justice Department filed a statement of interest supporting the church. The church observed social distancing, the Justice Department said, and the state “cannot treat religious gatherings less favorably than other similar, secular gatherings.”

Like others, Northam has encouraged citizens to report violations of his order. The FAQ states, “You may wish to report this information to your local law enforcement agency,” in response to the question of what should be done if people are observed violating the order. This is despite the fact that back in March, Northam urged Virginia’s law enforcement officials to make every effort to avoid making arrests and to find alternatives to putting people in jail. Is it just me, or should it be normal protocol to pursue options other than jailing people when such options are viable alternatives?

Northam’s March 25 order states, “This Order does not apply to the full suite of family planning services and procedures nor to treatment for patients with emergency or urgent needs.” That, of course, means abortion is not restricted. This is despite the fact that the state’s FAQ says, “Non-essential medical care like eye exams, teeth cleaning, and elective procedures should be cancelled or rescheduled. Non-urgent medical appointments should be cancelled or held via telehealth.” You caught that, right? Abortion is not considered an elective procedure.

In fact, not only did Northam’s COVID-19 restrictions not limit abortion, he signed a bill on April 10—in the middle of the COVID-19 shut down, eliminating the state’s mandate that a woman receive an ultrasound within 24-hours before getting an abortion and allowing nurse practitioners who are jointly licensed by the Board of Medicine and Board of Nursing to perform first-trimester abortions. In a statement issued upon signing the bill, Northam said, “No more will legislators in Richmond—most of whom are men—be telling women what they should and should not be doing with their bodies.”

Wow.

First of all, since when do the characteristics of a legislator have anything to do with their ability to pass laws? Does this mean that African-American legislators should not be allowed to support or pass bills that impact Caucasians? Does it mean that legislators under 40 cannot pass laws that apply to senior citizens? Does it mean that heterosexual legislators cannot initiate legislation that will have an effect on homosexuals? The very notion is, of course, absurd.

Secondly, would someone mind telling Ralph Northam that it is just plain silly to tout the idea that elected men in Richmond will no longer be telling women what they can and cannot do with their bodies while Mr. Northam is simultaneously telling people what they can and cannot do with their bodies, businesses what they can and cannot do with their stores and their employees, health care providers what they can and cannot do with their patients, schools what they can and cannot do with the patients, churches what they can and cannot do with their parishioners… You get the idea.

See, it’s not that Northam doesn’t want anyone to be able to tell other people what they can and cannot do, it’s just that he wants to be the one doing the telling.

 

Photo credit: Gov. Northam’s Twitter @GovernorVA

Profiles of Tyranny: Bill de Blasio

48609242923_b6be34e6d2_k
Mayor Bill de Blasio

Bill de Blasio, the mayor of New York City and former Democratic presidential candidate, has done such a poor job handling the COVID-19 pandemic that liberal news magazine The Atlantic ran an article about him on April 6 entitled “The Mayor Who Can’t Rise to the Occasion.” In that article, Alexander Nazaryan says that de Blasio seems irritated about having to deal with the coronavirus and “has indicated that irritation with the subtlety of a Times Square advertisement” and that “he has evinced no passion for New Yorkers, or New York.”

Of course, much of that article, and a March 26 column in the Intelligencer headlined “When New York Needed Him Most, Bill de Blasio Had His Worst Week As Mayor,” both focus on de Blasio not doing enough, soon enough, to combat COVID-19. If you were frustrated or upset by de Blasio’s early reluctance to take tyrannical measures in New York City, then you must be delighted by the way he has made up for it since then.

On March 27 de Blasio held a press conference in which he outlined all of the steps that would be taken to combat the spread of the virus. You can read a complete transcript of the press conference if you’d like, but about twenty-three minutes into it he begins to address religious gatherings. De Blasio commended religious leaders for taking steps to minimize risk and for going to online services when they were able to do so, but then transitioned to threat mode: “I want to say to all those who are preparing the potential of religious services this weekend, if you go to your synagogue, if you go to your church and attempt to hold services after having been told so often not to, our enforcement agents will have no choice but to shut down those services.” He wasn’t finished, though. Saying that in-person religious services were to cease wasn’t yet unconstitutional enough for him, apparently, as he decided to go all the way, adding,

So, the NYPD, Fire Department, Buildings Department, everyone has been instructed that if they see worship services going on, they will go to the officials of that congregation, they’ll inform them they need to stop the services and disperse. If that does not happen, they will take additional action up to the point of fines and potentially closing the building permanently.

The reaction to that was swift and widespread. Kristin Waggoner, writing in the Daily News, said that de Blasio needed to apologize and clarify if his “threat was a careless exaggeration,” and that if it was not an exaggeration “his threat was both cruel and unconstitutional.” One might expect that response from Waggoner, though, since she is the senior vice president for Alliance Defending Freedom and was the lead counsel for Jack Phillips and the Masterpiece Cakeshop. Another conservative organization, the First Liberty Institute, “said de Blasio’s statement crossed the line from protecting people in a pandemic to totalitarian action against churches and religious institutions,” according to an article on RealClear Politics. Terry Firma, on The Friendly Atheist, said “good on him” to de Blasio’s bluster because, according to Firma, “Too many religious people apparently believe that their faith should excuse them from any responsibility for the health and well-being of their fellow citizens.” One might excuse an atheist for not knowing that that is actually the very opposite of what many “religious people” are taught within their faith. I would love to tell you that even some Democrats spoke out against de Blasio’s dictatorial statement, but I have been unable to find any examples.

Fast forward a few weeks and de Blasio stepped it up another notch. Following the example of Eric Garcetti, de Blasio announced via Twitter on April 18 that New Yorkers could help ensure compliance with social distancing orders. Reporting is simple: “just snap a photo and text it to 311-692,” the tweet read. Not surprisingly, the number was inundated with texts and pictures—many of them inappropriate and/or expressing opposition to the encouragement to spy on one another.

In between the threat to permanently close churches and synagogues and his exhortation for New Yorkers to become government snoops, de Blasio urged President Trump to deploy the military to address the pandemic and he signed an executive order the NYPD and the Sheriff’s Department the authority to seize unused medical equipment. According to NYC, the “official website of the City of New York” de Blasio called, on April 2, for “the federal government to institute an essential draft of all private medical personnel to help in the fight against COVID-19.” Writing of de Blasio’s draft proposal, J.D. Tuccille wrote, “Bill de Blasio isn’t alone as a government official who sees in the crisis an opportunity to go full commissar.”

For his asserted conviction that he has the right to permanently close churches and synagogues, that he has the right to order the seizure of medical equipment, that medical personnel should be assigned to his fiefdom and his encouragement for New Yorkers to snitch on one another, Bill de Blasio is the second selection for my Profiles of Tyranny series.

 

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore/Flickr

Profiles of Tyranny: Gretchen Whitmer

22305935700_60cb22bcf6_k
Gov. Gretchen Whitmer

It was difficult to decide who should have the ignominious privilege of leading off the Profiles of Tyranny series, but I decided to start off with Gretchen Whitmer, governor of Michigan, for two reasons. First, I had actually praised her in an earlier post for her acknowledgement that she could not close churches, but her common sense apparently left her shortly thereafter. Second, she has been among the most—if not the most—determined and unyielding in her heavy handedness in recent days. So persistent and obnoxious has she been that Steve Straub of The Federalist Papers has even referred to Whitmer as “China’s favorite governor.”

On April 17, Sheriff Dar Leaf became one of a number of Michigan sheriffs who expressed that they would not necessarily enforce Governor Whitmer’s stay-at-home orders. “When people are being respectful and using that six-foot range [then] we’re not going to go out and tell people to start going home,” Leaf told FOX News. Several sheriffs joined together to issue a press release stating, “While we understand her desire to protect the public, we question some restrictions that she has imposed as overstepping her executive authority.”

The order that everyone was so upset about was Executive Order No. 2020-42, which replaced No. 2020-21. The order was headed “Temporary requirement to suspend activities that are not necessary to sustain or protect life.” That heading prompted strong reaction to Whitmer when she said that Michigan would still be allowing abortions. The irony of allowing abortions while prohibiting activity not necessary to sustain or protect life was apparently lost on Whitmer, though. Abortion “is life-sustaining, and it’s something that government should not be getting in the middle of,” she said on David Axelrod’s podcast.

Whitmer’s order was called “the strictest stay at home order in the nation” by Straub. Indeed, it went so far as to ban travel between two residences in Michigan after April 10. Stores of more than 50,000 square feet were ordered to remove from their shelves and/or close off sections of their store that sell carpet, flooring, furniture, paint, garden items and plants. The advertisement and rental of short-term vacation property was forbidden. In response to Whitmer’s order, some 3,000 protesters flooded Lansing as part of “Operation Gridlock.”

Interestingly, according to VOX.com, Whitmer’s handling of COVID-19 is approved by 71% of Michiganders. But as she considers extending her draconian restrictions beyond April 30, she may well find any such approval slipping. Whitmer went on the offensive against protesters, saying, “President Trump called this a war. And it is exactly that. So let’s act like it. In World War II, there weren’t people lining up at the Capitol to protest the fact that they had to drop everything they were doing and build planes or tanks or to ration food,” she said in a press conference. And that’s true. But that’s also because during WWII people were allowed to do something to contribute to winning a war; they were not arbitrarily forced to stay at home and prevented from working because of something that might happen. The comparison is not really appropriate.

The web site Bridge (bridgemi.com), which calls itself “Michigan’s nonpartisan, nonprofit news source,” reported that Whitmer had warned Vice President Mike Pence about the budget shortfalls facing states due to COVID-19 shutdowns. Apparently the irony of that did not register with Whitmer, either. She did announce that she is taking a ten percent cut to her annual salary of $159,300. That is a nice gesture, but Whitmer’s salary is almost three times the median salary in Michigan, so her sacrifice is not going to amount to much in comparison to what so many others are losing as a result of her executive orders.

According to an article posted by the Detroit Free Press today, “the Michigan Legislature has scheduled a special session for Friday to create an oversight committee to examine how Gov. Gretchen Whitmer has responded to the crisis as well as consider bills that would strip the governor of some of her powers.” That last part refers to a planned review and possible repeal of the 1945 Emergency Powers of the Governor Act, which is the source of much of the power Whitmer is claiming to have during the crisis.

Whitmer’s response to the called session? “Of course, I will veto bills that they send over to limit the executive power. I’ve been very clear about that from day one. Those blatant power grabs are bad in good times and dangerous in times of crisis.”

Her concern for the danger of blatant power grabs is apparently yet another irony lost on Gov. Gretchen Whitmer.

 

Photo credit: Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, University of Michigan.

The Rise of Tyranny

freedom-c42The kind of tyranny that most Americans could never have imagined taking place in our country is indeed happening. And it is happening in response to a virus—a virus about which little is known and recommended courses of action are constantly changing (or are not even in agreement depending on what person or agency you are listening to at any given time). In no small part because of the unknown and the uncertainty, government officials—especially at the state and local levels—are taking drastic action. No one wants to be the one who failed to act and lives were lost as a result. That is understandable. All of us have been in situations before when we had to wrestle with a decision and we were not sure what the right thing to do would be, and for most of us those decisions did not conceivably involve life and death or wide reaching economic repercussions. So I understand that the positions in which our elected officials find themselves is not an enviable one. But uncertainty and fear of the unknown are not legitimate excuses for violating the liberties which Americans hold dear.

In the April 25 print issue of WORLD, Sarah Erdős writes that forty-one U.S. states are under stay-at-home orders. At least six governors are planning to start reopening activities in their states by April 30, according to an article April 20 on The Federalist. These are good signs. Even better is the fact that there were nine states not under stay-at-home orders, according to the Erdős article. But according to an article on Forbes.com, Andrew Cuomo extended the New York stay-at-home order to May 15, which is the same as the duration of Vermont’s order, and eighteen states plus Washington, D.C. have orders that currently extend into May or even June. “Last week, governors from Idaho, Kansas, Indiana, Mississippi, Wisconsin and Missouri all extended their stay-at-home orders to future dates,” the article stated. That means that at the same time six states—Georgia, South Carolina, Alabama, Tennessee, Florida, and Texas—are planning to reopen, six others are extending their shut down. This is contributing to the frustration and confusion. I am fortunate to live in one of the states that has not had a shut-down order, but that puts me in a very distinct minority. And that fact has not prevented me from becoming increasingly concerned about the violation of freedoms that are spreading across our nation.

We are seeing towns implementing checkpoints to see if citizens are really out of their homes for legitimate reasons. Police patrols are on the lookout for people doing anything they should not be doing—and I am not talking about actual crimes. Erdős described a man in Edcouch, Texas being escorted home from the pharmacy by police in order to ensure that he actually went straight home. If someone would have suggested just two months ago that this would be happening in the United States of America they would have been deemed a lunatic, not a prophet…but look where we are now.

On April 15, Andrew Napolitano wrote an editorial for The Washington Times headlined, “Do governors have the right to decide which activities are essential?” He begins his commentary by stating that we are witnessing “manifested inability of elected officials to resist the temptation of totalitarianism.” Sadly, he is right. Incredibly some of the state constitutions have given the governors of those states the powers that they are now abusing. In Washington state, according to Erdős, state statute allows the governor, during an emergency, to “impose a curfew, suspend state laws, and ban gatherings in open spaces provided the restrictions do not ‘conflict with the rights, under the First Amendment, of freedom of speech or of the people to peaceably assemble.’” Of course, therein lies perhaps the biggest problem of all: many elected officials are not only implementing restrictions that conflict with those rights, that absolutely trample them.

Not only have many state and local governments attempted to restrict religious gatherings, Mendocino County, CA, has gone so far as to issue a thirteen-page order, in effect through May 4, that even restricts the ability of churches to livestream their services (which they are providing due to not being allowed to meet in person). The order states, “Only four individuals may be present for the live event. All others must participate remotely.” And it gets worse… “No singing or use of wind instruments, harmonicas, or other instruments that could spread COVID-19 through projected droplets shall be permitted unless the recording of the event is done at one’s residence, and involving only the members of one’s household or living unit,” the order says. If I was making that up it would be funny, but I am not and it is anything but. It is vexatious. It should offend anyone who loves liberty.

Stay tuned, because over the next few days I will be posting a hall of shame I am calling Profiles of Tyranny.

Gender Identity Anarchy

The January 2017 issue of National Geographic was “the Gender Issue.” The cover featured the title “Special Issue: Gender Revolution” over the picture of Avery Jackson, a transgender girl from Missouri who does yet appear to have reached teenage years. The issue’s main story was titled “Rethinking Gender” and it led with a page-and-a-half photo of twins Caleb and Emmie Smith. Emmie said, “When we were 12, I didn’t feel like a boy, but I didn’t know it was possible to be a girl.” She came out as transgender at 17 and has now undergone gender-confirmation surgery. But, she says, “I was no less of a woman before it, and I’m no more of one today.”

In other words, Emmie is saying that her gender is really all about how she feels about herself, what she thinks and how she chooses to identify. If having surgery did not make her more female then it must be the case that the surgery was purely for the purposes of providing her a body—an external appearance—to match the way she thinks and feels inside. This is a recurring factor in the entire transgender debacle. Not to be outdone by National Geographic, TIME used the cover of its March 27, 2017 issue to focus on the gender issue. The cover headline reads, “Beyond He or She” over a picture of Marie, an individual who appears to be a girl but, according to the caption, “identifies as queer and gender nonconforming.”

The feature story inside the magazine is titled “Infinite Identities,” and it quotes 18-year-old Rowan Little, who identifies as gender fluid, as saying, “Some days I feel like my gender could be like what I was assigned at birth, but there are some days when I feel the opposite way.” There is that issue of “feelings” again. Later, the article quotes Kyle Scotten, who identifies as a gay man, as saying that he sees sexuality as a spectrum. “I totally believe there are 100, 200 shades in the middle,” Scotten said, and even if he does not understand all of the nuances, “it makes sense to them in their own head and that’s enough.”

Really? If it is enough for something to make sense to someone in their own head then we are all in trouble. That is the very basis of anarchy—people being able to do whatever they want without rule, order or authority, based solely on what makes sense or feels good to them. In fact, Will Durant said, “As soon as liberty is complete it dies in anarchy.” The argument being made by many these days is that individuals have the liberty to decide for themselves what gender they will identify as—even if that changes from day to day. And when they decide, everyone else is supposed to accept it and accommodate it, even to the point of using their preferred pronouns lest we offend them by referring to them in a manner other than that which they prefer. Is it not interesting that their liberty then becomes constraining on the rest of us? English philosopher Jeremy Bentham knew that of which he spoke then, when he said, “Tyranny and anarchy are never far apart.” The anarchy of self-identification, and its resulting preferences and prescriptions, shall soon be the tyranny by which we shall all be ruled.

Further evidence of this liberty-to-anarchy progression comes later in the TIME article. It references a 2016 survey in which respondents were asked to provide the term that most accurately fit their gender—which produced more than 500 unique responses. Ritch Savin-Williams, professor emeritus at Cornell, said of the pure volume of labels being used, “It says, ‘Your terms do not reflect my reality or the reality of my friends.’” How many of us have not, at least one time or another, wished we could simply define our own reality? If we could, we would either be in a state of total anarchy or a state of total insanity, of course, because defining our own reality is simply not possible. Reality is, by definition, real.

Dictionary.com defines “reality” as “the state or quality of being real; something that is real; something that exists independently of ideas concerning it; something that constitutes a real or actual thing, as distinguished from something that is merely apparent.” Those definitions, of course, eliminate the possibility of anyone defining their own reality. Too, we recognize in almost every other area of life that we do not get to define our own reality. I would like to be a professional baseball player but I cannot simply say that is my reality, show up on the field and be allowed to play—or to collect a really big pay check. Try defining your own reality for your employer next time you are asked to do something at work. Even better, behold your own reaction when your next paycheck is a miniscule percentage of that which you expected (and earned) and when you ask the boss about it he says the paycheck you were given reflects his reality.

The TIME article ends with a perfect concluding statement to wrap up this absurdity, quoting Grace Mason, the president of the Gay-Straight Alliance in her high school. “I’d rather be who I am and be authentically me than try to fit in one of those crappy little boxes. I have a great box that I have made for myself.”

Of course all the rest of us have to accept and embrace that box—and everyone else’s boxes too—or else we will be labeled intolerant (at best).

The National Geographic story leads with a description of E, a 14-year-old girl who feels more like a boy. E still uses her birth name (choosing to go by E for the story) and still prefers the pronoun “she.” E does not think “transgender” fits her gender identity and she does not feel like she was born in the wrong body. “I just think I need to make alterations in the body I have, to make it feel like the body I need it to be,” she said. And what might that be exactly? Well, “a body that doesn’t menstruate and has no breasts, with more defined facial contours and ‘a ginger beard.’”

The article goes on to state that the XX and XY chromosomes that determine a baby’s sex do not always tell “the whole story.” Interestingly, though, the article says that that is true “on occasion.” It does not state how rare that occasion is, but is does provide an example of an individual with CAIS, complete androgen insensitivity syndrome, and describes a “small group of children born in the Dominican Republic with an enzyme deficiency” that causes genitalia to appear female at birth and male once puberty sets in. These are unusual situations to be sure, but there are, as the article states, occasional and small in number.

Also small in number are the individuals involved in scientific studies purporting to indicate that the brains of transgender individuals may be more like the brains of their self-identified gender than their biological gender. According to the article, some such studies include “as few as half a dozen transgender individuals.” That is an incredibly small number and rarely if ever would such a finite sample be considered sufficient for scientific conclusions. The article highlights another problem as well—that these studies sometimes include individuals already taking hormones for the opposite gender, “meaning that observed brain differences might be the result of, rather than the explanation for, a subject’s transgender identity.”

More interesting still though is that the article goes on to state that there has been a “robust” finding that there is a connection between gender nonconformity and autism spectrum disorder (ASD). The article cites a pediatric neuropsychologist at Children’s National Health System in Washington, D.C. indicating that “children and adolescents on the autism spectrum are seven times more likely than other young people to be gender nonconforming. And, conversely, children and adolescents at gender clinics are six to 15 times more likely than other young people to have ASD.”

The reason this connection between gender nonconformity and ASD is so interesting is that ASD is—as its name states—a disorder. It is a spectrum, yes, because it includes a range of symptoms but and disabilities, but ASD is the catch-all label for an expansive range of developmental disorders. Might gender nonconformity be a disorder then? Indeed it is, though I doubt you will see National Geographic or TIME or any other mainstream publication state that anytime soon.

The National Geographic article includes a photo of a child named Henry, along with a caption stating that Henry considers himself to be “gender creative” and, at the age of six, “he is already very sure of who he is.” That, of course, is nonsense, as no six-year-old is very sure of much of anything, much less anything that could potentially have life-altering ramifications.  WORLD magazine ran a rebuttal of sorts to the National Geographic and TIME features with its April 15, 2017 issue. Its cover featured a boy looking into a mirror and seeing a girl, which the headline “Forgotten Victims.” Not surprisingly that feature article took a different approach to the story than the other two. In fact, that article actually cited the six year old quoted in National Geographic that I led this paragraph with, along with a response from Michelle Cretella, president of the American College of Pediatricians. “You don’t treat medical confusion by putting people, especially children, on toxic hormones and cutting off healthy body parts,” Cretella said. “Just because a person thinks and feels something does not make it true.”

In fact, the Bible makes it clear that doing what one thinks and feels, when not consistent with Scripture, is not only not true but is quite dangerous. Both Proverbs 14:12 and 16:25 state that the way that seems right to a man will end in death. No doubt all of this gender nonconformity seems right to the people who are creating these great boxes for themselves. Proverbs 12:15a says, “The way of a fool is right in his own eyes.” Proverbs 21:2 says that every man’s way is right in his own eyes.

By the way, there is a term for everyone doing what is right in their own eyes. It is anarchy.