breaking news top stories world news politics headlines conservative news liberal news fox news fake news economic news socio political government news updates political blogs editorials illegal immigrant racism terrorism trump Trump obama clinto mueller investigation dossier russia china congress scandal fbi nas cia doj intelligence science news election news worldwide news invasion midterm migrants republicans democrats, schumer pelosi cortez harris booker Ilhan omar tlaib
theodore M I R A L D I mpa ... editor, publisher, writer
Friday, June 19, 2015
Transsexual yes, transracial no -- but why?
Joseph Farah says inversion of morality puts us in 'an alternate universe'
JOSEPH FARAH I’m still scratching my head over the fall of Rachel Dolezal.
The white woman who pretended to be black and worked her way to become president of the Spokane chapter of the NAACP crashed and burned this week when her parents blew the whistle on her because they feared she was living a fantasy life and needed help.
Had Rachel Dolezal merely convinced herself and others that she was a man trapped in a woman’s body, she would have been fine. Had her parents suggested some sort of conversion therapy for her, they might have been arrested.
That’s because transsexual is cool. Transracial is not. Not yet.
Why? I don’t know.
Lying to oneself and others about your gender is acceptable – even heroic today. Lying to oneself and others about your race is considered … lying, maybe even a little twisted.
Who decides right and wrong today?
Standards, as we once knew them, are simply determined today by time and popular whim.
Twenty years ago, the notion of same-sex marriage was so absurdly sick and unpopular that both houses of Congress voted overwhelmingly for a law that defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman. It was signed into law by then-President Bill Clinton.
Almost 20 years to the day after, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that such a law violated the Constitution and that anyone who would support such a law was effectively an “enemy of the human race” – someone whose only motivation could be to “disparage,” “injure,” “degrade,” “demean” and “humiliate” homosexuals who would like to take part in the institution of marriage. Bill Clinton and dozens of legislators who voted for that law cheered the “disparaging,” “injuring,” “degrading,” “demeaning and “humiliating” invectives of the majority.
Is it possible that in 20 years or less Americans will be erecting statues of Rachel Dolezal?
Nothing would surprise me.
That’s what happens when lies become truths, when man becomes woman, when white becomes black and when right becomes wrong.
It’s not that there is no “wrong” any more. Quite the opposite. Morality is just inverted. It’s like living in an alternate universe. We’ve moved into Bizarro-land – where up is down, left is right and in is out.
Wrong is now right and right is now wrong.
It just takes a little time and little reconditioning.
It’s easy when you remove God, the author of right and wrong, from the equation and replace Him with a new human-centered mythology.
I know I’m making some people really angry right now. But think about it.
Why is transsexualism valid but transracialism invalid?
Give me one good reason.
To me, if one makes more sense than the other it would be transracialism. There’s no difference between the races other than skin color. In fact, I would argue there is only one race – the human race. Skin pigment is the only thing that divides the so-called “races.”
But “progressives” and cultural anarchists don’t believe that.
They believe there are real innate differences between the races. That’s why they propose different treatment of the races rather than equal treatment.
There really are difference between men and women, however.
Perhaps the world just wasn’t ready for the trailblazing path of transracial pioneer Rachel Dolezal.
All it took for her was a little makeup, hair dye and a tight perm. Society wasn’t ready for that. But it is fully embracing surgical genital mutilation and hormone therapy. It is on the path to outlawing psychological therapy even for those poor souls uncomfortable with irreversible and radical work of the scalpel.