“Gender” Uproar Threatens Democrats In Blue Virginia

By CHRISTOPHER MANION

As Joe Biden and Barack Obama traveled to Virginia in support of Terry McAuliffe, the Democrats’ controversial “gender agenda” has blown up in their face.
In recent years, Northern Virginia’s Loudoun County has become one of the richest jurisdictions in the United States thanks to the growth of the federal government. So, of course, it’s full of Democrats. Virginia’s Washington suburbs voted overwhelmingly for Biden a year ago.
But today Loudoun County has become a focal point in the battle mounted by parents against the racist and morally perverted agendas promoted by radical school boards, not only in Virginia, but across the country.
Loudoun resident Scott Smith’s ninth-grade daughter was raped last May by a boy in a skirt who entered the girls’ room of Loudoun’s Stone Bridge High School. When an enraged Smith recently tried to testify against the school board’s “gender” policy, he was arrested, handcuffed, and dragged from the room at the board’s request.
Only later did investigators discover that board members had covered up the incident because they feared the bad publicity might distract from the school district’s celebration of “Pride Month” last June.
At the time, the boy was quietly transferred to another school, where he allegedly committed a second rape.
This week he was found guilty of the first attack in Juvenile Court. A trial on the second charge is pending.
Last Saturday in Richmond, Obama breezily branded Virginia parents’ outrage over such “gender” outrages as “fake.” But many of those parents are Democrats, and right now, even though Democrats control all the statewide election mechanisms, Virginia’s deep-blue DC suburbs are no longer a sure thing for McAuliffe in next week’s statewide election.

School Board “Gender”
Debate Rages On Both Sides Of The Aisle

Remember the National School Boards Association (NSBA)? In late September, the lobbying group sent a letter to the White House demanding that the Biden Administration launch a federal manhunt for “terrorist” parents who exercised their First Amendment rights at local school board meetings. In the weeks that followed, the move received widespread criticism, including from several state school-board associations that suspended their NSBA memberships because of the letter.
Last Friday, the NSBA issued a watered-down apology for its letter and withdrew it. “We regret and apologize,” the group wrote to its members on October 22, adding that “there was no justification for some of the language included in the letter.” But Biden Attorney General Merrick Garland has not yet rescinded his follow-up order calling for a nationwide federal campaign designed to intimidate parents who dare to speak out.
All in all, it’s been tough going for Garland on Capitol Hill. Last Thursday, in a hearing held by the House Committee on the Judiciary, Cong. Thomas Massie (R., Ky.) showed Garland videos of one Ray Epps, a skillful agitator who led the first wave of trespassers into the Capitol on January 6. “Can you tell us…how many agents or assets of the government were present on January 6,” Massie asked. “Whether they agitated to go into the Capitol? And if any of them did?”
A clearly irritated Garland refused to answer. And it’s not a spurious question: Some parents critical of “gender” programs and Critical Race Theory (CRT) fear that Garland will use government assets or provocateurs to disrupt school board meetings to justify his depiction of parents as terrorists.
It didn’t go much better for Garland when he appeared before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary this past Wednesday. Garland agreed, sort of, that Scott Smith had the right to speak out about the crime against his daughter. But when questioned by Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas), he admitted that, according to the language of his order, parents whose objections merely “annoyed” elected officials could qualify as potential lawbreakers subject to federal charges.
While Garland admitted at the House hearing that the NSBA letter had prompted his memo (released five days later), he repeatedly refused to answer Cruz’s questions regarding his own possible conflict of interest. A company run by Garland’s son-in-law makes millions selling CRT and “gender” materials to school districts nationwide. Did Garland get clearance for his order from the Justice Department’s ethics officer before announcing his campaign using federal law enforcement to quell parents’ opposition to such programs?
Garland refused to answer.
Sen. Tom Cotton (R., Ark.) then asked Garland why his manhunt memo suggested using the Patriot Act to pursue “harassment and intimidation” — not “violence” — from parents.
When Garland dissembled once more, Cotton had finally had enough:
“That letter and those reports were the basis for your directive. This is shameful. Judge, this is shameful. This testimony, your directive, your performance is shameful. Thank God you are not on the Supreme Court. You should resign in disgrace, judge.”
That stinging rebuke undoubtedly hit home. We recall that, in March 2016, after Justice Antonin Scalia’s sudden death, Obama had nominated Garland, at the time a judge on the Federal Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, to replace Scalia.
Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.), the Senate Majority Leader at the time, steadfastly refused to put the Garland nomination on the Senate calendar at all, an adroit move that left “Scalia’s seat” open until after the election. President Trump then nominated Judge Neil Gorsuch to fill the seat in January 2017.
Attorney generals come and go, but “Mr. Justice Garland” would have been a lifetime appointment. Is he bitter? Does he blame Trump supporters for his nomination’s demise?
Well, consider: Since being confirmed as Biden’s attorney general, Garland has directed the Justice Department to harass Trump supporters in so many ways that, had he been intent on using his position to wreak retribution on us Deplorables, it would be hard to imagine him doing anything differently.

Detritus

On Monday, October 25, the Vatican Press Office announced that Pope Francis has appointed Jeffrey Sachs to be “an ordinary member” of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences.
It is a curious move. Sachs, a longtime population planner, supports American “cooperation” with Communist China, because Great Leader Xi Jinping supports “sustainable development,” a Sachs specialty.
Advocated by the United Nations since 1987 and currently called the “Great Reset,” this policy calls for an elimination of private property, saving the world from Global Warming, and the worldwide leveling of economic status under the guidance of an international government led by selected elites.
Sachs is reportedly a fan of Laudato Si, the 2015 encyclical of Pope Francis. More recently, Francis has called for the establishment of a “New World Order” after the pandemic. Critics charge that his call is a code word for the “Great Reset” that would lead to worldwide “sustainable” socialism.
Sachs apparently considers Joe Biden to be an ally, calling his foreign policy a “godsend” — and, speaking of “Catholic Joe,” his destruction of American border security continues. While he has canceled contracts for expanding the border wall, and will welcome some two million illegals into the country this year, the New York Post reports that Biden has ordered the Department of Homeland Security to spend $456,548 to build a fence around his Rehoboth, Del., beach house.
Security for me, but not for thee.
Meanwhile, in Biden’s deranged descent into calamity and chaos, his State Department announced Wednesday that it has issued the first U.S. passport with an “X” gender designation, for people who say they are “non-binary, intersex, and gender non-conforming.”
And the budget passed by the Chicago City Council on Wednesday includes a “guaranteed basic income” program. Funded by federal stimulus grants, the program will provide 5,000 low-income households with $500 per month each.
Competition for those funds will be strong, since, despite thousands of job openings, the unemployment rate in the Windy City’s South and West Sides approaches 30 percent. Unfortunately, many Chicagoans will be tempted to avoid the long lines and join the gangs that routinely loot luxury stores in the city’s “Miracle Mile” unimpeded. The pillaging reaps more cash more quickly, and requires no applications to city government. And, like the City Council’s program, returns are “guaranteed.”