‍

Our sports leagues are suddenly in the business of virtue signaling by conducting Pride Day/Night games to demonstrate support for the LGBTQ+ community. What do such designated games have to do with baseball, football, basketball, hockey? Why has “live and let live” been replaced with shove it down our senses? Unless a team refuses to sell a fan a ticket based on his or her sexuality — and I’m unaware that such is the case in any sport — the need to so conspicuously demonstrate such support strikes me as unnecessary cases of social showboating. Recently, the Dodgers’ sense of an inclusive LGBTQ+ Pride Night was set for later this month to include a group, The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, designated by the team to be honored with its “Heroes of the Community” award. If the Dodgers spent even 10 seconds examining who they were about to honor, they're as Twisted as these "Sisters." He (Rob Manfred) could’ve issued a brief and firm not-on-my-watch statement: “As Commissioner I will not allow MLB to be in the business of allowing our games to serve as venues to bash anyone’s religion, let alone honor those who do so.” But we already know Manfred to be weak and inclined toward neglect, then flight. He’s another who prefers to insult the right-minded than offend the most offensive. Is everybody happy? Or is everyone fed up with the pandering, illogical and unwanted lunacy lately attached to our sports?

-Phil Mushnick, NY Post Columnist

‍

‍This is based on a demographic breakdown of the Times’ 2023 summer intern hires. Twenty-eight have been named so far, and I’m happy for all in an industry that needs substantial doses of joy and hope. But I’m also wondering, after reading the bios and studying a photo montage, why only one is a white male. One of twenty-eight. It means the Times is batting just .035 in one category of vacation-season diversity. It suggests that a traditional .200 demarcation boundary — known in baseball circles as the Mendoza Line for weak-hitting, 1970s-era infielder Mario Mendoza — will have to be lowered and renamed the Owen Tucker-Smith Line. Best of career luck to Owen, the lone white male in the rented newsroom space by the LAX flight runways, who will have to proceed in a climate that certainly represents cultural progress but also has plunged into blatant discrimination. But those who make intern decisions — woke-minded editors, as directed by woke-minded publishers — only are contributing to the marginalization of white males. Welcome to the new minority.

- Jay Mariotti On The LA Times Recent Hires

‍

‍If Russia invaded America 2.0, and took us over, exactly what would change? Would any of us- those awake to the corruption- be sent to the FEMA camps, or executed for treason? Who would be prosecuted in courts politicized by Putin? Which would be promoted more by the state- Christianity or transgenderism? If China invaded us, would we have even fewer civil liberties? Would things become more efficient? Would the infrastructure finally be modernized? Under either Russia or China, would pornography and drug use be as prevalent? Would there be human excrement in the streets, which isn’t even regularly cleaned up? Whatever nations of the past that were called “police states” had nothing on America 2.0. Little children stopped from selling lemonade because they didn’t have a license. Did Hitler or Stalin do that? Children held at gunpoint for building a treehouse. A naked 11 year old autistic girl tasered by police. Police waving citizens inside the Capitol building they pay for, and ushering them around, then being lauded as heroes after shooting and killing one of them, while those expressing their constitutional right to assemble and protest were branded as “terrorists,” and denied all civil rights. If America 2.0 isn’t a police state, exactly what would a police state look like?

-Columnist Donald Jeffries

‍

‍But how did the Church of the Latter-day Saints respond? Did they picket the theatres? Did they call it blasphemous and outrageous? Did they seek to bring the power of the law down on the heads of the producers? Did they claim that the musical was triggering them?  Not at all. When the musical opened on Broadway in 2011, they issued the following statement: “The production may attempt to entertain audiences for an evening, but the Book of Mormon as a volume of scripture will change people’s lives forever by bringing them closer to Christ.” When it came to Los Angeles, the LDS Church bought ad space in the playbill and elsewhere which said things like “You’ve seen the play, now read the book,” and “the book is always better.” The response of the LDS church to this situation has been, in my view, complete genius. It throws the public – most of whom are completely ignorant of LDS teachings – off guard. Instead of reacting with defensiveness and self-protection, they instead took the opportunity to invite people to investigate their faith.

-Writer, Michael Jensen

‍

But we now live in post-George Floyd America, where simply stating “a plain truth” has become a risky proposition. Uttering a reasonable opinion that is deemed “unacceptable” by the woke mob can get you smeared as a racist. It can get you “canceled,” especially if you’re talking about members of racial and ethnic minorities. For quite a while now, we’ve heard serious people say that we need to have an honest conversation about important matters such as race. I used to think that was a good idea. Not anymore. Now we live in a time when too many of us — including too many CEOs of major American corporations — have given in to the activists and have become afraid to tell plain truths. We’re afraid the woke mob will come after us. But what happens when we become a nation of people who are afraid to speak plain truths?  What happens when it’s easier to say nothing than to speak honestly about what we believe?

-Pundit, Bernard Goldberg

‍

‍