Thursday, March 6, 2025

About Last Night: A Little Instruction on Progressives Can Be Helpful

About Last Night: A Little Instruction on Progressives Can Be Helpful

AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson

So, the watercooler, coffee station, and over-the-bar conversations today are all centered around the fact that the Democrats present for Trump's speech comported themselves with less dignity than a passel of fourth graders fighting over Pokemon cards. The level of immature behavior was astounding for people who once declared that the adults were back in charge. Naturally, the unbridled hatred spilled over into the post-game analysis.

Why all the rancor? Why did they snub a kid battling cancer and people who have lost loved ones? Why did they stay sullen and silent when they should have been applauding accomplishments that benefit the nation? Why were they defiant over the prospect of a war ending? Well, let your friendly, neighborhood recovering Democrat break it down for you. This is old territory for me, so walk with me while I take you down the dark corridors of the Progressive mind. It has been a while since I declared myself to be what used to pass for a liberal, but I think I remember enough to guide you through the weirdness. Allow me to be the Virgil to your Dante.

First, and this will likely take all of you by surprise, it is a good bet that not all of the Democrats wanted to sit on their hands or wave those insipid signs. Some of them cringed inwardly over Al Green's hissy fit, and I'll wager that more than a few of them wanted to stand and applaud when DJ Daniel was presented with his Secret Service badge. Not many, for sure, but some of them did. At one time, at least, many Leftists, myself included, had a grudging respect for and degree of envy of the patriotism, faith, and joy of conservatives. But you never want to let on that you feel that way. 

You see, Progressives have all the money, all the power, all the good movies, art, books, plays, and clothes. They also have all the intellectual acumen and all the fun, or at least they think they do, and they believe they are always entitled to more. As a result, the Democrat Party has become the ultimate mean-girls club/cool-kids table. Dissent is not tolerated. And they use the same Alinsky tactics on each other that they do on everyone else: identify, immobilize, and isolate. You used to get one chance to express an unapproved idea. If you did, the initial response was, "Oh, c'mon. You're way too smart to believe that!" That was your one freebie. If you persisted in your errant thinking, then the knives came out. And it wasn't enough just to yell at you. The person doing the berating had to make sure everyone heard them. So, to sum it up, any Dems in the crowd last night, even if they felt the slightest scintilla of empathy or patriotism, knew enough to keep their traps shut. Nobody wants to be the next Tulsi Gabbard or Lindy Li.

Believe it or not, many Dems suffer a crisis of conscience now and then. No, really. Not always or often, but it does happen. People want to be with the cultural, intellectual, and financial "in crowd," no matter how tenuous that connection may be. While these people crave elite status—and even when they attain it—that tiny part of them that is still human reminds them that their words do not match their deeds. They yowl, yammer, and pronounce curses and imprecations, not just to throw you off their trail but to avoid dealing with that conflict within themselves. They scream invectives at Trump and you to avoid facing their own demons. They cannot deal with themselves. And should those demons get too loud, these people can salve their seared consciences by shrieking that they are for all the right things. 

They may benefit from bending or breaking the law but don't want to get caught. And after all, if they can make you pay for their sins, why not declare their self-described righteousness from the rooftops? Why not demand that someone else sacrifice so they can say they have achieved something? In their minds, a protest is as good as, if not better than, regularly volunteering at a soup kitchen or homeless shelter. Sure, it is a conflict, but it's a small price to pay for admission to the Afterparty at Aspen. This is especially true of the upper echelon of the party. I know. I used to do the same thing. It is why they are thirsting for an extended war in Ukraine and can excuse murdering a child postpartum. 

This brings us to three major facets of the progressive mind: rage, contempt, and sanctimony. As I have written before, emotion is a big part of being on the Left. Rage and contempt matter. A lot. You have to be angry. Angry at Trump, conservatives, Rush Limbaugh, it really doesn't matter since the targets revolve all the time. But you have to be angry. And it isn't enough just to be angry; everyone needs to know your level of indignation. And you have to be ready to deliver a barb or insult for anyone not on your side of the aisle. That rage is born of contempt. And contempt fuels political discourse, your shopping list, your mindset, and your viewing habits. In fact, it fuels most of your life. 

And from there, we head to sanctimony. Your contempt for conservatives, rural people, etc., who are responsible for all the world's ills, must be accompanied by an equal amount of sanctimony. Poor people, blacks, Hispanics, Asians, gays, Martians, and paramecia are all victims of you-know-who. You do not consider the victims your equals since their success would detract from your station in life and deprive you of your right to feel superior. You need these people to be poor, oppressed victims so that you can engage in rage and contempt. Do you see how that works? As stated above, you aren't actually going to do anything for them except perhaps go on a tirade or maybe attend a protest. Or you pass laws sticking it to you-know-who. Then, you can draw an easy breath and convince yourself you have struck a blow for something. 

The upshot of all of this is that the Left has created a world that is based on anger, power, and privilege. As a result, many of them are exhausted and miserable. The only cure is to start the cycle all over again so they can ignore their dilemma for a while longer. It is a tough world in which to survive, and it takes its toll on people. Some of them eventually see the cycle they are in and the propaganda surrounding it and hit the eject button. The others? Well, you saw those people on display Tuesday night. If you ask a card-carrying progressive if any of this is true, they will vehemently deny it. Only people like Gabbard and Li, and yes, even your humble guide, will acknowledge that reality. Should you pity those on the Left? Well, compassion is a virtue. Just don't turn your back on them. 

Well, look at this: We have made our way through the maze and are back out in the bright sunlight again. Thank you for allowing me to escort you on this little sojourn. For some of you, I may have confirmed what you have always suspected. For others, this may have been an eye-opener. As Peachy Keenan once said, it's a lot of Pow-Wow Chow to unpack, so take your time sifting through it. If nothing else, I hope I have given you a little insight from a former insider and a better understanding of not just what went on during Trump's speech but with whom you are dealing. 

https://pjmedia.com/lincolnbrown/2025/03/05/a-bit-of-decontsruction-for-you-n4937585?utm_source=thdailypmvip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

The Cunning Barbarity of War Hawks for Ukraine (DP: This is the definitive analysis of the Ukraine/Russia war)

The Cunning Barbarity of War Hawks for Ukraine

AP Photo/ Mystyslav Chernov

It was a routine day in the heat of southern Kuwait in 2004 during my first military deployment. I went into the Post Exchange on Camp Arifjan and found a clothes rack sporting war-themed apparel, among the basics like socks, laundry soap, greeting cards, and the like. One set of t-shirts stood out, printed with “Give war a chance” graphics. It seemed humorous at the time as a newly-minted soldier in the U.S. Army. But I have since come to recognize the moment as my first encounter with the death cult of modern American war hawks, who champion endless international fighting under the guise of moral righteousness. That memory returned in recent days through an encounter on Facebook, in which a classmate from my time at the U.S. Army’s Command and General Staff College questioned the wisdom of my hopes that the U.S. might be able to broker an end to Russia’s immoral war in Ukraine.

For those new to the debate over this tragic conflict, I offer two facts up front. First, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine should not have happened. That said, the history of humanity is replete with examples of immoral invasions between nations. Second, the Biden Administration green-lighted Russia’s actions of aggression, and America’s response has served only to escalate hostilities and increase risk of the war expanding beyond its current boundaries. As Putin massed forces at the border in 2022, I hoped that the Biden administration would make it clear that an invasion was not worth the risk. That was our opportunity to potentially prevent the current tragedy, an opportunity met with progressive weakness.

This brutal, armed conflict is now in its third full year and has killed or wounded an estimated one million people. Those are one million fellow human beings, one million fellow image bearers of the Imago Dei, a number that is larger than the entire population of some U.S. states. Roughly one-quarter of the Ukrainian population fled their homeland, and an already poor economy continues a rapid descent that will plague that region for generations to come. In a break from the 21st-century tradition of a U.S. economic model that relies on sustained conditions of warfare around the world, the Trump Administration recently began exploring options to end the Russian campaign of aggression against Ukrainians. Possibilities include potential peace negotiations and efforts to strike a mineral deal that would strengthen the Ukrainian economy and allow the country to begin repaying much of what U.S. taxpayers have spent there. Attempting to find a solution that stops the body count and allows those involved to again seek a basic semblance of good in life is morally responsible. But there are critics who demand no end to fighting until Russia is defeated. They believe a war of attrition can still successfully send the invaders into retreat and deliver an appropriate punishment to the Russian people.    

The war of attrition is a long-standing strategy of armed conflict among human civilization. This method attempts to bleed a more powerful foe to the bargaining table via death by a thousand cuts in hopes of reaching a negotiated political solution. In American history, Robert E. Lee attempted to wage a defensive war of attrition following the Union victory at Gettysburg in 1863. However, the agrarian confederacy could not overcome the north’s industrial base and the larger population from which northern states could draw from to replenish the ranks. This same dynamic is in play between the larger, more industrialized Russia and the smaller, more agricultural Ukraine today—sometimes referred to as the Breadbasket of Europe.

Attrition warfare relies on an engaged and influential populace who will refuse to continue expending unlimited treasure and accepting continued large-scale casualty rates. The theory goes that an exhausted and angry public will exert overwhelming political pressure that forces heads of state to the bargaining table. This relies on a governmental system in which political rulers are accountable to the populace. But in Russia, Vladimir Putin's control over both the political system and public perception means that this dynamic is far from universal. Even if the Russian people suffer, Putin remains insulated from the consequences, making the traditional assumption of attrition warfare largely irrelevant in this context. Whether we like it or not, Putin has a strong political hand at present, and he is no doubt familiar with the Clausewitizian maxim that war is policy by other means. 


SHOCK POLL: Frank Luntz Shares the (Albeit Unscientific) Results on Zelensky Freakout--Trump Will Love It

Zelensky Did More Damage to Ukraine's Cause Than Russia Ever Could


The U.S. has taken advantage of Russia’s latest aggression to wage proxy war by sending advisors, materiel, and $119 billion in military aid as of December of 2024, putting Ukraine among the top three countries in the world when it comes to military spending. Proxy war against a nation that is not an active enemy flies in the face of Just War Tradition. Known formally as jus ad bellum, the concept of justice in war is grounded in the principle that war should only be waged when the cause is just and the aim is to achieve peace through victory. However, the current approach of providing military aid to Ukraine without a strategy to win violates these principles and perpetuates violence that serves military contractors more than the cause of restoring peace. Justice in war demands commitment to victory. In contrast, proxy means kill wantonly. The Iranian regime murdered American troops and local civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan for decades as a proxy foe. Is that a model of state morality to which the land of the free and home of the brave should now aspire?

Progressive political theorists claim that America’s proxy war with Russia on the fields of Ukraine is a noble fight to preserve the "international order" that emerged following the Second World War. This is an order in which America pays for the world’s defenses as poorer countries lure American jobs overseas and flood the market with cheap goods, much of which is produced through exploitive labor practices. It has allowed Americans the first-world luxury of obsessing over gender identity and intersectional theories rather than investing our lives into maintaining a well-ordered society that was hard-won and built by our brave ancestors. In observing the trajectory of Western civilization over the past 70 years, one is hard-pressed to honestly assess that the modern global order has truly been good for mankind. Rather than ending warfare, it has spread fighting far beyond the realms of land and sea combat to mass informational war and lawfare waged both internationally and domestically among our fellow citizens.

Decades of American involvement in wars overseas have desensitized Westerners and their militaries. In the U.S., we hear choruses about willingness to die for freedom. Yet when tyrants violate the freedoms of U.S. citizens on American soil, the allegedly brave roll over. “To the guns for Ukraine,” we hear… though we never see those who sport "I stand with Ukraine" iconography deploy to the fight. Those same voices remained deafeningly silent when churches were closed, as we were told "No shot-no job," when Americans who protested on January 6th were hunted down and put into a U.S.-based gulag system, when the FBI made pre-dawn raids against peaceful Americans a routine occurrence, when peaceful pro-life advocates were imprisoned, and when rights to privacy were dismantled under the so-called Patriot Act just to name a few. Among our allies, the governments of England and Germany criminalized expression counter to party dogma, and offer safe harbor for marauding Islamic foreigners to wantonly murder in the streets. If Westerners want to fight for freedom, the battlefield is rich in our own homelands. Yet so many speak of how grand it would be to die for the "freedom" of Ukraine… from the comfort of their homes on American soil that they refuse to lift a finger to defend. 

For those who retort to the imbecilic argument that I’m just another mouthpiece for Putin, know that I wore the American military uniform for 20 years and am appalled by Russian atrocities in Ukraine. But I also have not yet seen hordes of Russian military-aged men committing atrocities on American soil to justify proxy means of killing Russian soldiers at sale prices… soldiers who are not fighting against our nation. In a just world, Vladimir Putin would be driven from office and sent to the gallows. But his evil nature does not by default bequeath the character of George Washington on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. We would do well to remember that under Zelensky’s reign, churches have been closed, opposition groups outlawed, and elections halted. He would be resoundingly rejected by our founding fathers. Though I respect his refusal to flee in 2022, Zelensky is not the saint that Western war hawks portray him to be.

Unlike much of the current "Give war a chance"/Ukraine flag as social media banner mob, I went to war. It's not pleasant. Union General William Tecumseh Sherman rightly described combat as a cruelty that cannot be refined. Thus, it is right that we should seek the option of armed conflict as a last resort—that if war must be waged, we should fully commit to overwhelming force to bring it to an end and work to expeditiously restore peace and ordered liberty. Those who insist on the necessity of a prolonged conflict to "defeat Russia" often fail to recognize the moral costs of such an approach. War should always be a last resort, and when it is waged, it should aim for an expedient resolution. Yet, in the case of Ukraine, many are advocating for a war of attrition that sacrifices human lives—on both sides—in the hope of a political outcome that seems increasingly distant.

Russia was unjustified in starting this war. The U.S. has been unjustified in merely prolonging it. If lawmakers want to argue that American interests are at stake and that destiny demands that the U.S. fight in Ukraine, let them make the case to the public and follow the constitutional rules for committing America to the fight. Otherwise, the choices are to sit this one out, or use the other instruments of national power to help negotiate a lasting peace. But waging proxy war of attrition against fellow human beings who have not lifted a finger against Americans—without a clear victory strategy—does not place us on the moral high ground.


Chase Spears served as a U.S. Army public affairs officer for 20 years, retiring as a Major (Promotable) in 2023. Chase holds a Ph.D. in leadership communication from Kansas State University, and today, he runs a leadership practice that helps people to turn brave ideas into action. You can find him on X/LinkedIn/Substack/YouTube @drchasespears.


SHOCK POLL: Frank Luntz Shares the (Albeit Unscientific) Results on Zelensky Freakout--Trump Will Love It

SHOCK POLL: Frank Luntz Shares the (Albeit Unscientific) Results on Zelensky Freakout--Trump Will Love It

AP Photo/ Mystyslav Chernov

Pollster Frank Luntz conducted a series of shock polls--albeit somewhat unscientific ones--on the X platform after Zelensky suffered a total freakout in the Oval Office meet-up with President Trump and VP Vance--and he released the final results on Saturday. As I highlight here, the polling is not real, but it's worth mulling over a snapshot like this, I think. And whatever your opinion on Luntz's biases, stick with me here.

 As you'll see shortly, the Democrats will hate how many people answered, with the heat of a thousand dying suns--and what Luntz says it means for Tuesday's Joint Address to Congress will put a yuge smile on Pres. Trump's face. In case you missed the, well, incident on Friday, here are the latest stories at RedState:


'I've Never Seen Anything Like Zelensky's Behavior There': Speaker Mike Johnson on 'Meet the Press'

Democrats Encouraged Zelensky to Scoff at a Possible Peace Deal, Setting Up Oval Office Blowout


Including those, you can find all of our coverage of the Zelensky implosion at the WH here.

All right, let's take a look at the two questions that the pollster asked X users:

"After yesterday‘s White House meeting, whom are you angrier at?" and gave just two options: "Volodymyr Zelenskyy [sic]" or "Donald Trump and JD Vance."

As a follow-up, Luntz asked: "At this point in the Russia-Ukraine war, whom are you more sympathetic towards?"--and the choice offered is (obviously) binary, as well:" Volodymyr Zelenskyy" or "Vladimir Putin."

Here are the results:

Hoo boy, there are a few things to digest here, as Luntz writes in his analysis, which he published to X late Saturday evening: [Emphasis original]

The United States isn’t changing…

It has changed.  

Three years ago, Americans were overwhelmingly supportive of Ukraine and they considered Zelensky to be a global hero. Today, a majority of Americans oppose the war and Zelensky is now a controversial character.

President Trump is on his way to being the most impactful, consequential president since FDR.  And his supporters are more loyal to him than any president since Andrew Jackson.

To be clear: I am not making a judgment on either Ukraine, Zelensky, or President Trump.  I am merely noting what the polls are saying. 

The closing bit--Pres. Trump will love it more than anything else--has Luntz stating flatly that "...based on these results, this Tuesday night’s State Of The Union address should have a very big audience."

Consider, also, the fact that the legacy media and the useful idiots on the Left will grill Luntz for this--as he notes himself above--lends credibility to what he is saying ultimately.

There is no upside for him to do this, which can be a mighty persuasive crucible these days when so much broadcast by the media/some social media personalities needs to be taken with a boulder of salt. Good on Luntz here.

https://redstate.com/beccalower/2025/03/02/shock-poll-luntz-zelensky-freakout-n2186190?utm_source=twdailypmvip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

We the People Don't Need No Stinkin' Commie Activist Judges

We the People Don't Need No Stinkin' Commie Activist Judges

AP Photo/Susan Walsh

Just when we think it's safe for young women to go back into the water and compete against only women and not a bedlamite dudette in a bikini, along come activist judges to spew communism in the face of sanity.

FACT-O-RAMA! Forcing young women to compete against men—and then shower naked with them—is sick, and you'll understand if I can't let such perversian pass without mocking the brain-free, easily-controlled simps who embrace "woke" so that someone doesn't call them names like "transphobe," "thinker," or "sane."

Trump's February 5, 2025, executive orders (EO) stated that men with kangaroos in the top paddock can't jump into the ring and beat the potato salad out of female athletes. It's sad that we are even at this point in history. What's worse, activist pinko judges are doing everything they can to stop Trump's attempt to bring normalcy back to the United States and are thwarting him from the bench, even when it comes to defending women in sports.

FACT-O-RAMA! There is a long and sad list of young women who have been injured while playing sports where a man is allowed to compete alongside women. The left celebrates these men—who typically suck when competing against other men—as they knock young women into Conucssionville, USA, and simulataneously beating out women for trophies, accolades, and college scholarships.

Let's take a look at some of the robed dopes trying to speed-bumb Trump's attempts to make America Great again.

Judge Royce Lamberth, judge for the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, nominated by Reagan: 

Lamberth decided to block the Trump admin's attempt to imprison transgenders with other men, stating that doing so would subject the Mrs. Doubtfires' to safety concerns, despite a hillock of evidence showing that trans convicts rape female inmates.

PSYCHO-RAMA! Women who were raped by a trans animal were told by a court they had to refer to the alleged rapist by "she/her" pronouns.

Judge Amy Berman Jackson, United States District Court for the District of Columbia, nominated by Obama: 

Trump decided to fire Biden-era DOJ stooge Hampton Dellinger, but Jackson stepped in and stopped the firing—for now.

Jackson also sent Trump ally Roger Stone to prison for three years and oversaw the case of Paul Manaforte (he got seven years) and came down hard on J6ers who took insurrection-y selfies while peacefully walking through the Capitol.

Judge Paul Engelmayer, Manhattan-based U.S. District, nominated by Obama: 

Engelmayer's latest assault on Trump was when he tried to stop DOGE from accessing data at the Treasury Department because who wants a group of patriots shining a light on multi-billion-dollar fraud for free?

Trump chum Rep. Derrick Van Orden (R-Wisc) immediately moved to impeach Engerlmayer. Rep. Eli Crane (R-Ariz.) is on board, too.

Judge Angel Kelley, Boston District Court Judge, nominated by Biden: 

Judge Kelley, who believes "there is systemic racism in almost all systems, particularly the court system," put a temporary halt to Trump's attempt to stop funding administrative costs related to the Nation Institute of Health.

PINKO-RAMA! Judge Kelley ruled that a police department could punish a police officer for referring to Geooge Floyd as, heavens, a "criminal."

Judge Brendan Hurson, United States District Court of Maryland, nominated by Biden:

Trump signed an executive order stating that vile communists could no longer ginsu the genitals of so-called transgender kids. Hurson moved to block the order, thus allowing for the continuation of gender-affirming care child mutilation.

What Have We Learned?

The Marxists are not backing down. Despite Trump clown-slapping Kamala on Election Day, sending a clear message about which direction we want the country to go, apparatchiks are digging in their six-inch heels and fighting Trump on every front, and that includes courtrooms around the nation.

Why do so many of these legal roadblocks involve crazy men in thongs? Because the globalists are exploiting the trans crew to spread cultural Marxism.

That said, I predict our "normie" friends and family members will pull back further from the Mao-maos every time they move to defend fraud or allow big medicine to scatter, chunk, and dice kids into Waffle House hash browns.

The war against the putrescence we call the globalist deep state didn't end on Election Day. That's the day it started.

https://pjmedia.com/kevindowneyjr/2025/02/27/we-the-people-dont-need-no-stinkin-commie-activist-judges-n4937381?utm_source=pjmediavip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl_pm

Wednesday, March 5, 2025

DEI Could Make Surgery Dangerous - A Veteran Surgeon Speaks Out

DEI Could Make Surgery Dangerous - A Veteran Surgeon Speaks Out

AP Photo/Matt Rourke

The egregious lunacy that is "Diversity, Equity & Inclusion," or DEI, seems to be fading slowly away. That's as it should be; decisions as to who should hold a certain job or be admitted to a certain school should be based on merit, not on skin color or any other arbitrary nonsense. But the effects of this practice will be felt for some time, and in many fields, this is a pig that will be some time passing through the python.

One such field is surgery. Richard T. Bosshardt, a practicing surgeon with 38 years of experience, has some comments on the young surgeons he sees coming out of residencies in recent years, and it's truly alarming.

I have been a surgeon for 38 years. Three of those I spent as a general surgeon in the Navy, the remainder as a plastic surgeon in private practice. I have never been more alarmed about the state of my profession than I am today.

My concerns began surfacing about 25 years ago. I was collaborating with a newly trained general surgeon on a bilateral breast reconstruction, a procedure that utilizes tissue flaps from the patient’s abdomen. This is a significant and lengthy operation, and I appreciated the young surgeon’s offer to close the abdominal donor site. To my horror, however, he began taking excessively wide needle “bites” of the abdominal wall using a heavy-gauge suture, visibly distorting the abdominal wall as he pulled these sutures tight. After watching in disbelief for a few minutes, I thanked him and said that I could manage without help. The young surgeon subsequently gained a reputation for handling tissues roughly and for being difficult to work with. It came as no surprise when he left our hospital after less than a year.

So, this isn't a new phenomenon. Dr. Bosshardt describes several troubling developments he's personally seen and that have been related to him by colleagues, including increased amounts of time taken performing surgeries; this is a problem because it prolongs times under anesthetic, as well as prolonging stress on the body's systems. He also describes an increase in post-operative complications, which can be aggravated by increased surgery times as well as by problems from the surgery itself.

But here's where DEI comes in:

Another reason why the quality of surgeons and of surgery has declined: DEI in our medical and educational institutions. I have spoken to program directors in residency programs who say that they are afraid to correct, hold back, or drop underperforming minority trainees for fear of being reprimanded, accused of bias, or even losing their jobs.

The American College of Surgeons continues to push DEI initiatives, ignoring or censoring anyone who disagrees. For example, ACS has implemented remedial training for graduate surgeons through “mentorship” programs. One challenge: finding enough experienced surgeons of the correct ethnic, racial, or gender identity to serve as mentors.

A surgeon who successfully completed a full residency was once expected to practice independently without supervision. Increasingly, this is no longer the case. I worry for the future of my profession—and even for myself, on the day that I enter the world of surgery as a patient.

When you lower standards for favored groups, you get lowered skill levels and lowered capabilities. In many fields, that's annoying. In surgery, indeed in any area of healthcare provision, it's life-threatening.


See Related: Manliness Is Great Again: Trump Just Ended Biden's Hostile DEI Takeover of First Responders

BlackRock, BofA Ditch DEI, Even After Once Vowing 'We Must Embed DEI Into Everything We Do'


There's another problem, and that's the effect it ends up having on any number of perfectly capable and qualified surgeons and other healthcare providers who happen to be of the same identifiable group as the people pushed through under DEI programs. Case in point: Dr. Ben Carson, the former HUD chief who is also a brilliant pediatric neurosurgeon and who happens to be black. It would be unfair in the extreme to presume he's a DEI hire and, therefore, less competent than other doctors of other ethnicities, but that could well be the effect that dozens or hundreds of subpar surgeons pushed into practice under DEI programs could have.

DEI programs are unfair to the competent. They deserve to be wiped away from healthcare, from government, and from any field of endeavor that relies on competence. Ability and merit should be the only deciding factors in hiring/staffing positions, as well as in academics. Dr. Bosshardt's experience, however, is especially troubling. He indicates this practice, resulting in a noticeable decline in the surgical skills of practitioners, has been going on for some time, and given the career lifespan of a surgeon, may be in evidence for some time to come.

https://redstate.com/wardclark/2025/02/28/dei-could-make-surgery-dangerous-a-veteran-surgeon-speaks-out-n2186123?utm_source=rsafternoonbriefingvip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl