polecat news and views

Wednesday, June 10, 2026

The American medical establishment spent years insisting that puberty blockers were safe and reversible, that gender transition saved young lives, and that anyone who questioned the science was a bigot. A new peer-reviewed paper suggests the “science” used to justify the barbaric procedures was the problem all along.

According to a report from Just the News, a critical review published May 30, 2026, in the European Journal of Developmental Psychology concluded that "three decades of 'Dutch Protocol' research has not produced reliable evidence." The Dutch Protocol is the foundational framework for medically transitioning kids suffering from gender confusion.

Clinicians in the Netherlands, where they developed it in the 1990s, required long-term documented gender confusion before any transition steps. American practitioners threw those guardrails out, affirming gender confusion early and often, regardless of what other mental health conditions a child was dealing with.

This has led to the use of hormones and surgeries to “treat” confusion that typically would resolve itself on its own.

The authors of the critical review are Baylor Medicine psychiatrist Kathleen McDeavitt and Jay Cohn of the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine (SEGM), both of whom contributed to the HHS-commissioned systematic review of medically transitioning minors. They wrote in direct response to a February 23 paper in the same journal, published by the Amsterdam University Medical Center's Center of Expertise on Gender Dysphoria. This institution created the Dutch Protocol, which claimed its research proved the blocker-hormone-and-surgery regimen a success.

McDeavitt and Cohn destroyed that claim.

The foundational mental health studies tracked only the first 70 patients and excluded participants along the way: those needing extended psychological evaluation, those who stopped treatment, those who developed serious health conditions, and one who died. None of the studies used randomized controlled trials. Researchers switched measurement scales between time points in the post-surgery study, undermining claims about improved body image and resolved gender dysphoria.

In other words, they were cherry-picking data and moving goalposts to achieve the result they wanted.

Prior reviewers had missed the switch, meaning they likely "underestimated the methodological problems." Other documented flaws included the lack of long-term follow-up on outcomes such as cardiovascular disease, the absence of suitable comparison groups, and failure to adjust for confounding variables.

"Improvements were not seen in all mental health outcome measures, and in those that did improve, the improvements were small and of unclear clinical significance," McDeavitt and Cohn wrote. The center's authors had claimed the opposite.

Manhattan Institute senior fellow Leor Sapir, another contributor to the HHS systematic review, described the paper as one that "chronicles failure of Dutch clinicians to respond scientifically and appropriately to problems of evidence from their own clinic" and "documents how the Dutch (and others) responded by shifting the rationales for treatment."

Dutch Member of Parliament Diederik van Dijk submitted 17 written questions to Health, Welfare and Sport Minister Sophie Hermans in response to the journal paper, asking whether she agrees that the "methodological basis" for giving children puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones is "highly questionable," and why the Netherlands has not followed Finland, Sweden, and the UK in pulling back such treatments for minors.

Thirty years of studies built on excluded patients and switched measurement scales. Make no mistake about it, every pillar of the case for medically transitioning children has cracks, and the people who built that case knew it. The question is whether anyone in medicine will ever be held accountable for what they did to kids in the name of science that was never there.

https://pjmedia.com/matt-margolis/2026/06/07/the-case-for-transing-kids-is-built-on-lies-n4953687?utm_source=pjmediavip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl_pm

Tuesday, June 9, 2026

Is the California Vote Counting Clusterfark Due to Fraud or Something Worse?

Is the California Vote Counting Clusterfark Due to Fraud or Something Worse?

Rick Moran

AP Photo/Elaine Thompson

The California Post relates a joke told on social media about Donald Trump's Reflecting Pool. Ask a Democrat to fix it, and they're likely to respond, “We need consultants, historians, DEI aquatic equity advisors, a 9-month environmental impact meditation, and an interpretive plaque about water as contested space.”

Trump's response: “Is the pool f**ked up? Call some pool guys.”

California treats its vote-counting procedures in a similar fashion. No state is slower in counting ballots. In 2024, it took the state until Nov. 8, three days after the election, to reach 70% of the votes tabulated. "Across all 50 states, the average share of the vote counted by that date was more than 95 percent, putting California squarely in last place," reports Nate Silver. California didn't hit 95% of the vote counted until ten days after the election.

Since California is a one-party state, the networks and wire services call most races fairly early on election night. But close races are a different story. Two House races took weeks to call in 2024, and the race for the 13th district took a month.

California politicians don't seem overly concerned. Secretary of State Shirley Weber claims, “I know the value of being fast for some folks,” CalMatters reports. “For me, accuracy is far more important.”

Democrats say that California's slow-walking the counting of ballots shows how much they care about democracy. How touching. Meanwhile, confidence in the accuracy of the state's vote count undermines the integrity of the vote. When every other state in the union can count 90% of its votes in a couple of days and call almost every race on election night or shortly after, voters in California have a right to ask, What the heck is going on?

In fact, it's a simple explanation: mail-in ballots.

Silver Bulletin:

To be fair, there are real reasons why you’d expect California’s count to take longer than other states. One explanation you’ll hear often is that the state is massive. With nearly 40 million residents, California would rank as the 4th largest economy in the world if it were treated as a country. Los Angeles County alone has a larger population than 40 states. California also sends a mail ballot to every registered voter and most voters — about 80 percent in 2024 — do choose to vote by mail. Those ballots take more time to tabulate, in part because election workers need to verify that the signature on each mail ballot matches the signature on file for that voter.

Other states have massive numbers of mail ballots. Florida counts millions of mail ballots every election. The difference between Florida and California's mail-in voting is that Florida requires the ballot to be in the Supervisor of Elections' office by 7:00 p.m. on election day.

California? Not exactly.

And California is quite permissive about when those mail ballots need to arrive. As long as the ballot is postmarked by Election Day, it can arrive up to one week later and still be counted. That means election offices will be getting new primary ballots to count through next Tuesday. Those late ballots don’t just slow down the count; they can also produce strange-looking results with blue or red skews. In this primary, Democrats on average returned their ballots later than Republicans, so the first-counted results from Election Day and early mail ballots were significantly redder than the eventual final result will be.

There is a belief that the integrity of the electoral process is compromised. The suspicion is there and will not go away. The fact that California Democrats don't give a damn about the snail's pace of counting and the appearance of impropriety makes them even more suspect.

It doesn't matter if actual cases of fraud are rare. Polls consistently show that a significant majority of Republicans believe widespread voter fraud occurs, and can impact election outcomes. Concerns among this group frequently focus on mail-in ballots, illegal non-citizen voting, and a lack of strict voter ID laws.

On the other hand, a significant majority of Democrats express high confidence in the accuracy of election results. Most voters in this group believe that fraudulent voting is incredibly rare, and view concerns about widespread fraud as politically motivated.

Perception drives this issue. The perception that Democrats cheat in order to win will not go away, and California Democrats express no concern whatsoever that 40% of their voters don't trust them to play fair. It's a consequence of living in a one-party state that the radical leftists running California into the ground can ignore the opposition.

Mail-in ballots are a state issue. Until California is forced to reform its ridiculously lenient mail-in ballot rules, the integrity of the vote will be called into question.

https://pjmedia.com/rick-moran/2026/06/06/is-the-california-vote-counting-clusterfark-due-to-fraud-or-something-worse-n4953662?utm_source=pjmediavip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl_pm

FBI Analysts Learn the Anti-Catholic Memo Crew Can’t Hide Behind ‘Just Following Orders’

FBI Analysts Learn the Anti-Catholic Memo Crew Can’t Hide Behind ‘Just Following Orders’

David Manney

*Nheyob, CC BY-SA 4.0 via Wikimedia Commons*

FBI Director Kash Patel fired five FBI employees tied to the 2023 Richmond memo that treated “radical traditionalist Catholics” as a possible pipeline to violent extremism.

The fired group included four intelligence analysts and one supervisory analyst. David Laufman, lawyer for the employees, confirmed the termination and called it unjust.

Patel took over an FBI still carrying the smell of a memo that should've died before it ever left Virginia.

The Richmond Field Office product warned about a supposed link between racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists and traditional Catholic belief. The memo leaned on weak sourcing and suggested agents develop sources inside Catholic churches and related groups.

Chris Wray, then FBI director, pulled the document after former FBI special agent Kyle Seraphin made it public. Merrick Garland, then U.S. attorney general, called the memo appalling. From WSLS.

The January 2023 intelligence product produced by analysts in the FBI's Richmond, Virginia, field office emerged as a political flashpoint after it was issued, with Republicans in Congress repeatedly citing it as part of their broader contention that the FBI during the Biden administration was targeting conservatives.
Then-director Chris Wray repeatedly denied that charge and the FBI has said the document was quickly retracted and an internal review was launched. Merrick Garland, the attorney general under President Joe Biden, has said he was “appalled” by the memo.
Earlier Justice Department investigations into the memo challenged the analytical tradecraft but did not find intentional misconduct by the analysts involved.
The firings are part of a broader personnel purge under Patel, a Trump loyalist who over the last year, has pushed out dozens of employees who either contributed to investigations of the president or who were perceived as not in alignment with the administration’s agenda. The Justice Department has engaged in similarly sweeping firings of prosecutors since Trump took office last year.
In February, for instance, the FBI fired a group of counterintelligence agents who participated in the investigation into President Donald Trump over his retention of classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida.

Plenty of Catholics had another word for it: outrageous.

The Justice Department review, which Michael Horowitz, then-inspector general, led, found no malicious intent or improper purpose behind the memo.

Pfft!

Fine; even bad judgment lacks cartoon villain music.

The same review still said the memo failed analytic standards, lacked enough evidence, and created the appearance that the FBI had considered religious beliefs as a basis for investigative activity.

The memo was sloppy, thin, and dangerous enough to scare people who still think the First Amendment means what it says.

The later congressional work went further. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, released a report arguing the FBI's own record showed a broader effort than officials first admitted. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, also pressed the bureau over related records. From the New York Post:

Documents released by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) on Tuesday appear to contradict former FBI Director Christopher Wray’s claim that a controversial 2023 memo targeting “radical traditionalist Catholics” was a one-off and the work of a single bureau field office.
Extent of FBI’s targeting of ‘radical traditionalist Catholics’ greater than Biden officials claimed, GOP senator reveals
The Biden-era FBI chief told House lawmakers in July of 2023 that the memo – which described the purported overlaps between Catholics who oppose abortion rights and would-be terrorists as an opportunity for “threat mitigation” and “source development” – was “a single product by a single field office.”
However, the new FBI files obtained by Grassley show the bureau produced “at least 13 additional documents and five attachments that used anti-Catholic terminology,” as well as a second memo updating the FBI’s Richmond Field Office’s case against “radical” Catholics.

When congressional investigators have to drag basic answers out of a federal law enforcement agency, confidence doesn't merely fade: It gets mugged in an alley and told to stop asking questions.

The defense now sounds painfully familiar. The fired analysts say, through counsel and allies, that they were following instructions and working under supervisors. That may explain how the memo moved through the building, but it doesn't excuse the result.

“Just following orders” has a miserable history, because it tries to turn conscience into paperwork. Americans don't give federal employees badges, paychecks, and access to intelligence systems so they can shrug when constitutional lines get crossed.

Catholics who attend the Latin Mass, oppose abortion, or hold older church views don't become federal concerns because an analyst found activist language and stapled it to intelligence jargon.

Real threats deserve real attention. Law enforcement can investigate violence, plots, weapons, threats, and criminal networks. Prayer books, Mass preference, and orthodox beliefs aren't probable cause.

Once the bureau starts confusing unpopular faith with danger, the problem no longer sits in a single field office.

Patel's firings send a message every FBI employee should understand. Religious liberty doesn't sit below office politics. Supervisors don't get to launder bad analysis through a chain of command and call the final product “just work.”

The anti-Catholic crew helped build a document that painted faithful Americans with suspicion and then watched the bureau spend years explaining why everyone should stop noticing.

Accounting arrived late, but late beats never.

The FBI needs Americans to believe its agents chase criminals, not churchgoers. Patel just gave the bureau a chance to prove it, and the lesson should be simple enough for Washington to grasp, though Washington often makes simple things expensive and ugly.

If an order points to the government toward religious Americans who haven't broken the law, the answers shouldn't be a memo.

The answer should be NO.

https://pjmedia.com/david-manney/2026/06/06/fbi-analysts-learn-the-anti-catholic-memo-crew-cant-hide-behind-just-following-orders-n4953656?utm_source=pjmediavip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl_pm

Hypocrites At 10 Downing Street Are Ticked That JD Vance Weighed In On Death Of Henry Nowak

Hypocrites At 10 Downing Street Are Ticked That JD Vance Weighed In On Death Of Henry Nowak

by Nina Bookout in Cultural Issues, Headlines, politics 4 Comments

How DARE YOU??!! That’s the reaction from 10 Downing Street, pansy ass Keir Starmer, and British elites after JD Vance weighed in on Henry Nowak’s death.

Henry Nowak was a young man walking home after a night at the pub. He filmed Vickram Digwa who was walking the streets brandishing his ceremonial knife. Digwa then stabbed him FIVE TIMES.

What happened after that is even worse. The police BELIEVED Digwa’s cries of racism, told Henry Nowak that he wasn’t stabbed nor bleeding.

And then Henry, laying on the street handcuffed, died.

This happened months ago and is only now becoming international news over the last week. What is even worse is that Digwa’s behavior towards Nowak was even more heinous than we thought.

The Daily Mail has now published details from sentencing that almost no one has reported.
As Henry Nowak — bleeding from five stab wounds — tried to climb a commercial rubbish bin and over a fence to escape, Vickrum Digwa filmed him.
And taunted him.
“You’re not going to get away with this big man.”
Henry landed on top of a parked car on the other side of the fence. Digwa walked round and took close-up photos of him lying on the ground.
A home security camera then captured what may be the most chilling exchange in this entire case.
Henry: “I am dying.”
Digwa: “You’re not dying bro.”
Ten minutes later, Henry said: “You stabbed me.”
Digwa replied: “No, I didn’t.”
In the ten minutes that followed the stabbing, Vickrum Digwa did not call an ambulance. He filmed Henry for a full five minutes instead.
That clip was deemed too disturbing to be played in court.

Read that again. Henry lay bleeding on the street for a full ten minutes. Digwa filmed him for at least five of those minutes. Yet what did the police officers do once they arrived? Dismissed Nowak and coddled Digwa. Even more heinous is that the judge KEPT that video from the jury so as not to cause any trauma for them. AYFKM???

No wonder the British have had enough and are protesting the police and British government! Meanwhile the police and government are insisting that Henry’s family doesn’t want this politicized. Oh? Oh really?

I absolutely cannot fathom how the family is doing. Especially given the fact that the police had TIME to call for assistance to help Henry… and they did NOT.

Instead, they are all circling the wagons and getting ticked off at Nigel Farage for speaking publicly against their police procedures and how the suicidal empathy towards racism has led to this.

Yes, Nigel is the bad guy for calling the police out for standing by while a young man died from multiple stab wounds because the perp cried racist! Henry Nowak told the police NINE times that he couldn’t breathe, and told them four additional times that he’d been stabbed. He was essentially laughed at and ignored.

And now, 10 Downing Street is bloody mad because JD Vance has weighed in.

Henry Nowak died the same way a civilization dies: abandoned, handcuffed by authorities who neither trusted nor cared for him, and accused of hate crimes he did not commit. His murder is as tragic as it is enraging. He should still be alive today, and he would be if the last few generations of European elites had stood their ground against the politics of self-hatred and the mass invasion of migrants, many of whom despise the West and the people who love it.
Henry was far from the first to so needlessly lose his life, and I fear he won’t be the last. Each time a life like his is lost, the proper response—the only response—is righteous anger. One of the most important things the Trump administration has proven to the world is that stopping the flow of mass migration and defending national sovereignty is a matter of political will and leadership. Anything else is an excuse.
It is because we love the West that we want to preserve it. We love our civilization. We love our country. We love our children. And nobody—nobody—should ever die the way that Henry Nowak died. May God comfort those who loved him, and may God rest his soul.

Instead of engaging in some reflection as to how they let things get THIS BAD in Britain, Keir Starmer and the rest at 10 Downing Street are now throwing tantrums over Vance’s remarks. How DARE the U.S. weigh in and interfere with British business??

The hypocrisy of Starmer is stark when you look at what he and the rest of the British government were doing in 2020!

Starmer can take a knee and natter on about George Floyd without any push back. But a statement from JD Vance concerning Henry Nowak, who was not a fentanyl riddled criminal, is beyond the pale.

Henry Nowak shouldn’t have died. But today, in Britain, the policy is … bend over backwards and twist oneself into a pretzel to avoid being racist towards anyone who is not white.

10 Downing Street can take their little tantrum and shove it.

https://victorygirlsblog.com/hypocrites-at-10-downing-street-are-ticked-that-jd-vance-weighed-in-on-death-of-henry-nowak/

Monday, June 8, 2026

And the Inevitable Division on the Left Begins With Scott Wiener's Primary Success

And the Inevitable Division on the Left Begins With Scott Wiener's Primary Success

By Brandon Morse

Break out the popcorn, because the Democrat Party is going to get a whole lot more interesting in the coming months.

As you know, the left is a big fan of using groups that are currently in vogue to advance their politics, and nothing has been more "in" than supporting the theocratic, wildly despotic, and tower-collapsing death cult that is Islam. Funny how "never forget" became "forget and embrace" the moment it became politically viable to do so, but I think we're all pretty aware of how the Democrat Party operates by now.

The problem is that for decades, the left was going all-in on the LGBTQ+ agenda to the point where they were forcing it on children in broad daylight. As you're likely very aware, Islam and homosexuality aren't particularly friendly when both are being honest. The LGBTQ+ community isn't good with the idea of homosexuality and transgenderism being banned by law, and Islam likes to throw gay people off of roofs to see if they can fly.

They've had no success in that regard yet.

You won't find many public figures admitting this — in America, at least — on either side. They actively avoid talking about it because, at this time, both sides are incredibly useful to each other.

But then there are moments where the facade cracks and the truth leaks through. Of course, one of those moments recently arrived thanks to the left communist, pro-terrorist darling, Hasan Piker.

It began when State Senator Scott Wiener finished in the top two in California's Tuesday primary race, advancing along with Supervisor Connie Chan, leaving Saikat Chakrabarti in third place and out of the running in November's general election.

Chakrabarti is a tech millionaire and a radical leftist in the same vein as Piker. Wiener, as you may know, is one of the worst people in the world, and someone who has an odd interest in transgender children and lowering the age of consent.

Wiener (or Chan, though Wiener currently holds the lead) will replace Nancy Pelosi, which gives you an indication that no matter how far California falls, it can always fall further.

Read: With Scott Wiener in the Lead, Nancy Pelosi's Long Held Seat Will See a Change, but Not for the Good

But then something very interesting happened. Piker, in one of his classic crashouts, at first blamed Chakrabarti's loss on reliance on cars and a lack of public transportation, which is a ridiculous thing to say since San Francisco's public transportation is actually pretty extensive.

It was then that Piker shifted gears, and the truth came out.

“It’s just f**ing rich liberals who just want homo-fascism in the country, that’s it. They want gay fascism. They want gay techno-fascism,” said Piker.

What a fascinating thing to say.

If you've ever wondered how the pro-Islam communists in our nation truly view the LGBTQ+ mafia inside the Democrat Party, then there it is. They see it as an enemy that they can't attack... yet.

Piker's inability to control himself whenever he becomes frustrated or angry revealed the truth. They are opposed on a deeper level.

The thing is, this alliance cannot last. One or the other will have to win, and the greater Democrat Party will have to choose who they go with. I sincerely don't know which it will be at this point. According to the Center for Immigration Studies, immigrants from Muslim-majority nations have increased rapidly:

In FY 2000, the United States granted lawful permanent residence (LPR status) to 102,365 aliens born in 44 Muslim-majority countries. By FY 2023, the number had increased to 185,730, representing an 81 percent increase.

As this population grows, the Democrat Party may find itself beholden to the Islamic community more and more for votes and power, and as that continues to happen, I imagine the LGBTQ+-loyal parts of the Democrat Party will be pushed out. If there's a real halt to the immigration of Muslim peoples, then the Democrat Party might be forced to go back to the rainbow flag people.

Again, it always boils down to whoever is more useful. The only principle the Democrats have is ultimately "by any means necessary," which means using whoever and whatever they can to attain and keep power.

https://redstate.com/brandon_morse/2026/06/05/and-the-inevitable-division-on-the-left-begins-with-scott-wieners-primary-success-n2203073?utm_source=rsmorningbriefingvip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl