by Reid Fitzsimons

I’m a tall white guy, but I don’t have any sense of “tall pride” or “male pride” or “white pride.” I’m not ashamed to be tall or male or white because it’s just the way it is. The thing about pride is that, by definition, it is something related to accomplishment. For example, one might feel a neighborly pride because they learned the skills that allow them to help the widow next door with a plumbing problem, or do-gooder pride because they set up a fun and wholesome project for poor kids in an impoverished country. Feeling pride merely for existing is empty and meaningless, like getting an award for simply showing up and meeting minimal expectations. Really, how much pride can a male athlete, who doesn’t do well competing against fellow males, feel by declaring he’s a female and beating girls? Hopefully none.

The proud winner is Rhys McKinnon, who later changed his name to Rachael McKinnon, and again to Veronica Ivy. Apparently winning and attention is everything for this guy, even if he had to pretend to be a girl to ride to victory.

1 Comment

Sometimes there is little diversity among diversity-equity-inclusion activists

Note: The previous posting discussed the Salvation Army jumping on the “woke” train, so to speak. I sent the link to the heads of the Salvation Army administrative office closest to us, that being in Scranton, PA. I quickly received a friendly and brief reply (below at bottom) from Major Bob Schmig (they use military ranks in the Salvation Army hierarchy. Maj. Schmig offered no comment regarding the topic at hand, and I composed and sent him a follow-up e-mail/letter, which is the main text of this posting. Note that the term Pharisees is used, which defies simple definition but were basically a group of learned Jews around the time of Jesus that formed somewhat of a social/political class and emphasized adherence to the Laws of Moses and oral tradition. They tended to be privileged and numbered perhaps in the 1,000s. They received the animosity of Jesus because he perceived then as hypocrites in the “do as I say, not as I do” realm. In today’s terms, they might be referred in the political world as the Establishment, or more invectively, “the Swamp.”

Greetings Major Schmig:

Thank you for your prompt reply to my e-mail from several days ago, and I appreciate your taking the time to read my article, “The Salvation Army: Let’s Talk About Elitism.” You might have noted I mentioned a time as a volunteer medical director at a remote clinic in Kenya- this was in the early 2000’s and at the peak of the African AIDS crisis. It was a rare day in which a tragedy did not present itself, and I want to describe one so that you might better understand my perspective.

One horrible day we received word that 3 or 4 children were ill because they had eaten rotten fish that had been laced with insecticide and laid about in hopes of poisoning rabid dogs. I dispatched a vehicle but by the time it arrived all but one of the children had died. The one girl that returned, perhaps 7-years-old, was terrified, having witnessed truly miserable deaths of her younger siblings, and we couldn’t determine if she too had consumed the poisoned rotten fish. Nevertheless, though there was no protocol on how to treat such a thing, I empirically induced vomiting (if I recall) and had her drink slurry of charcoal through her tears and sobbing. Ultimately I assumed she hadn’t consumed the insecticide because I don’t think she would have survived regardless of treatment, and thankfully she was okay. Maybe you’ve witnessed and experienced similar events, but having seen so many children die during my time there, I developed a particular revulsion to children dying, perhaps especially black kids.

by Reid Fitzsimons

An interesting thing happened to the venerable and widely respected Salvation Army (SA): they were caught, so to speak, in the ether of political “wokeness,” and a lot of disappointment followed. Specifically, they posted on their website a “guide” entitled “Let’s Talk About Racism,” sometime in the Spring of 2021. This was outed, so to speak, by non-traditional media, specifically a group called Color Us United, in October 2021; the resulting publicity led the SA to delete the document in November. As part of their defense, they referred to it as a “study guide…for internal use,” and issued a rather acerbic and juvenile preamble on Nov. 25th: “This statement is in response to a politically motivated group that is trying to force The Salvation Army to conform to the group’s ideology of choice.” Here is a link to the full SA statement:

It’s never a good idea to take grandiloquent positions based on snippets from others so, after some difficulty, I did track down the deleted “Let’s Talk About Racism” document, and an associated study guide; it can be found at an internet archiving site called Wayback Machine ( After reviewing the materials I, as a heretofore enthusiastic supporter of the SA, concluded the critics were correct, and that the apologetics issued by the SA were misleading and even self-righteous, and one of the terribly frustrating things about this controversy is that it was entirely unnecessary. So... Let’s Talk About Racism Elitism. 

To be a bit acerbic myself, Let’s Talk About Racism is less a thoughtful and serious paper than one written for extra credit by a sophomore college student in a sociology class (minus the Biblical references), a class where the professor is an ageing hippie who yearns to be pertinent while dreaming of the halcyon days from the 60’s of “free love,” i.e. easy sex without responsibility or consequence, days long before “#MeToo.” It is rife with the vocabulary of the progressive word salad, and indeed begins with a specious argument, presented as established fact, that “Race is a social construct.” For anyone unfamiliar with the phrase “social construct,” it a means to diminish or deny what until now has been generally accepted, and is often used in a pejorative, disdainful manner; it is most commonly seen in the world of “transgender” polemics: gender is merely a social construct, and to believe there is a factual or biologic basis for male and female means you are an ignorant moron.

Chuck Schumer gesturing
Benito Mussolini gesturing

by Carole Milljour

Note: The following is a letter sent by a friend (and supporter of this website), Carole Milljour, to the rather duplicitous and moral reprobate Chuck Schumer, Senator from NY. She had originally signed on to a group letter opposing the use of Federal government money to pay for abortions (i.e. repeal the long-standing Hyde amendment), and in this letter she is responding to his reply, which, of course, is both despicable and predictable (his response is below Carole’s letter).

There are many parallels between slavery and abortion, the most obvious being there are those who create a culture which allows for sub-humans, and this entitles them to use their Untermensch as chattel: if it’s not human you can treat it like an inanimate machine, and if it proves to be troublesome, simply sell it or kill it. Curiously, there were many slave owners and supporters of slavery who did in fact have moral qualms about the horror they propagated, but were essentially addicts to the convenience and power that apparently comes with owning people. This raises the great moral question- which is more depraved, to know it is evil ad do it anyway, or to be so reprehensibly inhumane as to not even recognize evil. Chuck Schumer is somewhat atypical because he fits in both of these categories.

Dear Honorable Charles Schumer:  

It may be a woman's body, but it is not her life she is sacrificing, but a child of God.  Our government should not be funding abortion services or services in which body parts of an unborn baby are sold for profit.  As a taxpayer, and voting resident of NY, I do not like the attitude of anyone who thinks they have any power at all to vote for taking a human life, especially when that individual is in office to work for the citizens of this state.  It may be your opinion, but not the opinion of everyone you were chosen to represent. 

I am shocked and angry that you can have such little concern for an unborn child with the feeble excuse that it is okay to terminate it under the guise of “it's a woman's right since it is her body.” No one should have that right.  That unborn child suffers when it is torn apart in the womb.  Abortion is a moneymaker and people who are for it don't care one way or the other for the child or the mother.  It's a disgrace.  A woman has the right to use the various types of birth control, because that is her body; but the body she plans to remove from her womb is not hers: that child is a separate entity unto it's own.  I was my mother's child, not my mother!  It may have been her body, but I was her child!  

by Reid Fitzsimons

I received a call the other night from someone I didn’t recognize who wanted to ask me two quick questions. It ended up he was a campaign worker for a candidate in PA’s 12th congressional district, Lee Griffin, running for the seat currently held by Fred Keller. Once I was oriented to the purpose of the call I asked if his guy was a Democrat, and eventually, after some equivocation, the answer was yes. I explained that I cannot find it in myself to vote for anyone who aligns themselves with the hatred and racism of the Democrats, a party of, by, and for “Black Lives Matter,” which itself is an organization that primarily caters to privileged white and black leftists and manipulates and exploits black Americans for personal and political power and profit- quintessential racism. The caller, who was very polite, said that his guy Griffin wasn’t a racist because he had an inter-racial marriage. The call ended amicably. Admitting to my own embarrassment that I should have known who Lee Griffin was, I decided to take a look at his campaign website,, which to me has the feel of zealous religiosity rather than a political tone.

There was a time when the Democrat party was in fact a political party, and in my lifetime they defined themselves as the party of the workingman, as compared to the Republicans being the party of the wealthy. Whether this was true or not is debatable, but nevertheless the Democrats were a political enterprise, and ran the gamut of union workers, law and order types, and the occasional wacko (like any party), but no one questioned their basic allegiance to the idea and fact of the US: George McGovern was pretty far out there in 1972 but he was a decorated and courageous WW2 bomber pilot.

The apparent head of the United Methodist Church "Imagine No Racism" project, Mark Webb, who holds the title of "Bishop."

A very good and caring friend recently mentioned she had attended a seminar entitled Imagine No Racism, sponsored by the United Methodist Church in the Buffalo, NY area. I checked it out on-line and what I discovered was no surprise. For example, there is a list of desired qualities of prospective “team” members: Do you have a passion for racial justice and equity? Are you open to change and willing to grow in your knowledge and awareness of racial injustice and white privilege? Do you have some knowledge already of racism and/or white privilege? There is a mention that “Racism is a disease that infects the hearts, minds, souls and bodies of individuals, churches and communities. Our Social Principles state, ‘Racism is the combination of the power to dominate by one race over other races and a value system that assumes that the dominant race is innately superior to others.’” All utterly predictable non-sense, of course. Below is an e-mail I sent this person, which was well received by her.

Note the person referred to as “Nelson (name changed)” is a gentleman from Kenya who I first knew when he was a teenager when I was a volunteer medical director of a clinic in his remote village in the early 2000s. In Dec. 2018 my wife and I were able to bring him to the US on a non-immigrant visa to attend college; he has subsequently earned a 4.0 GPA!


I’m intrigued by the seminar you mentioned, “Imagine No Racism;” I went to the website for it. I think you know I can be pretty scathing when it comes to religious and societal matters, and this has both! Perhaps you could share the following story at your next session.

You haven’t met him but I think you know who Nelson is. In 2017 I traveled with him and my son throughout very (VERY) remote eastern Uganda. When Nelson returned to Kenya he entered what is called the Land of the Luos (any major tribal area may be referred to as the “Land of…”). Nelson is in fact a Luo but his skin, while a very dark brown, is not the actual black that is typical of the Luos. This was at the time of some tribal conflict, so once he was back in Kenya he kept his mouth shut (Nelson likes adventure and new experiences!) and heard some guys talking about what they should do to him. They assumed he was a Kikuyu or other rival tribe and even considered killing him. At this point he spoke up, in his native Luo language, and said he was as Luo as they were, with an implication they should have been ashamed of themselves, and he continued his travels unmolested. Is that racism- injuring and even killing people not because they are black, but because they are not as black as some others?

by Reid Fitzsimons

In 2015, when the Supreme Court issued its Obergefell v. Hodges decision legalizing same-sex marriage, Barack Obama ordered the White House be bathed in rainbow colors. This was an immature and inappropriate thing to do considering 10 of millions of Americans opposed the decision, but it was Obama doing what he did so well: divisive in your face activism.  Perfectly compassionate religious people opposed the decision based upon the concept of sin, and otherwise perfectly typical people might have opposed it simply because they viewed the decision as legitimizing what was unnatural or perhaps opening the door to further erosion of traditional mores.  Nevertheless, no reasonable person, no matter how upset, argued that sex between two men or two women approached the level of evil.

Evil has been with us as long as we’ve been in existence.  Perhaps a few groups or cultures have not been perpetrators of evil, but it’s been pretty universal to be on both the receiving and the committing sides, depending on who was on top or at the bottom at the time.  One aspect of evil that has been relatively uncommon has been the overt celebration of one’s atrocities.  Perhaps there were public relations considerations, perhaps strategic, and even maybe some residual sense of right and wrong, but for the most part evil people and entities haven’t been inclined to trumpet their reprehensible accomplishments.

There are, of course, people and philosophies that discount the existence of evil, claiming some are driven to do bad things based only upon extrinsic factors.  Religious people might argue that evil exists as a consequence of Satan.  Personally, as a God disbeliever, I think some people are innately evil.  Whether this reflects some aberration of genetics, or even some evolutionary imperative I’m not sure, but I’ve been around a bit- worked at a prison, been in the military, lived in other (“third-world”) countries and cultures for a number of years- and I’m fairly certain I’ve met some evil people.  And like that storied serial killer living next door, the neighbors inevitably say, “He seemed normal.”

The New York State government gave us something almost unprecedented the other day- an act of not just unadulterated evil but a perverse celebration of it, ordering the spire of the “Freedom Tower” to be illuminated in pink.  It doesn’t take a great moralist or contemplator of ethics or even run of the mill reprobate to understand that dismembering a child just weeks, or even just hours before his or her birth is blatantly evil.  Nevertheless, majorities in both houses of the NY State legislature voted for this latest “health” bill, and the Governor enthusiastically and pompously signed it into law.  One could imagine a legislator from Queens applauding the law and giddy with pleasure, perhaps not even cognizant of their affirmation, “I am evil, and I’m feeling pretty good about it.”

Sadly and historically evil doesn’t occur in a vacuum, but rather it typically finds adherents or enablers willing to rationalize it.  It also encounters those who recognize evil for what it is and, in theory at least, are charged with opposing it.  Sometimes the people and organizations charged with identifying evil and countering it fail to do so, even willingly, and hence are justly tainted by it.  And speaking of the NY Catholic Church establishment (what Trump supporters might refer to as “the Swamp”), no matter how irresistible the sweet love of their Savior Jesus or their veneration of the Blessed Mother, there is something even greater for which to yearn- being a player, no matter how trivial, in secular politics. 

I am a Bishop and I have a staff and mitre to prove it, and by God I’m allowed to utter platitudes of the sanctity of life.  But the Governor, evil incarnate he may be, is a good Catholic, and I can find all sorts of arcane doctrinal and theological arguments of how he should remain in good standing.  My God, if we really did the right thing and disavowed him as one of us, the Cardinal’s calls might not be forwarded to one of the Governor’s administrative assistants, and we would feel diminished.  Besides, what could be more fun than giggling with the Governor at the annual Al Smith dinner?  Yeah, sure I love the Cross, but I love the idea of being accepted by the woke cultural elite even more.

Not too long ago pink was the color the oppressive patriarchy associated with little girls. In short order, however, pink has become the symbolic color of victory over the helpless and innocent; in New York that is a reason for delirious celebration. 

by Reid Fitzsimons

Note: The below is an (edited) e-mail I sent to a very accomplished young man (early 30s) who is successful in the higher levels of academia but also in the “real” world, including the military. As I’m writing this the “migrant caravan, largely from Honduras, is a hot topic. I think the e-mail is fairly self-explanatory:

I have a semi-serious question about academics and Dr. XXX, EdD. He and I had a happy and meaningful time together without too much emphasis on politics. While I think it’s bad form to discuss politics in general social settings, I realize leftists especially have a difficult time constraining themselves, and I generally accept this. Hence I’m disinclined to respond to references to “that mad man in the White House” or derogatory references to Trump overall. I see a number of similarities between the most obnoxious of Christians and progressive leftists. Have you ever know someone who constantly says “praise the Lord,” or “thank you Jesus (not including XXX when winning at a casino!)?” If I’m attending the XXX Baptist Church it’s to be expected, but outside such a venue it’s impolite and inappropriate, especially if you don’t know the beliefs of the people you are with or know them to not be Christians.

Anyway, can an uneducated ignoramus such as me have a reasonable expectation that a highly credentialed academic possess the ability to view things dispassionately and objectively? Poor Dr. XXX, EdD, in considering Honduras, seems unable to discuss the topic without mentioning the Standard Fruit Company with great angst. I’m not sure what you know about this but it was an absolutely proto-typical scenario of a capitalist international corporation lining the pockets of willing petty dictators in exchange for favors, sometimes to the detriment of the “masses.” I said to him, “It’s been 120 years, you’ve got to get over it!” So the question is, can a PhD/EdD historian look at the record, however distasteful, and not be overwhelmed with anger and emotion. If not, can the scholarship be trusted?

You probably know some 13 years ago he received a $100,000 grant from the US Dept. of Interior to investigate the feasibility of processing coffee in an environmentally friendly manner in Central America. Ultimately nothing came of it and the money was for naught, but it did finance a two-week trip for him to Honduras and Costa Rica. I think this brief experience profoundly affected him, somehow legitimizing his already established leftist inclinations in his own mind. He said something like, “I did go to a non-tourist village, and they were really welcoming,” as this was of great significance. Despite his being a truly decent and caring person, I see such a strange contrast between him, the academic leftist whose outrage at the injustice of Central America (for example) suffices for action, and the uneducated ignoramus (i.e. conservative) that I am who has spent years, quite a bit of personal effort, and 10s of thousands of dollars down there in hopes of bettering the lives of the impoverished. I fear in the elite worlds of academia and wealth, a sense of righteous indignation offers much greater prestige than actually doing something!


by Reid Fitzsimons

"We saw one of these while joining  XXX's dad at his church, Spring Mount Mennonite. I'm sorry to learn that support for this sentiment is low among American evangelical Christians. To neighbors from East and Central Africa I would add: Bila kujali ninyi mnatoka wapi, tunafurahi ninyi ni majirani yetu."


I’m going to make a long commentary in response to the above brief comment you posted on Facebook regarding a sign you saw at a Mennonite church.

Hebrews 1:5 states: For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you”? Or again, “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son”? The (unknown) author of Hebrews is referring here to Jesus, and using quotes from the Jewish Bible to establish that the provenance and authenticity of Christ comes from the Jewish fathers and, hence, offers Scriptural reassurance to Jews who had converted to Christianity. Looking at one source of this quote, that being 2 Samuel 7:13-14, we see:  “He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son.” Again, this alone could reasonably be interpreted as referring to Christ. However, if the full passage is read we find: 12 When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son. When he commits iniquity, I will discipline him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men, 15 but my steadfast love will not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away from before you. 16 And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me.[c] Your throne shall be established forever.’”

To me this is clearly a reference to David/Solomon, not Jesus, and even if an argument is made that this passage is foretelling the coming of the Kingdom of Christ, it allows for the imperfection of Christ (“When he commits iniquity, I will discipline him with the rod of men…”). In other words Jesus could, potentially at least, be a sinner, which is doctrinally anathema to most Christians. So is the author of Hebrews attempting to pull a bait and switch, or did he or she truly believe 2 Samuel 7:13-14 pertained to Jesus? I suspect literacy rates at the time were universally very low and access to Scripture extremely limited, so who could disagree with the author of Hebrews 2,000 years ago?

...continue reading


by Reid Fitzsimons

Robert Casey, Jr is the senior senator from Pennsylvania. He has a name you might know in that his late father was a former governor of PA and one of the last truly Pro-Life Democrats, a belief and position which is now incompatible with being a Democrat. His son the senator, whose qualifications are pretty much limited to the fact he is the son of a revered figure, lamely claims he is Pro-Life but this is fully contradicted by his actions. Why he feels the need for this pretension is not entirely clear. Certainly he’s aware there is an ethnic/Catholic voter demographic that wants to believe his utterances (Casey is one of those Catholics that rejects much of the church doctrine but enjoys the wafer and wine part), but I wonder if some deeper psychology is involved. Perhaps some Daddy issue- “I'd like to be a good boy, but if I do what is right the celebrities and hip media won’t let me be in their cub” kind of thing.

Hypocrisy is an inevitable frustration we encounter in life; it is especially annoying when it originates with our elected elites and when it is effective in terms of re-election, etc. In Sen. Casey’s case, his undying support of Planned Parenthood combined with his faux Pro-Life position makes one almost appreciate Donald Trump’s “drain the swamp” sloganeering. Below is a letter sent to Casey’s senate e-mail address with three possible outcomes: no response (likely), a meaningless form letter response (likely), or a thoughtful reasoned argument (awaiting the cow to jump over the moon).

...continue reading