JD Vance is right — don't trust the left's 'experts'
Boundless trust has been placed in the hands of people who have leaned into their biases, ignored rigorous study and scientific inquiry and led trusting Americans straight off cliffs of financial, medical and social ruin.
But in recent years, we've seen again and again that the 'experts' in everything from climate change to COVID are not as adept as they make themselves out to be — and on Wednesday, the Supreme Court expressly rejected expert claims in a landmark case.
Advertisement
In a 6-3 ruling, the court found that Tennessee has the right to ban the barbaric practice of child sex changes, as can 26 other states that have passed similarly sensible restrictions.
Justice Clarence Thomas, in a concurrence to Chief Justice John Roberts' majority opinion, called out the attorneys who wanted the court to 'defer to the so-called expert consensus' regarding these inhumane procedures.
Advertisement
'There are particularly good reasons to question the expert class here,' Thomas wrote.
'Leading voices in this area have relied on questionable evidence, and have allowed ideology to influence their medical guidance.'
Indeed, experts in mental health, medical science and LGBTQ advocacy, led by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, peddled non-science-backed lies that medical sex changes for children are both reversible and life-saving, neither of which has turned out to be true.
'This case,' Thomas noted, 'serves as useful reminder that the American people and their representatives are entitled to disagree with those who hold themselves out as experts.'
Advertisement
Yet the left is refusing to accept that their experts can be argued with.
Vice President JD Vance proved that when he launched a Bluesky account to have a 'common sense' conversation on the high court's ruling — only to be first banned, then shouted at by leftists who couldn't deal with the notion of respectful dissent.
'Hello Bluesky,' the veep posted, 'I found Justice Thomas' concurrence on medical care for transgender youth quite illuminating.'
'He argues that many of our so-called 'experts' have used bad arguments and substandard science to push experimental therapies on our youth,' Vance continued. 'Many of those scientists are receiving substantial resources from big pharma to push these medicines on kids . . . What do you think?'
Advertisement
'I think you're an a–hole, and I think you don't actually give a f–k what actual scientists say about actual research,' responded one unhinged pro-butchery Bluesky user.
'I think you're a disingenuous bigot and I think you lack basic human empathy and anything resembling a soul.'
'There's certainly more scientific evidence to support transgender care than supports your belief in sky fairies,' another responded.
The 'experts' themselves, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, got their panties in a bunch over the court's ruling — which simply upheld the right of states to determine if sex-change drugs and surgeries should be legal for minors within their borders.
'The Supreme Court's decision today does not change the science,' the AAP railed. 'Gender-affirming care remains evidence-based, medically necessary care that improves the health and well-being of transgender youth.'
The group refused to back down from its position that permanently preventing children from growing up healthy and whole is the right thing to do.
And it didn't admit that these kids are doomed to become lifelong medical patients, or that boys given puberty blockers and hormones can never experience normal sexual function, or that the denial of sex-change procedures does not in fact lead to suicide.
These are all facts that attorney Chase Strangio, who argued the case for the American Civil Liberties Union, was forced to admit before the court.
Advertisement
'This is a heartbreaking ruling, making it more difficult for transgender youth to escape the danger and trauma of being denied their ability to live and thrive,' wept Lambda Legal.
The ACLU, which brings endless cases to defend such offenses as men in women's prisons and males in women's sports, slammed the ruling for telling 'transgender youth and their families that they cannot access healthcare that is vitally important for a successful life.'
Talk about cope.
Advertisement
Thomas and Vance are right: Too much power and trust has been given to people who claim to have expertise, but are really just making things up as they go along.
The left refuses to realize its own folly, which has cost the health of thousands of American children in service to lies.
With 'experts' like theirs, we're all better off relying on people who lean into common sense and decency.
Libby Emmons is the editor-in-chief at the Post Millennial.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
20 minutes ago
- The Hill
Gabbard slashing intelligence office workforce, cutting budget by more than $700 million
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Office of the Director of National Intelligence will dramatically reduce its workforce and cut its budget by more than $700 million annually, the Trump administration announced Wednesday. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard said in a statement, 'Over the last 20 years, ODNI has become bloated and inefficient, and the intelligence community is rife with abuse of power, unauthorized leaks of classified intelligence, and politicized weaponization of intelligence.' She said the intelligence community 'must make serious changes to fulfill its responsibility to the American people and the U.S. Constitution by focusing on our core mission: find the truth and provide objective, unbiased, timely intelligence to the President and policymakers.' The reorganization is part of a broader administration effort to rethink its evaluation of foreign threats to American elections, a topic that has become politically loaded given President Donald Trump's long-running resistance to the intelligence community's assessment that Russia interfered on his behalf in the 2016 election. In February, for instance, Attorney General Pam Bondi disbanded an FBI task force focused on investigating foreign influence operations, including those that target U.S. elections. The Trump administration also has made sweeping cuts at the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, which oversees the nation's critical infrastructure, including election systems. Gabbard's efforts to downsize the agency she leads is in keeping with the cost-cutting mandate the administration has employed since its earliest days, when Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency oversaw mass layoffs of the federal workforce. It's the latest headline-making move by a key official who just a few months ago had seemed out of favor with Trump over her analysis of Iran's nuclear capabilities but who in recent weeks has emerged as a key loyalist. She's released a series of documents meant to call into question the legitimacy of the intelligence community's findings on Russian election interference in 2016, and this week, at Trump's direction, revoked the security clearances of 37 current and former government officials. The ODNI in the past has joined forces with other federal agencies to debunk and alert the public to foreign disinformation intended to influence U.S. voters. For example, it was involved in an effort to raise awareness about a Russian video that falsely depicted mail-in ballots being destroyed in Pennsylvania that circulated widely on social media in the weeks before the 2024 presidential election. Notably, Gabbard said she would be refocusing the priorities of the Foreign Malign Influence Center, which her office says on its website is 'focused on mitigating threats to democracy and U.S. national interests from foreign malign influence.' It wasn't clear from Gabbard's release or fact sheet exactly what the changes would entail, but Gabbard noted its 'hyper-focus' on work tied to elections and said the center was 'used by the previous administration to justify the suppression of free speech and to censor political opposition.' The Biden administration created the Foreign Malign Influence Center in 2022, responding to what the U.S. intelligence community had assessed as attempts by Russia and other adversaries to interfere with American elections. Its role, ODNI said when it announced the center's creation, was to coordinate and integrate intelligence pertaining to malign influence. In a briefing given to reporters in 2024, ODNI officials said they only notified candidates, political organizations and local election offices of disinformation operations when they could be attributed to foreign sources. They said they worked to avoid any appearance of policing Americans' speech. Sen. Tom Cotton, the Republican chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, hailed the decision to broadly revamp ODNI, saying it would make it a 'stronger and more effective national security tool for President Trump.'
Miami Herald
20 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Can you prove to Trump you're not anti-American? An (absurd) immigration checklist
The Trump administration's announcement Wednesday that immigrants applying for U.S. citizenship and other benefits will be screened to determine whether they have displayed anti-American ideas or behavior is problematic to say the least. Who gets to decide what exactly is anti-American? And that got us thinking. If U.S. Customs and Border Patrol agents are the ones deciding whether you stay or go, what will they be considering? Is the applicant's social media free of rainbows? Come on in. Do they have preferred pronouns? The exit is that way. What about the person's car — is it (more or less) American made? A positive sign. Yes, this is a serious matter. But measuring anti-American-ness? That's a joke. U.S. immigration officers have always used their discretion to award citizenship and other benefits to people born outside the country. It's unclear what will actually change under the updated immigration policy manual, though 'Anti-American activity will be an overwhelmingly negative factor in any discretionary analysis,' U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services wrote in a Tuesday news release. The guidelines target 'anti-American ideologies' but don't describe what they are, which is the problem. That will be in the eyes of the beholder — and the beholder being the Trump administration, we can imagine how that might turn out. Given that the new guidance also includes 'social media vetting,' we encourage officers to print out the following checklist, which we're sure will please the president and his top aide/anti-immigration zealot Stephen Miller: Does this future patriot drive a truck that does no more than 5 mpg of beautiful fossil fuel? Approve. Did the wannabe American show up to the immigration interview in a Prius or electrical vehicle? (Please consult your supervisor regarding the status of Tesla, as the president and Elon Musk may still patch things up.) Deny. Send applicants straight to Alligator Alcatraz if they rode a bike, because this is America, not the future model citizen spotted at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021? Approve. Has this ungrateful person posted anything complaining about the cost of groceries since Jan. 20, 2025 — because 'inflation is down to a perfect, beautiful number,' the president has to constantly remind us? Deny. Does this soon-to-be great American thank the president every day for protecting us from mail ballots, windmills, foreign invaders and paper straws? Approve — immediately. With this list, USCIS officers will be sure to ensure that whoever is allowed in the country has pledged their allegiance not only to America but to a particular ideology that the president has decided is the only one acceptable. Whoever disagrees should not be granted the privilege of American citizenship, does not belong in the Smithsonian museums or in the federal government, especially if they will produce any jobs reports that make Trump's economy look bad. And if you find the above list absurd, it's because it is meant to be. These are, in fact, absurd times.
Newsweek
22 minutes ago
- Newsweek
How Prices for Common Groceries Have Changed Since Trump Took Office
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Since President Donald Trump took office in January, grocery prices at the national level have remained elevated and, in many categories, are rising even further. Federal forecasts and multiple price trackers show continuing inflation for common items such as eggs and beef, and the USDA Economic Research Service projected overall food prices will increase over the remainder of this year and 2026. Why It Matters Food represents a large and visible share of household spending, and high grocery bills influence public perceptions of the economy and the administration's performance. A mid-2025 poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that a majority of Americans reported stress over grocery costs, and retailers have reported shoppers shifting purchases toward cheaper brands and smaller sizes. Roughly 53 percent of respondents said grocery costs were a "major" stressor. Vegetables on display in a grocery store on August 15 in Delray Beach, Florida. Vegetables on display in a grocery store on August 15 in Delray Beach, To Know Trump campaigned on promises of lowering grocery costs, but federal forecasts and private trackers showed only modest easing overall and price gains in several food staples. The USDA Economic Research Service reported that the all-food Consumer Price Index (CPI) rose 0.3 percent from May to June and was 3 percent higher than June 2024. It also projected overall food prices would rise 2.9 percent this year and 2.7 percent in 2026. "Most headlines lean on 'core CPI,' which excludes food and energy," Kevin Thompson, CEO of 9i Capital Group and host of the 9innings podcast, told Newsweek. "That's fine for economists, but for real households, those are the two biggest non-discretionary expenses. So when they say prices are 'stabilizing,' it leaves out the areas where people actually feel it the most." The exact price increases vary by grocery item. NBC News' grocery-price tracker showed eggs, chicken and beef remained higher year-over-year in the most recent update. While eggs were up 64 cents, chicken cost 81 cents more and beef had seen an increase of 67 cents. The USDA projected egg prices to have strong volatility, with a 24.6 percent change forecast for 2025, and beef and veal prices were anticipated to rise substantially, 8.8 percent, this year. "The reality is that inflation is weighted across categories," Thompson said. "If your personal diet leans heavy on protein, beef, chicken, coffee, or soda, you've likely felt double-digit increases while the official number is closer to 3 percent. Everyone's 'personal inflation' is different, and for many it feels far higher than the reported average." Trump previously warned of short-term effects from trade policy, saying, "We may have, short term, a little pain." What People Are Saying Trump said during his campaign: "When I win, I will immediately bring prices down, starting on Day One." Thompson also told Newsweek: "Tariffs during Trump's presidency did raise costs on imported goods, and new tariffs under the current administration are continuing that trend. Immigration policy does have some effect on labor costs in agriculture and food processing, but the bigger driver of food prices has been weather, disease, and global supply chain issues not immigration directly." Alex Beene, financial literacy instructor for the University of Tennessee at Martin, told Newsweek: "All of the inflationary pressures that were in place prior to 2025 have largely remained the same, with some everyday items actually going higher in price, if only incrementally so. The prevailing problem is the pricing structure on many consumer goods is formed through a domino effect which includes costs of production, shipping, stocking, and everything in between. "In order for prices to go lower, not only do you have to have falling demand, but also the series of transactions that make it ready to buy have to trend lower in order for businesses to continue to generate a profit. Until this happens, we're going to continue to see higher costs." What Happens Next The USDA ERS forecasts and monthly CPI releases from the Bureau of Labor Statistics will remain primary sources to measure whether grocery prices fall back, stabilize or resume faster growth in coming months. Since Trump's tariffs have gone into effect, the higher costs will likely be passed down to the consumer, Thompson said: "Businesses may absorb some costs in the short term, but over time those costs show up in the checkout line. The current tariff environment has raised the baseline market price, which means U.S. producers can charge more too, capturing extra margins. "Going forward, unless there's a consistent and predictable tariff policy, shoppers should expect continued price volatility. Once markets adjust to a clear set of rules, prices may stabilize, but likely at a higher level than before."
