Use browser back button to exit out of image views. This is a static site (webpage) with no cookies, etc. I am trying out a different page template here. It's basic and I just used a SI LLM tool to create it.

So Jack Cocchiarella is a self-described political strategist, whatever that is. To cut to the chase here the original issue I have with him is that the liberal agenda where the gender affirmation controversy is merely another issue for them, along with the common items, the economy, job growth, crime, ending wars, etc. although the latter two are serious there's connection or association with the transgender experimentation since the doctors and other (adult) people involved are criminals.

What is confusing is the warped idea the Democrats have concerning the medical community in that regard. People are assuming that everyone involved is always so benevolent, not merely in it for thed money, or would be in the business if there wasn't payment. Conservatives will exclaim "but the people involved in the business are chomos" but met with a retort of ridicule and hypocrisy of accusing the Republicans of the same. How is it that people can be so oblivious to the fact that the majority of transgender people will never have a quality of life that is imagined for them. That aspect then is further blame toward society in general. It's all about how people "look", right Jack?

The final part of that last paragraph is key to what the motivation was for me to put this website together. I don't care at this point whether I get dubbed as being a fan of the president overall, my mother voted for him so that's enough for me to defend her honor. (My mother lost her first born son to medical error when he was an infant and I grew up knowing that my parents had already suffered tragedy.) The issue with the "loaded question" (ad hominem at its core) asked of the president about his not traveling; was it "because he was sick" was the second included question that irritated him. It would've irritated me too especially since the liberal commentators have colluded on the point of discussing how the president "looks" which (of course) could be rebutted with the onslaught of information about his health and his orange face along with other facial features of his.

For the record here I do have a problem with the way the president and staff discuss immigrants. My father does the same and it's hurtful to me to the point where I struggle with maintaining a relationship with my dad. (My father was a state delegate for Ben Carson.) The vaccine thing too, and my dad toes the line on that issue as well even though he should have more sense then that.

All this I cover elsewhere, but the tendancy for people to (only initially, sometimes) sympathize with (go along with) a person or entity (group) in power is natural due to people's requirement for non-chaotic world (a.k.a. "Just World") where even injustice makes sense because it's the fault of (whoever). Maybe because of patriarchy, or what I refer to as a "beatnick" posit, that's anti-gov't at its root but white people (liberals) like to assume the role (virtue signaling) thinking it's non-racist. In the process they culturally appropriate the disadvantaged and there were still advancements made for minorities, namely building codes and the like to protect the public. Often it's lack of enforcement of laws, regulations, etc. that's an issue. The gov't will make some case against a business and levy a fine (for example) but the victims involved were only a percentage of people actually affected by other businesses in same industry that were overlooked. The enforcement of law (in the specific case I'm referring to) was to benefit of young adult students (primarily) but there were other similar situations with people of lower-income class who were/are taken advantage of as well.

So then there's Jack Cocchiarella who, much like other liberals, are gleeful in their reports of the president's apparent poor health. He is still our country's president and again, although it can seem like he exploits his stance on gender affirmation by being inhuman in just about every other way and still retain support of Christians, it's important for our country's national security that we don't give in to the sacrificial posit by endorsing self-immolation. The posit has been glorified in many ways throughout history. An example is the industrial era folk tale of Joe Magarac. The reality exists for human beings that we are still frail and are each given one physical body to work with in this world. People who are flippant with their idealogy of some physical transformation to change genders is not grounded in reality. Joe Magarac "his life for the steel industry" while more wealthy people lived on, reaping the rewards while enjoying their lives. It does not reflect Christian values.

I didn't set out to "dig up dirt" on Jack. I honestly figured that was beyond reproach. I wanted to merely challenge him on the lack of moral compass exhibited by him and other liberals on the transgender experimentation issue. The tried and true rebuttal for any claim of inhumanity by liberals is pointing back at conservatives with similar accusations. I'm not insisting all of that is completely groundless but by the liberals' own values they are supposed to be self-aware enough to understand the hypocrisy in that tactic.

While learning a bit more about Jack I discovered that there were sexual misconduct charges against him to the extent of him needing to change colleges.

I also found a video of him commenting on incels (a.k.a. lonely men) where he explained that a man could change his attitude and get laid as a result. If only life were so simple. One of my oldest woman friends (ex-girlfriend) would, to this very day, exclaim her love for me but she was same lady who threw various heavy objects at me during an argument. I have no defense against a woman physically attacking me. I have an older sister who attacked me twice and I knew I couldn't fight back since I'd be the one going to jail. Young men like Jack haven't experienced enough in this world to truly comprehend sociology like they think they do.

The other issue that Mr Cocchiarella was involved in, and praised for by liberal collegues, was his confronting a (wheelchair bound) conservative about the election conspiracy. In the video made by the other commentator, David Pakman, it was even admitted that the question Jack asked was a loaded question or "fallacy of presupposition", or "plurium interrogationum" since there were more than one question asked in the same inquiry. The exact same issue existed in the question asked the president by the Reuters "journalist" when there was an additional "... was it because you are sick?" included which is an ad hominem posit, and very rude by polite society standards. Of course the retort to the latter part of my last statement would be laughter at my expense since I must not understand that the president isn't polite either. Again, the hypocrisy is evident in liberal politics. They bully and ridicule while tout about being inclusive.