About that school shooter…

People wouldn’t hate the mainstream media so much if they simply presented the news in as unbiased a fashion as possible.  Every single school shooting we get the “ban guns” narrative shoved down our throats.  Anyone with a morsel of honesty in their bones knows that guns aren’t the problem.  You know what wasn’t really reported on in the MSM for the newest Colorado shooting?  One of the shooters was trans.  Both were very left-leaning.  Devon posted anti-Trump and anti-Christian posts, and praised Obama.  At least one of them came from a single parent household.  A little more about Maya McKinney.  Sorry, Alec McKinney.

Online postings apparently made by the younger suspect in the Colorado charter school shooting paint a conflicting picture — one of an average teen who likes hanging out with his friends, and another that shows a tortured kid who experimented with drugs, detested his classmates and was struggling to fit in.

Maya McKinney, a 16-year-old who’s undergoing a female-to-male transition and who goes by Alec, and Devon Erickson, 18, are accused of entering STEM School Highland Ranch outside Denver on Tuesday with two handguns that authorities say they used to kill one of their classmates and injure eight others.

And further down:

Another message he retweeted in November pointed to a possible mental health issue with the statement: “depression loves to seal everything I love.”

KoolCid1992 also tweeted about his mom and how she’s handled changes in his behavior.

“*my mom talking to me about how she hates the new alec*,” the tweet begins.

“Mom: I miss my Alec can you find him for me

Me: I miss my dad can you find him for me 🤠 yeeeehaw gotem.”

Finally, on April 29, just over a week before the shooting, he wrote an ominous tweet.

“When you’re putting yourself in life threatening danger 😘,” the suspect wrote, with no further explanation.

Screen Shot 2019-05-10 at 8.43.07 AM.png

But no, it’s the gun’s fault.  Always the guns.

Both of these teens were clearly very troubled.  Here in clown world, where values are inverted and morals are perverted, these shootings become less surprising every day.  The MSM winds these people up with their lies and sensationalism.  All sorts of bad behavior are normalized and praised.  This is what happens in a society devoid of any moral compass.

It has been talked about before, just not in the mainstream media, but the one rather consistent commonality between all of these shooters is that nearly all of them come from a single parent household, notably ones in which the father was absent.

As noted by University of Virginia Professor Brad Wilcox in 2013, “nearly every shooting over the last year in Wikipedia’s ‘list of U.S. school attacks’ involved a young man whose parents divorced or never married in the first place.” Additionally, a study on older male shooters found similar connections to growing up fatherless.

Writing at The Federalist in 2015, Peter Hasson highlighted the fact that of all the shootings on CNN’s “27 Deadliest Mass Shootings In U.S. History” list committed by young males since 2005, only one was raised by his biological father.

The most recent Florida school shooter, too, had no father figure, as his adoptive father died when the suspect was just a boy.

Hasson also distilled the jarring corelation between fatherless homes and general male violence:

Violence? There’s a direct correlation between fatherless children and teen violence. Suicide? Fatherless children are more than twice as likely to commit suicide. Dropping out of school? Seventy-one percent of high school dropouts came from a fatherless background. Drug use? According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “Fatherless children are at a dramatically greater risk of drug and alcohol abuse.” How about guns? Two of the strongest correlations with gun homicides are growing up in a fatherless household and dropping out of school, which itself is directly related to lack of an active or present father.

This clear connection is being lazily and intentionally addressed by the Left — if at all— as more evidence to further squash masculinity, which they’ve deemed “toxic.” (Admitting the importance of the nuclear family and depriving feminists of their “go, girl!” salutes is apparently a bridge too far.)

Mental health issues and broken families are much more likely causes to the shooting than guns.  Why can’t that be honestly discussed?  We all know the reason why, but that’s the question the average American should be asking themselves.  Mainstream news is not to keep people informed, it is to shape their minds.  If people looked at who owned these outlets, and considered for a moment that just maybe these people had their own objectives in mind beyond reporting the news, we might actually get somewhere.

China poised for a big future

Reading stuff like this and it is obvious to see that China will be in a much stronger position in the world pecking order as the American Empire continues to crumble.

It is 14 degrees the morning two dozen boys gather at a Beijing park to be transformed into alpha males. A reluctant winter sun casts silver light between treacherously cold shadows. The wind bites, worsening nerves as the boys — the youngest 7 — prepare to strip to their waists for a run.

One of the watching mothers is worried. She wants her son to grow into a macho male, but it’s so cold. She tells him he can keep his shirt on, or perhaps skip the run through Olympic Forest Park.

This is the kind of “feminine” parenting that coach Tang Haiyan fears can ruin boys. Tang, a former schoolteacher, founded the Real Man Training Club to combat what he and others in China see as a masculinity crisis — part of a backlash against the makeup- and earring-wearing male TV, film and pop idols who have gained immense popularity here.

“If you are promoting these effeminate figures,” Tang said, “it’s a calamity for our country.”

In a nation where men dominate political and business leadership and campaigns for gender equality have gained little traction, the debate over what is “effeminate” has become a popular pastime among older conservative residents, and mostly among men.

Influenced by K-pop idols in Korea, China’s boy bands and celebrities — with their delicate beauty, dyed hair and haute couture wardrobes — have a massive following among women here. But China’s state-run media condemns the young idols, calling them “sissy pants” and “fresh young meat.”

The backlash deepened after a back-to-school TV program featured the boy band F4. Angry parents attacked the Education Ministry’s decision to hold up the cosmetics-wearing young men as role models; state media warned that a “sick” and “decadent” culture threatened the future of the nation. This year, a Chinese videostreaming website started blurring earrings worn by men.

“The gender stereotyping is not just about gender identity itself,” said an author and researcher on Chinese masculinity. “It’s about the reproduction of the nation and how to properly cultivate the next generation.”

It shows you just how far behind we’ve fallen when you read something like this.  Think about the outrage half of our population would have if we even suggested doing something like this.  If you subscribe to the r/K Theory China is definitely going K-selected faster than we are.  Couple that with not having to worry about the effects of diversity and multiculturalism and it could give you an idea of how the balance of power may change over the next 10-20 years, if even that long.

Do children raised by same-sex couples have higher rates of depression?

I do not know.  This post is two-fold.  One is to raise awareness to a potential issue that is an uncomfortable topic that nowadays people find it easier to ignore altogether rather than ask honest questions and have an open dialogue.  The other is to point out that many people will look at this as attacking same-sex couples rather than investigating potential harm to the children themselves.  Here in upside-down world many will immediately take the side of the “minority group” rather than the actual potential victims.  Again, this is not an attack at all on same-sex couples.  What two consenting adults do is none of my business.  But we need to be able to ask difficult questions.  We can still do that in our society, right?  Right…?

This article was published in Depression Research and Treatment in 2016.  Knowing the reproducibility crisis in science there absolutely needs to be more research into this and independent studies to verify the results.  It is interesting, though not necessarily surprising, that previous research that contradicts this study has poor statistical analysis and very small sample sizes which lead to hazy conclusions at best.  I could not find follow-up studies to confirm or deny these findings but if anyone has please post in the comment section.  I will add an update if they are confirmed or denied.  A snippet from the article:

Abstract

The relationship of elevated depression risk recently discovered among adult persons raised by same-sex parents with possible precipitating conditions in childhood has not previously been acknowledged. This study tests whether such inattention is supportable. Logistic regression based risk ratios were estimated from longitudinal measures of mental health outcomes observed in three waves (at ages 15, 22, and 28) of the US National Survey of Adolescent to Adult Health (n = 15,701). At age 28, the adults raised by same-sex parents were at over twice the risk of depression (CES-D: risk ratio 2.6, 95% CI 1.4–4.6) as persons raised by man-woman parents. These findings should be interpreted with caution. Elevated risk was associated with imbalanced parental closeness and parental child abuse in family of origin; depression, suicidality, and anxiety at age 15; and stigma and obesity. More research and policy attention to potentially problematic conditions for children with same-sex parents appears warranted.

1. Background

In research and policy settings, children in unique distress with same-sex parents are not supposed to exist. Most studies have reported “no differences” in well-being, most often using psychometric measures of depression or anxiety, supporting a lapse in policy attention to the potential needs of such children. Uniformly benign findings for this population have recently been challenged, however, by several original research efforts [], the rediscovery of older studies [], and the reanalysis of studies long thought to support “no differences” [].

The sparse and gendered nature of the same-sex parent population largely restricts research in this area to the examination of small samples of lesbian parents. Unfortunately, this difficulty has prompted an almost universal dependence on convenience samples [] recruited, with knowledge of study goals, from internet surveys, “LGBT events, bookstore and newspaper advertisements, word of mouth, networking, and youth groups” []. Reanalyses have confirmed, not surprisingly, the presence in such samples of strong ascertainment bias, social desirability bias, and/or positive reporting bias []. In most studies, lack of statistical significance using simple bivariate tests in such samples is then erroneously interpreted as strong evidence of “no differences” in the population, even when difference in estimates or effect sizes are substantively large and even though the sample is not representative [].

In fact, only four of the several dozen studies alleging “no differences” have examined a representative sample. The largest and most recent of these, Rosenfeld’s analysis of 3,174 same-sex parented children on the US Census, is discussed in Section 5. The other three are related studies based on a single sample, a group of 44 adolescents with lesbian parents captured on over 20,000 population-representative cases of the initial wave of the National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health (“Add Health”) []. Sullins, however, recently found that most (27 of the 44) adolescents in this sample allegedly with same-sex parents were actually living with opposite-sex parents including, for most of them, their biological father as well as their mother. After removing the mixed cases, the remaining sample members fared significantly worse on psychometric measures of anxiety and autonomy than did their adolescent counterparts with opposite-sex parents, albeit comprising only 17 cases []. Other studies employing large representative samples have also found higher depressive symptoms, indicated by the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D []), among younger same-sex parented children [] and adults who report having had a same-sex-related parent at some point during childhood []. The design and methodology of Regnerus’ study were the subject of a brief but vigorous debate [], which turned largely on definitional issues [].

No study has yet explored the connection, if any, between late onset distress and precipitating conditions in children in this population, and no research reporting “no differences” has yet investigated parental child abuse or adult onset difficulties []. The present study aims to amend these gaps in the research. It improves on the sample limitations of prior studies by employing data that are both representative and longitudinal, following the corrected Add Health sample of adolescents with lesbian parents, the most well-regarded small sample used in this field to date, through Wave IV, thirteen years after the initial interview at age 15 (on average). It improves on prior methods by the use of standard psychometric scales, to the extent possible, and the estimation of relative risk by logistic regression models with appropriate survey weighting. As the first study to examine children raised by same-sex parents into early adulthood, this exploratory study aims to contribute new information for understanding of the effects of same-sex parenting through the life-course transition into early adulthood.

The analysis followed a grounded theory approach, first identifying the presence or absence of pertinent differences by family type and then developing and testing grounded hypotheses, drawing both from the observed bivariate characteristics of the data and prior research where applicable. For clarity the research presentation will also follow this order, with the formulation of hypotheses presented following initial bivariate results.

This is how toxic subjects like this are.  The same thing played out when The Bell Curve came out.  Though the evidence was rock solid, the attacks were relentless because nobody wants to address the difficult questions and implications surrounding IQ.  The publisher was quick to put out this “Expression of concern” over the article.  Damage control, as it were.

On behalf of Hindawi Limited, the publisher of Depression Research and Treatment, we would like to express our concern with the article titled “Invisible Victims: Delayed Onset Depression among Adults with Same-Sex Parents” published in Depression Research and Treatment in 2016 [].

The article has been cited to support arguments about same-sex marriage that Hindawi believes to be hateful and wrong. These arguments do not represent the views of Hindawi, our staff, or the editorial board of Depression Research and Treatment. We strongly condemn any attempt to justify hate speech or bigotry through reference to the scholarly record.

In June 2016, several readers raised concerns about this article. At that time, we evaluated the article’s peer review process and brought several concerns to the handling editor’s attention. These included: the study’s small sample of same-sex parents, the lack of discussion of other influences such as family breakup on the wellbeing of the children included in the study, the implied causation in the title “Invisible Victims,” and the potential conflict of interest implied by the author’s position as a Catholic priest.

The handling editor believed the article’s reviewers addressed these concerns, and the author made sufficient revisions to the article to address these flaws. In the editor’s opinion, the limitations of the study did not warrant further correction or retraction. As publisher, Hindawi does not overrule the editorial decisions of our academic editors in such cases.

Nevertheless, Hindawi felt it was important for the criticisms of this study to become part of the scientific record. We invited Dr. Nathaniel Frank, a critic of the article and director of the “What We Know” project (http://whatweknow.law.columbia.edu/) at Columbia Law School, to publish a letter to the editor in Depression Research and Treatment making these concerns visible to the journal’s readers []. That letter is available at https://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/3185067. We also published a subsequent response from Dr. Sullins [].

Whether the long-term outcomes are proven true or false, I have to applaud Dr Sullins for being brave enough to even ask the question.  Again, that is the main thrust of this post.  Yes, it’s a sensitive topic.  Yes, it will ruffle a lot of feathers in the current climate.  But the pursuit of the truth is important.  And if children truly are worse off in same-sex households isn’t it worth investigating that if there is seemingly credible evidence?  I completely agree that additional studies need to be done.  The initial study was funded by a Catholic group.  Which doesn’t necessarily mean it is biased but it opens the door.  It would be great if non-partisan groups did their own studies.  That is how science is supposed to work.  Dr Sullins issued a response to the publisher’s expression of concern which a few snippets are worth posting.  The entire response can be found here.

I appreciate the opportunity to respond to Dr. Frank’s letter [] about my article [] and applaud Hindawi fostering a free and open exchange. Frank’s complaint that I “fudged” the sample to bias the results in ways that are “damning” to gay and lesbian parents is emphatically false. Frank’s claims are based on multiple confusions and errors, mischaracterize the state of knowledge, and use special pleading. To the extent some of his points have merit they tend to undermine not my study but rather others showing benign findings for children with same-sex parents and suggest I have if anything understated the level of harm for such children.

No Harm Studies: 74, or Fewer than 10? Frank characterizes my findings as an “outlier” from 74 studies collected on his website showing no disadvantage for children of gay or lesbian parents. But there are many other studies he did not select, which report difficulties in same-sex partnerships similar to my study. I cited three such studies concerning health difficulties and intimate partner violence (IPV). Messinger’s conclusion, for example, is very similar to mine: “concerns over ‘airing the dirty laundry’ of an already stigmatized community alongside researcher prejudice or indifference cannot justify treating GLB [Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual] IPV victims as invisible, leaving them without support in a painful and potentially dangerous environment.” [] My study is not an outlier but is in line with the concerns and approach of these other studies.

Frank also does not mention that his website also includes four studies that do show disadvantage for children of gay or lesbian parents. Three of these studies employ three separate large population samples, finding similar levels of disadvantage []. By contrast, the 74 studies include only two or three which use population samples. The remainder are small convenience samples, typically recruited from sympathetic groups and settings, that are (in my view and that of detailed reviews) [] worthless for the question of child outcomes. These studies do not meet minimal scientific standards and are biased toward benign findings []. Asking patrons of a local LGBT [Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender] bookstore or gay friends network about child outcomes is like surveying a Bible study about religiosity: the rosy picture is misleading about the larger population. Excluding such nonrandom or biased samples, fewer than 10 of the 74 studies remain.

One last snippet:

I think I have addressed enough errors in Frank’s critique to establish that his criticisms of my study are unfounded and that my findings are well justified. However, I doubt this will be convincing to him or those sharing his perspective, because what appears to disturb them is not the study methods but the findings. I suspect no evidence will convince Frank that children with same-sex parents may face unique and heightened struggles and difficulties. It is right to be appalled at that thought, but the most useful response is to try to understand the problem better, so as to address the conditions or provide support necessary to ameliorate the problem, not deny the evidence.

And sadly, I think Dr Sullins is right.  Even if this was perfectly executed from a procedural standpoint, it will never be enough, because they don’t like the OUTCOME.  Which is the truly sad part, because in the end if that is the case then it’s the children who are the ones who suffer because of a political agenda.  We may not always like the truth.  It may hurt.  But one should ALWAYS take the truth rather than lie about it.  The more one lies to one’s self, the easier it becomes to justify worse and worse behavior.  Letting the evil one rule over yourself will always lead down a dark path.

Child Abuse

From an article recently posted on the Christian Post:

Eight year-old Jack Wilson was on a weekend visit to his grandparents’ house in mid-December 2016 when he informed his grandmother that his name was really Jacquelyn.

“Grammy, my name is Jacquelyn,” he complained as he walked into the room and sat down at the kitchen table for lunch. He had just received Christmas presents from friends of his grandmother addressed to “Jack” and was visibly upset.

“Why is that your name?” Amanda Wilson, his grandmother, asked in response as she set a plate of chicken and rice in front of him.

He replied: “Because I’m a girl now.”

“What makes you think you’re a girl?” she inquired.

“It’s my gender,” he said.

She pressed him: “Well, what’s a gender?”

He stared back at her, puzzled, and said: “I don’t know.”

Amanda Wilson hasn’t seen her grandson in two years and each day she longs to hold him in her arms and hug him but can’t. Her daughter, Marissa, and her spouse began believing that little Jack was really a girl around three years ago and because Wilson doesn’t agree they’ve cut off all contact with her, no longer speak, and don’t allow her and her husband to see him.

Shortly after Jack turned 7, Marissa and her spouse excitedly announced on social media that Jack was a girl and they couldn’t wait to start him on puberty blockers in two years when he turned 9. They posted a picture of Marissa’s spouse and Jack outside a children’s hospital that is home to one of the 55 transgender clinics now operating in the United States.

The social media account Wilson’s daughter had was deactivated and Wilson no longer has the exact words of her daughter’s happiness about starting Jack on puberty blockers but she still has the picture.

At Wilson’s request, The Christian Post is using pseudonyms in this report and has changed or removed identifying details in order to maintain her anonymity. Although she was baptized as a Methodist, Wilson is not a subscriber to any particular religious faith but chose to speak with CP because she felt it was important that the voice of a grandmother is heard as more parents speak out about their heartache of losing their children to what many are calling a transgender “social contagion.” She has reached out to many secular journalists to no avail.

In 2008, Marissa, who lives just outside of Portland, Maine, was in a relationship with a man, became pregnant and gave birth to Jack in 2009. That relationship ended soon after Jack was born and just a few years later, when Marissa was 26, she came out as a lesbian and started dating a woman. Approximately 16 months later, they married in June 2013. Seven months into that marriage her spouse came out as transgender and changed her name to a male name and started taking hormones. The couple separated last year and now share custody of Jack.

What do you call this if not child abuse?

As mentioned in a post last week, as Christianity has been systematically removed from western civilization so has any moral imperative to be honest.  We have seen this most notably in politics and science, to name just two examples.  Without any higher moral impetus to tell the truth, money and ego have pervaded the science community and resulted in a reproducibility crisis, amongst other things.  Another area that has been hit hard, because the science community is unwilling to tell the truth about many things, is more extensive research on “uncomfortable” topics.

There are many verboten topics in science including IQ with respect to race, sexuality, and honest climate science.  Within the past few years there has been a concerted effort to pervert sexuality.  They tell us it is on a spectrum, that there are more than 2 genders, and that homosexuality is inherently natural.  Before I go further I should say I do not have a dog in this fight, other than wanting the best for our society.  I am on a journey to seek the truth, and not turn away from it regardless if it makes me uncomfortable or reveals hard truths that are painful to swallow.

I don’t know if homosexuality is natural.  Clearly it cannot be the norm, or else we would not survive as a species.  My guidance on the matter comes from the Bible.  But we need to do far more research into the topic.  While many people are convinced that it is entirely genetic that is highly questionable.  There are some studies, though hard to confirm in this day and age, that have studied identical twins.  One of them is straight and the other is not.  If this is true, then it clearly cannot be entirely genetic.

What’s the point of all this?  The point is we need better studies on sexuality in general.  We need to understand how one becomes homosexual.  We need to better understand the underpinnings of what makes one think they are transsexual.  And we need to be honest and truthful about the results that we find.  Going further, if what we do find suggests it is something mental or points to mentally unstable people, perhaps we need to reconsider who should be allowed to be able to adopt and raise children.

Again, this is an uncomfortable topic and I am merely searching for the truth.  If we can’t even talk about the subject we have a major problem as a society.  I don’t want to have to say that we shouldn’t allow some people to be able to adopt children and others not.  But if there is consistent evidence that points to negative outcomes for the children being adopted, the entirely innocent party in this, the topic needs to be revisited.  This to me is a clear cut case of child abuse.  At least one, if not both, of the parents have serious issues, and they are foisting these issues onto an innocent child.  There is no way in hell this kid thinks they are a girl on their own.  It is being placed in their heads by the parents.  And no.  It is not brave.  It is not admirable.  It is disgusting.  They are poisoning this child’s brain with this vile garbage.  Socially (and soon unnaturally) engineering him into being what THEY want to see him become, not with the best interest of him in mind.  Can we please use some common sense and call this what it is, rather than kowtow to the sick fantasies of the parents?

Sigh. Bye bye AirPods

The jury is still out about whether this truly poses a health risk or not, but do you want to be the guinea pig for this?  I certainly don’t.  250 scientists have signed a petition warning that using blue tooth ear buds could cause cancer.

Popular wireless headphones may pose cancer risks to wearers, according to a United Nations and World Health Organization petition.

Some 250 have signed the petition, which warns against numerous devices that emit radiofrequency radiation, which is used in WiFi, cellular data and Bluetooth.

Wireless Bluetooth earbuds like Apple’s popular AirPods may represent a particularly worrisome danger.

‘My concern for AirPods is that their placement in the ear canal exposes tissues in the head to relatively high levels of radio-frequency radiation,’ University of Colorado at Colorado Springs biochemistry professor Jerry Phillips told Medium.

The scientific jury is still out on the whether or not the particular devices an cause cancer, but animal studies on the kind of radiofrequency radiation that they emit has suggested a link to cancer.

And, in some cases, the levels of radiation found to be carcinogenic were significantly lower than the maximum allowed by federal and international guidelines.

Much like my concerns with 5G, we all kind of just assume that there has been exhaustive research on this before they sell these to the public.  They do not.  At this point, why risk exposing yourself to either one when you really don’t have to.  Are you willing to take that risk for the most minor of conveniences?  It wouldn’t shock me if some day people looked back at us and how we used cell phones and wireless technology much the same way we look back at heavy smokers and wonder how they could ever possibly think that wasn’t terrible health-wise.

This article has a little bit more detail:

But some researchers question the conventional wisdom that heavier amounts of EMF are inherently more risky. In a 2018 review titled “Wi-Fi is an important threat to human health,” Martin Pall, a professor emeritus of biochemistry at Washington State University, makes the case that a device’s potential health impacts are not dependent solely on the strength or intensity of its EMF signals.

One big problem, he says, has to do with electromagnetic “pulses,” which are quick bursts of electromagnetic energy that help wireless devices communicate. “We have repeated studies that clearly show that pulsed EMFs are, in most cases, much more biologically active than are non-pulsed EMFs of the same average intensity,” he says. “All wireless communication devices communicate, at least in part, via pulsation, and the smarter they are, the more they pulse.”

He says most health authorities mostly ignore these factors. “The so-called safety guidelines do not predict biological effects,” he says.

Phillips reiterates this point. The current wireless exposure standards are “patently out of touch” with the research, he adds. “We still don’t have a handle on what constitutes dose or what parameters of exposure are important,” he says. “More research certainly is needed.”

Moskowitz thinks using wired hands-free earphones is a simple, effective way for people to lower their exposures to cellphone-emitted EMFs. “The fact that people are dependent on these devices and love them complicates things incredibly because they’ll reject any information on exposures putting them at risk,” he says. “The irony is that we don’t really need them.”

Just a reminder: this is who voted against the “Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act”

They will want this one to disappear from the news cycle as quickly as possible.  Do not let it.  Write these senators.  More importantly, vote these monsters out when they are up for re-election.  At least three of these swamp creatures are running for president in 2020.  As a reminder, this is what they voted against:

A BILL

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit a health care practitioner from failing to exercise the proper degree of care in the case of a child who survives an abortion or attempted abortion.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1.SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the “Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act”.

SEC. 2.FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:

(1) If an abortion results in the live birth of an infant, the infant is a legal person for all purposes under the laws of the United States, and entitled to all the protections of such laws.

(2) Any infant born alive after an abortion or within a hospital, clinic, or other facility has the same claim to the protection of the law that would arise for any newborn, or for any person who comes to a hospital, clinic, or other facility for screening and treatment or otherwise becomes a patient within its care.

They are literally voting to allow babies to be killed after an attempted late-term abortion.  When they are alive.  Infanticide.  Plain and simple.  It does not get any worse than this.

PostBirthAbortionNay

Whooping cough outbreak in LA

Via CBS Los Angeles:

STUDIO CITY (CBSLA) — An exclusive private school has been hit with dozens cases of whooping cough, which has sickened a large number of teenagers across Los Angeles County.

Health officials say they are monitoring three large clusters of highly contagious whooping cough among 11- to 18-year-olds. The county Department of Health issued a health alert to pediatricians and other health care providers about the uptick in whooping cough last week.

Harvard-Westlake, which has campuses in Studio City and Beverly Crest, was hit particularly hard, with 30 students coming down with whooping cough since November, according to the Hollywood Reporter.

Of about 1,600 students attend Harvard-Westlake, where tuition is close to $40,000 a year, only 18 opted out of vaccinations for medical reasons. None of the 30 students who contracted whooping cough were not vaccinated.

Strange way to word it at the bottom there.  This has been a recurring theme lately across America: xyz 3rd world sickness crops up somewhere, anti-vaxxers are blamed.  That narrative is quickly being torn to pieces.  And the top comments were right on top of it.

WhoopingCoughComments

Los Angeles is a shithole.  Most major cities in California are these days, unsurprisingly given how the state is run and the policies they enact.  San Diego dealt with an outbreak of Hepatitis A only a couple of years ago, and the fecal issue in San Francisco has been well documented as well.  As cities get dirtier, homeless populations increase, and we continue to let in hoardes of 3rd world people legally and illegally the sanitation problem will only get worse, and you’ll continue to see an increase in outbreaks of diseases we had controlled decades ago.

The whole vaccination argument is a nuanced one.  Most people who are labeled as anti-vaccination usually aren’t against the idea of vaccination altogether, they are skeptical about side effects that may not be reported, or that some perhaps don’t even have the active ingredients they purport to have.  And who knows, perhaps vaccinations back when I was a kid are different than today’s.  Would it shock you to learn that some in big pharma have ulterior motives or hide things that may take away from selling their product?  Either way, now these people are pounced on as backwards, or reintroducing sicknesses we handled decades ago.  Do not fall for the trap.

Arizona looking to declare porn a public health crisis

This measure is really just symbolic, but could maybe lead to stricter regulations some day.  Via azcentral:

Citing concerns about the proliferation of erotic images online and their “toxic” effect on behavior, Arizona lawmakers are pushing to declare pornography a public health crisis.

State Rep. Michelle Udall, R-Mesa, introduced a measure that declares the crisis and states porn “perpetuates a sexually toxic environment that damages all areas of our society.”

“Like the tobacco industry, the pornography industry has created a public health crisis,” Udall told lawmakers. “Pornography is used pervasively, even by minors.”

Udall’s proposal, House Concurrent Resolution 2009, is largely symbolic and has no legal effect, but supporters say they hope it opens the door to new restrictions on porn.

Similar measures declaring a crisis have passed in at least 11 states, using similar text from model legislation written by the National Center on Sexual Exploitation. The group, formerly known as Morality in Media, contends porn is directly connected to other acts of exploitation.

Issues like these are tricky.  As I wrote about recently, porn is degenerate.  Especially the kind of stuff the major porn websites push nowadays like incest and non-consensual sex.  The issue is tricky because, much like drugs, I am not sure the government should have the right to determine what you do to yourself or watch.  On the other hand, if there are serious adverse effects to society at large that may open the door to some regulations.  For example, perhaps they could ban porn that pushes incest or rape because that truly is a net negative effect to society at large, much like drunk driving.

The reality is as Christianity and Christian morals continue to decline in the west, we will continue to see more and more debauchery and bad behavior.  Unlike what they want you to believe, without that moral framework most people do not behave the same way.  A Christian society would likely not need to enact laws like this in the first place.  Perhaps some level of control is needed if we are to continue down this path straying further away from the Christian roots this country was founded on.

Pure Evil

An old article from 2015 is circulating around voat about reports of Planned Parenthood keeping aborted babies alive to harvest organs.  This is the hill worth dying on, folks.  This is pure evil.  And it is not debatable.  Shame on any pro-choicer who defends funding this institution.  Enough with the pleasantries.  IT IS NOT OKAY TO KEEP BABIES ALIVE TO HARVEST THEIR ORGANS.  I thought I was once pro-choice for very early abortions.  No more.  Via the article:

In an undercover video released Wednesday, a former technician for a tissue-harvesting company details how an aborted baby was kept alive so that its heart could be harvested at a California Planned Parenthood facility, raising more legal questions about the group’s practices.

Holly O’Donnell, a former blood and tissue procurement technician for the biotech startup StemExpress, also said she was asked to harvest an intact brain from the late-term, male fetus whose heart was still beating after the abortion.

StemExpress supervisor “gave me the scissors and told me that I had to cut down the middle of the face. And I can’t even describe what that feels like,” said Ms. O’Donnell, who has been featured in earlier videos by the Center for Medical Progress, a pro-life group that previously had released six undercover clips involving Planned Parenthoodpersonnel and practices.

And a little further down:

California law also prohibits any kind of experimentation on a fetus with a discernible heartbeat, said the Center for Medical Progress, which is calling for the federal government to cease its $500 million a year support to Planned Parenthood and for it to be investigated.

“Today’s video is especially gruesome, and it shows, once again, the barbarity of what takes place at Planned Parenthood clinics across the country,” said Rep. Joseph R. Pitts, Pennsylvania Republican and chairman of the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on health, one of several congressional panels investigating Planned Parenthood.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, Utah Republican and chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said Wednesday that all the videos are “disturbing,” and his committee’s investigation will look into whether “any federal funding supported transactions involving fetal tissue.”

“Top-level employees of Planned Parenthood admit to changing their procedures to harvest intact bodies of unborn children for body-part trafficking,” said Rep. Trent Franks, Arizona Republican and chairman of the House Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution and civil justice.

Mr. Franks and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, Virginia Republican, also said Wednesday that they have written to 58 Planned Parenthood affiliates. They are seeking 10 years of data about all abortions, late-term abortions, “born-alive” infants, fetal tissue collections and any modifications of abortion techniques to “increase the odds of preserving intact fetal tissue and organs.”

Five states — Louisiana, Alabama, Arkansas, Utah and New Hampshire — already have defunded Planned Parenthood.

The video is posted below.  It is a little gruesome at parts, especially from the 5′ 30″ mark going forward.

The article was from 2015.  Planned Parenthood’s annual report from 2017-2018 shows that they are still well funded over half a billion dollars a year from the government.  That is your tax money, folks.

PPFunding2018PieChart

PPFunding2018

This is what happens when you turn away from God.  People can roll their eyes; once upon a time I would have too.  But it is true.  Since we have turned away from Christianity can we honestly say we are better off as a country?  Have we really progressed as a society?  No.  Christianity instilled a moral compass that has been eroded to the point where you are shamed if you question the KILLING OF BABIES.  Where some people will honestly justify this, like it is an acceptable moral position, saying a woman has a right to choose what to do with her body.  NO.  The moment you decide to make a bad decision, the moment you choose to get blackout drunk and sleep with someone you probably don’t even know, you have made your decision.  When another life now depends on your own, you do not have the right to kill it.  Shame on us for ever allowing it to come to this.  Where we cannot even hold that moral position without caving to some BS about “my body my choice”.  It is not progress to kill a human life because a woman wants carte blanche to sleep with as many partners as she wants and then not suffer any of the consequences of her actions.  Even worse is that we are all paying for it.  Why are we funding birth control measures?  Why are we funding abortions?  Yes, Planned Parenthood receives federal reimbursement through Medicaid.  Medicaid covers abortions.

Enough is enough.  Do not commit the sin of omission by sitting idly by knowing what you now know about the situation.  Write your state representatives.  Do not be afraid to call out pro-choicers, feminists, or anyone else who will try to justify this unjustifiable position.  Vote out the politicians who support funding Planned Parenthood.  Consider moving to states that will not fund this.  The reasons continue to pile up for why I should leave California and move back to New Hampshire.  California is at the very heart of all of this.  We all need to step up and take action.  Merely shaking our heads and saying how terrible it is is not enough.  Spread the word.

More abortion atrocities

This time in Virginia.  A bill has been proposed there to abort up to…and after…birth.  Via freebeacon.com:

Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam (D.) commented Wednesday about a controversial 40-week abortion bill and in so doing said the law allows an abortion to take place after the infant’s birth.

“If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother,” Northam said, alluding to the physician and mother discussing whether the born infant should live or die.

A Democratic lawmaker in the Virginia House of Delegates proposed a bill Tuesday that would allow abortions through the end of the third trimester of pregnancy. The video of Delegate Kathy Tran presenting her bill led to an exchange where she admitted that her bill would allow for a mother to abort her child minutes before giving birth.

“How late in the third trimester could a physician perform an abortion if he indicated that it would impair the mental health of the woman?” Majority Leader Todd Gilbert (R.) asked.

“Or physical health,” Tran said.

“Okay,” Gilbert replied. “I’m talking about the mental health.”

“I mean, through the third trimester,” Tran said. “The third trimester goes up to 40 weeks.”

“Okay, but to the end of the third trimester?” Gilbert asked.

“Yup, I don’t think we have a limit in the bill,” Tran said.

“Where it’s obvious that a woman is about to give birth, she has physical signs that she’s about to give birth, would that still be a point at which she could request an abortion if she was so certified?” Gilbert asked. “She’s dilating.”

Tran responded that is a decision between the woman and her doctor would have to make. Gilbert asked if her bill would allow an abortion right before the infant was born.

“My bill would allow that, yes,” Tran said.

And a little further down:

Northam continued by saying government shouldn’t be involved in these types of decisions and that legislators, especially male legislators, shouldn’t be telling women what to do.

“I think this was really blown out of proportion. But again we want the government not to be involved in these types of decisions. We want the decision to be made by the mothers and their providers. And this is why Julie, that legislators, most of whom are men by the way, shouldn’t be telling a woman what she should or shouldn’t be doing with her body,” Northam said.

I don’t need to be a woman to know that it’s fucking MURDER to abort a baby 10 seconds before a woman gives birth.  Lady, that is not your right.  Do these people have any compassion at all?  How utterly self-centered and morally deprived does one have to be to take the position that this is okay?  This is pure evil.

Again, as with the NY abortion law, this country may not be worth saving if this is the direction we are going to go.  I do not want to live in a country where this becomes acceptable.  We have to fight back against this.  Literally murdering children.

Are people enjoying the civilization we have now since we removed Christ from the equation?  Is this really better?  Do people really feel like we’ve hit some kind of moral nirvana, some higher level of moral consciousness, since we became a post-Christian nation?  I for one do not think allowing babies to be murdered seconds before they are born, or after they are born, is a step in the right direction.  I will post this video once again as long as the link stays up to remind people what a third trimester abortion entails.

%d bloggers like this: