Protect Children & Taxpayers From Radical Gender Ideology
On May 15, U.S. Senator Roger Marshall (R-KS)introducedtwo bills to the U.S. Senate—one that would prohibit federal funds from supporting gender transition procedures, and another that would altogether ban such procedures on minors.
These bills are so radical in light of contemporary opinion, yet so simple and straightforward in achieving their goals, that when I read their respective texts, I was awed that the U.S. Senate still contains the type of statesman who will stand for the truth in this way.
And Marshall isn’t alone;co-sponsoring one or both of these bills are U.S. Senators Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Mike Braun (R-IN), Kevin Cramer (R-ND), Steve Daines (R-MT), Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-MS), Mike Lee (R-UT), Markwayne Mulllin (R-OK), James Risch (R-ID), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Roger Wicker (R-MS), and Josh Hawley (R-MO).
On the one hand, theEnd Taxpayer Funding of Gender Experimentation Act of 2023 (S. 1595) would prohibit several of the current ways that federal dollars can fund gender transition procedures. Under this bill’s provisions, federal funds may not directly fund gender transition therapy or surgery. Neither may they be shuttled into health care plans that include such practices in their coverage.
Further still, no health care service that is furnished by a physician employed by the federal government or even furnished in a facility owned by the federal government may provide gender transition procedures.
The bill does clarify that non-federal health care providers would be free to provide such treatment, and that customers would still be free to seek out separate (non-federal) plans that cover such treatment should they want it. Yet, the federal government must stay out of it.
On the other hand, theProtecting Children From Experimentation Act of 2023 (S. 1597) takes it a step further when dealing with minors; it would ban gender transition procedures for minors in almost all cases—excepting rare medical situations. Under its provisions, any physical or mental healthcare professional would be fined (or face up to five years in prison) for performing or even referring a gender transition procedure.
The bill makes sure to clarify that minors may not be prosecuted for receiving such treatment; however, recipients of the treatment are allowed to bring civil action for relief against the physician who performed it.
Marshall and his colleagues’ stand for the truth deserves three whole-hearted cheers. They are daring to suggest that physicians performing supposedly “essential” gender transition care should be imprisoned! While it seems harsh, it is not any less harsh than the “care” they are purporting to provide—nothing less than a 21st-century version of the self-mutilation practiced in pagan rites for millennia, an abomination which defiles God’s created order bestowed to each one of us since our conception.
Now, it’s one thing to sit back and cheer for U.S. Senators who are willing to take stands like this, drawing clear lines between black and white in a world filled with multitudinous shades of grey. But politics is not a spectator sport. “The people” are more than just the hypothetical but fictitious “12th man” on the football team. “The people” send the players onto the field, tell them how to play, and recall them when they don’t do their jobs right.
Many of Marshall’s colleagues are assuredly shocked at his audacious proposal. But it’s audacious when viewed from a worldview that presupposes society has already settled the question—or at least the toleration—of gender transition procedures.
Thankfully, U.S. Representative Doug LaMalfa (R-CA) has introduced the same legislation in the U.S. House (H.R. 3328 and H.R. 3329), which has 40 co-sponsors, including U.S. Representatives Mike Bost and Mary Miller from southern Illinois.
If we all called or emailed our representatives right now and let them know that we—their very own constituents—agree with Marshall’s stand for the truth, the excuses to dismiss his position as audacious and radical, will start disappearing. Let them know that you sent them on to the field to represent you, and you will not tolerate government support of lies.
Take ACTION:Click HERE to send a message to U.S. Senators Dick Durbin, Tammy Duckworth and your local U.S. Representative to ask them to support or even co-sponsor these two bills. Impressionable children should not be making life-altering, body-mutilating decisions about their sexuality and adults should not be pushing woke sexual anarchy either.
U.S. Representative LaMalfa rightly points out in his press release,
let kids be kids and wait until adulthood to make a choice they likely wish they hadn’t as a child. Adults and the medical field shouldn’t be allowed to coerce this “woke” agenda onto them when they should be their protectors. Adults need to realize that their coercion is abuse, and should face appropriate consequences.
SCOTUS Nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Stupefying Answers
|
U.S. Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson has provided sufficient evidence for the U.S. Senate to vote against her nomination to fill Justice Stephen Breyer’s seat following the full-court press he received from leftists to abdicate his lifelong seat before the 2024 election. That evidence includes her stupefying claim that she is unable to define “woman” because she’s not a biologist. The press has profligately identified Jackson as a “woman.” Has anyone confirmed that with a biologist?
Jackson’s claim was made in response to a line of questioning by U.S. Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) who began by citing the U.S. Supreme Court Case United States v. Virginia in which the buttinsky U.S. government sued the state of Virginia and the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) claiming that the policy limiting VMI admissions to males violated the U.S. Constitution. Blackburn cited Ruth Bader Ginsburg who voted with the majority in overturning VMI’s male-only admission policy:
Supposed inherent differences are no longer accepted as a grounds for race or national origins classifications. Physical differences, however, are enduring. The two sexes are not fungible. A community made up exclusively of one sex is different from a community composed of both.
Blackburn then asked Jackson, “Do you agree with Justice Ginsburg that there are physical differences between men and women that are enduring?”
Jackson, looking like the proverbial headlight-blinded deer, took an awkward beat and then stammered,
Um, Senator, respectfully, I am not familiar with that particular quote or case, so it’s hard for me to comment as to whether or not …
This was a half-truth. While it likely was “hard” for Jackson to comment on the now-incendiary topic of whether there are enduring physical differences between men and women, the reason for that difficulty is not Jackson’s ignorance about the VMI case.
The reason it is hard for her to acknowledge the obvious truth that even children know is that Jackson didn’t want to offend either the rational members of the U.S. Senate who will vote for or agin her nomination or to offend the “trans” cult, which wields inordinate political power in service of their reality-denying disorder.
Blackburn tried again:
Do you interpret Justice Ginsburg’s meaning of “men” and “women” as “male” and “female”?
And again, Jackson bobbed and weaved:
And again, because I don’t know the case, I don’t know how to interpret it. I’d have to read the whole thing.
Surely, the third time would be a charm, particularly because Blackburn omitted reference to the VMI court case. Blackburn asked,
Can you provide a definition of “woman”?
Here came Jackson’s whopper. She replied confidently,
No. I can’t.
Incredulous, Blackburn asked,
You can’t?
Jackson chuckled and responded,
Not in this context. I’m not a biologist.
Surely Jackson knows how biologists define woman. Biologists defined “woman” long before cross-dressers decided to goose-step in their stiletto-accoutered jackboots through America’s institutions trying to convince Americans that biologists know nothing about the phenomena of man and woman.
Transtopians are baffled at the notion that biologists could know what a woman is because in Transtopia, “man” and “woman” have nothing to do with hard science, anatomy, physiology, genetics, or reproduction. Transtopians believe in pseudoscience and metaphysical alchemy.
Transtopia is a solipsistic Wonderland where words mean whatever Transtopians say words mean and where nothing exists outside each individual’s mind—including minds beclouded by sin, confusion, delusion, and deviant desires. If there’s a mismatch between a Transtopian’s mind/feelings and their anatomically healthy, properly functioning bodies, they just know the error is with their healthy, properly functioning bodies. “Treatment,” therefore, means artificially disrupting normal, properly functioning biological processes and excising normal, healthy anatomical parts as if they’re malignant tumors.
For Transtopians, nothing matters but the subjective feelings of the self, and that’s why Transtopians demand everyone ask every person they meet what their pronouns are. While weeping about being “mis-gendered,” they tyrannically demand compulsory mis-sexing.
Transtopians exalt subjective feelings, except for the subjective feelings of those who live and move and have their being outside of Transtopia. Their feelings, beliefs, and values mean nothing in Transtopia. Transtopians hate anyone who refuses to move body, mind, heart, and soul to Transtopia, ironically labeling dissenters hateful, intolerant, bigoted, and non-inclusive.
Jackson’s expansive ignorance of biology accounts too for why she doesn’t know when life begins or when a baby in the womb is viable. Maybe if she spent less time cozying up with Planned Parenthood, she would free up some time to read a basic biology text. Presumably, her husband—a doctor—or the Internet could help her find out the answers to those not-so-vexing questions.
But perhaps Jackson’s most troubling statement was this:
I have a religious view that I set aside when I am ruling on cases.
That claim drips with the anti-constitutional view that a Supreme Court Justice must sever her religious faith from the exercise of her duties. That view, however, is at odds with the spirit and text of the Constitution which prohibits religious tests for holding office and which guarantees the free exercise of religion. For true Christians, their religious faith inheres every aspect of their lives. It shapes their ethics; morality; political values; and their views of government, human nature, and liberty.
To paraphrase Richard John Neuhaus, that which is political is moral and that which is moral, for religious people, is religious. It is no less legitimate to have political or judicial decisions shaped by religion than by psychology, philosophy, “gender ideology,” or self-serving personal desire.
A democratic republic cannot exist without objective normative ethics that render legitimate the preservation or circumscription of individual rights. Historically, the sources of the absolute, transcendent, objective, universal truths that render legitimate our legal system have been “the institutions of religion that make claims of ultimate or transcendent meaning.” Neuhaus explains that this “does not represent an imposition of the private into the public spheres, but rather an expansion or transformation or recollection of what is public.” He argues that when religion is utterly privatized and eliminated as a “source or transcendence that gives legitimate and juridical direction and form, something else will necessarily fill the void, and that force will be the state.”
While Ketanji Brown Jackson may view her silly non-answers as canny political stratagems, many people view them as dishonest, foolish, and cowardly.
Illinois Congressional Rep. Newman’s Dumb Plea for Equality Act
|
How can someone as foolish and manipulative as U.S. Representative Marie Newman get elected to Congress? Oh, yeah, she ran in Illinois, the land that once gave the nation Abe Lincoln but now saddles the nation with Dick Durbin, Tammy Duckworth, Jan Schakowsky, Sean Casten, and Brad Schneider.
On March 17 Newman, the anti-life, self-identifying Catholic, spoke in a U.S. Senate hearing in support of the execrable Equality Act, which has nothing to do with Equality and everything to do with advancing an alchemical superstition about the alleged ability of humans to become the opposite sex through desire, cross-dressing, hormone-doping, and mutilating cosmetic surgery.
She did what “progressives” do best. Rather than make a cogent, rational argument based on reason and evidence, she instead tried to manipulate feelings through a personal “narrative.” She told the sad tale of her troubled teenage son who now pretends to be a woman. Unfortunately, since she chose to exploit her son’s problems on the national stage in order to pass legislation that will affect the entire nation, others have a right to respond.
Newman began her exploitative sermonette by making this remarkable claim, the ramifications of which she clearly has not thought through:
The most important thing in life is to be authentic. I think we all understand that. … Imagine if I asked any of you … on the committee today to simply try being someone you absolutely are not … To try to be something that you are not every day is very difficult. Do this for a week, a month, a year and I guarantee you will feel deep depression, great anxiety, and yes, even suicidal.
Newman neglected to define “authentic.” The American Heritage Dictionary defines “authentic” as “conforming to fact and therefore worthy of trust, reliance, and belief.” As such, a man seeking to pass as a woman is the antithesis of authenticity.
Perhaps Newman believes an “authentic” life means living in accordance with deeply held beliefs. If so, then she should understand that for theologically orthodox Christians, Jews, and Muslims living an authentic life precludes treating humans as if they are the sex they are not. In other words, the Equality Act would compel many Americans to live inauthentic lives. It would compel them to participate in a destructive lie.
From the context, however, it appears Newman links authenticity to living a life of bondage to unchosen, powerful, and persistent desires, no matter how disordered, irrational, or delusional. To Newman being “authentic” appears to refer to yielding to desires that impel artificially induced cessation of natural biological processes and surgical mutilation of healthy, properly functioning parts of sexual anatomy.
Applying consistently Newman’s definition of an “authentic” life would mean that those who experience an unchosen, powerful, and persistent desire to be an amputee (i.e., those with Body Integrity Identity Disorder) should be treated as if they are amputees even if they are equipped with fully functioning, healthy limbs.
And those who experience unchosen, powerful, persistent sexual attraction to children should not be prohibited from acting on those desires, for trying to be someone they are not will—Newman guarantees—result in deep depression, great anxiety, and suicidal ideation.
If trying to be “someone you absolutely are not” is life’s greatest evil, should prideful, vain people stop trying to be modest and humble? Should greedy, selfish, narcissistic people stop trying to be generous, unselfish, and empathetic? Should slothful people stop trying to be industrious? Should people consumed by lust yield to their insatiable appetite for pornography and prostitutes?
Newman arrogantly presumed that everyone on the committee understands that “the most important thing in life is to be authentic”—as she understands authenticity. Perhaps, however, some on this U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee—for example, Marsha Blackburn, Vicki Hartzler, or James Lankford—believe an authentic life means living in a way that corresponds to material reality or to Scripture. To many people, living an authentic life requires denying their desires daily.
Continuing in her presumption about what everyone knows, Newman said,
[W]e already have freedom of religion in our Constitution, and this act does not discriminate against religion, as we all know.
Actually, lawmakers in thrall to the “trans” cult stripped the Equality Act of religious protections, and numerous legal scholars have warned that the passage of the Equality Act poses the most significant threat to constitutional protections of the free exercise of religion ever in America’s history. Newman is either outright lying or indefensibly ignorant.
Mary Hasson, graduate of Notre Dame Law School and fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C., testified at this same hearing. She made clear what Newman tried to obscure:
The Equality Act threatens serious harm to religious believers and religious organizations, stripping away crucial protections afforded under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act—a law enacted in 1993 with overwhelming, bipartisan support. The Equality Act attacks First Amendment rights as well, inserting language that attempts to tip the scales against believers if they assert claims under the First Amendment or Equal Protection.
The Equality Act reaches far beyond Bostock (which pertained to workplace discrimination) by expanding “public accommodations” to permit discrimination claims wherever Americans “gather,” even virtually. The result? Churches, synagogues, temples, faith-based schools, soup kitchens, and shelters for battered women will be subject to government coercion pressuring them to compromise their religious beliefs or risk endless litigation.
Recipients of federal funds, including houses of worship, religious schools and other faith-based organizations are litigation targets under the Equality Act as well—even for something as simple as maintaining sex-segregated bathrooms. This means a Muslim food bank, Catholic homeless shelter, or Christian center for female survivors of domestic violence will be punished for doing good while following their religious teachings.
Similarly, any private school that enrolls students who receive Pell grants or who participate in school lunch programs are subject to the Equality Act’s sex discrimination provisions. Urban Catholic schools, for example, which provide life-changing education to low-income children would face an untenable choice: violate their deeply held religious beliefs about human nature, sexual difference, and marriage or close their doors to students who rely on federal help. Adoption and foster care programs run by religious believers who desire to serve the most vulnerable are also at risk.
Newman sneakily perpetuated the lie that minor children who experience gender dysphoria will commit suicide unless they “transition”—a euphemism for pretending to be the opposite sex. No one can “transition” from one sex to the other. Newman said,
More than five years ago, before she [sic] had transitioned, my daughter [sic], at just 14 years old had experienced deep depression and anxiety. Unable to identify the cause of her [sic] pain, she [sic] told her [sic] parents that the only two solutions she [sic] felt would solve it was either suicide or running away.
Newman’s son may have felt despair—he may have felt the only solutions were suicide or running away—but his feelings do not mean he was born in the wrong body. Many teens feel despair for many reasons. And now it’s becoming increasingly difficult for teens to access counseling that can help them uncover those reasons.
In addition, there is much mis- and dis- information about suicide and gender dysphoric children circulated eagerly by the “trans”-cult and its ideological allies—misinformation/disinformation that has been dispelled by medical experts who lack the cultural imprimatur and reach of “trans”-cultists. Newman and other members of Congress might do less societal harm if they would read more widely.
It appears Newman may have gotten her son tangled up in one of the many “therapeutic” programs that are, in reality, profiteering “trans”-advocacy programs staffed with activists who couldn’t identify mental health if it slapped them upside their indoctrinated noggins:
[W]e enrolled in a local day therapy program. One night after her [sic] program, my daughter [sic] perked up in her [sic] chair at the dinner table, excited to share some news. She [sic] told us she [sic] had figured it out. “Mom, I’m not a boy. I’m a girl, and my name is Evie Newman.” Everything had clicked at that moment. She [sic] had been pretending to be something she wasn’t. She [sic] wasn’t being authentic, and as we all know, it is the hardest thing in the world to pretend every day. It was the happiest day of our lives.
Newman’s son was not pretending to be a boy prior to the night he made his sudden perky announcement. He always was a boy and remains in perpetuity a boy.
Newman argues that the Equality Act will merely afford her son “civil rights” of which he is currently deprived:
Signing the Equality Act into law. … will ensure that Americans like my daughter [sic] are afforded the same civil rights already extended to every other American across the nation. … We’re not asking for anything special or different, equality and nothing more. No American should have to live a lie.
Baloney. Is Newman arguing that her son is currently denied the right to vote, assemble, speak, exercise his religion freely, own a gun, petition the government, or get a fair trial?
The irony is rich in her claim that “No American should have to live a lie” as she argues for a bill that will compel all Americans to live the lie she and her family are choosing to live.
Demanding that a condition constituted by desire and volitional acts that many view as immoral be treated like objective conditions with no behavioral features like, for example, race or biological sex is, indeed, asking for something special and different.
The irony continues in her statement about religion and sports:
I encourage all of you to not weaponize religion and not weaponize red herrings about sports.
Newman absurdly described the desire of theologically orthodox Christians to live authentic Christian lives when they refuse to affirm a deceit as “weaponizing religion.” And she described the desire of authentic girls not to be forced to compete athletically against biological males who impersonate females as a “weaponized red herring.” In Newman’s view, only the affirmation of “trans”-cultic beliefs and practices can be authentic.
Nearing the end of her Oprah-esque testimony, she almost spoke some sense. She began,
Truth is real and should be a part of this [Equality] act.
Then she had to go and ruin it by making yet another patently false claim:
And it is.
Nope, there is no truth about sex, civil rights, or equality in the Equality Act.
It’s astonishing that the most powerful nation in the world has leaders whose ethical philosophy hasn’t advanced beyond that of a heathen adolescent.
Take ACTION:Click HERE to send a message to our U.S. Senators Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth to urge them to oppose the federal Equality Act (H.R. 5) which seeks to amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include protections for an individual’s perceived sex, “sexual orientation,” or “gender identity.”
Your tax-deductible donation is greatly appreciated!
Explosive Exposé of Google’s Dark Underbelly
|
Everyone who’s conscious knows that Google, Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter are in the tank for “progressivism”—also known as “Cultural Regressivism that Undermines Decency” (CRUD). While the hive at Google manipulates its algorithms to hide information that regressives don’t like, Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook Overlords censor with the kind of tyrannical oppression that in the good old days liberals and radicals feared and loathed. Now that liberals and radicals control the levers of power, they have abandoned all previous philosophical commitments to freedom and liberty. A new explosive undercover video by Project Veritas exposes the extraordinary and deceitful machinations of Google to manipulate access to information in order that regressivism can gain and maintain yet more power. In other words, Google—like its fascistic government precursors—exploits its monopolistic power to propagandize, thereby securing its iron grip on power. Resistance is almost futile.
With his face and voice concealed, a Google insider warns about the implications of the confluence of Google’s power, reach, and bias:
What’s scary is that Google’s deciding what’s important and what’s not important. They are… effectively deleting conversations from the national narrative. It reminds me of… a book called 1984. That should have been a warning…. Google’s… deciding what gets read, what gets consumed, what people are able to click on, what appears. It reminds me a lot of fascism…. When videos get pulled off of a platform, that’s… a form of censorship…. People have no idea that it’s happening. They still think that Google’s an objective source of information and it’s not.
Secretly recorded conversations with Google executive Jen Gennai reinforces the claims of the Google insider, further revealing Google’s Leftist bias, arrogance, and determined efforts to use its power to influence the next presidential election:
The reason we launched our [Artificial Intelligence] principles is because people were not …. saying what is fair and what’s equitable, so we’re like, “Well, we are a big company. We’re going to say it.”… [M]y definition of fairness and bias specifically talks about historically marginalized communities, and that’s who I care about. Communities who are in power, and have traditionally been in power, are not who I’m solving fairness for. Our definition of fairness is one of those things that we thought would be like obvious, and everybody would agree to, and it wasn’t…. [T]he same people who voted for the current President did not agree with our definition of fairness.
Gennai’s/Google’s—let’s just say Gennoogle—Gennoogle’s definition of fairness differs not only from the definition held by the “people who voted for the current president” but also from the definition held by many others. Many people understand “fairness” to mean “impartial or just treatment without favoritism” or “the quality of treating people equally.”
“Historically marginalized communities” refers to identity-peddlers’ four favorite categories of humans: blacks, women, homosexuals, and cross-sex “passers.” Leftists like Gennoogle have been forced to add “historically” to marginalized, since these groups have pushed from the margins to the center which will not hold.
Clearly Gennoogle has no interest in genuine fairness. “Fairness,” like hatred, inclusivity, safety, tolerance, and equality, means exactly what the googley Humpty Dumptys choose it to mean. Who cares if theologically orthodox Christians or political conservatives are treated unfairly. That’s their problem to solve, dagnabbit!
Gennai reveals the supreme arrogance of Google, which presumes to make “things more fair” by supplanting the will of the people as expressed through the duly elected executive and legislative branches of the government with Gennoogle’s reconceptualization of “fairness”:
The White House and Congress won’t play a role in making things more fair, so people are holding us accountable to fill the gap of what should be done.
Gennai makes clear the presumptive supremacy of the Google hive mind over the elected representatives of the people:
We got called in front of Congress multiple times, and we’ve not shown up because we’re like, we just know they’re going to just attack us. We’re not going to change our mind. There’s no point in just sitting there being attacked over something that we know we’re not going to change…. They can pressure us, but we’re not changing.
Gennai adds more flesh to the bones hinted at in her allusion to Trump, his supporters, and “fairness”:
Elizabeth Warren is saying that we should break up Google…. [S]he’s very misguided. That will not make it better, it will make it worse because now all these smaller companies who don’t have the same resources that we do will be charged with preventing the next Trump situation…. a small company cannot do that.
We all got screwed over in 2016…. so now we’ve rapidly been like, “What happened there? How do we prevent it from happening again?”
Evidently in panic mode after the exposé was released, Gennai penned a futile effort to recast her damning words and malign Project Veritas:
[T]hese people lied about their true identities, filmed me without my consent, selectively edited and spliced the video to distort my words and the actions of my employer, and published it widely online.
While Google engages in unconscionable, secretive efforts to manipulate public opinion and to silence conservative employees through fear of loss of employment, she’s outraged about being secretly recorded?
Surely a smart human like Gennai knows that all documentaries and exposés “selectively” edit. The ethical issue is not whether an exposé is selectively edited. The ethical issue is whether it was edited in such a way as to distort someone’s words. Gennai tries to prove that Project Veritas distorted her words about the 2016 election, saying she never suggested Google objected to Trump’s election per se but rather to “foreign interference”:
In a casual restaurant setting, I was explaining how Google’s Trust and Safety team (a team I used to work on) is working to help prevent the types of online foreign interference that happened in 2016.
If Gennoogle’s concern were really with online foreign interference, what sense did her statement about being “screwed” mean, since Russian attempts at foreign interference didn’t affect the election outcome. Leftists like Gennoogle believe they were “screwed” by Trump’s winning. They were not “screwed” by Russian attempts to interfere. Does Gennai think all Americans just fell off the turnip truck?
Project Veritas asked the Google insider about the meaning of this statement from an internal Google document:
In some cases, it may be appropriate to take no action if the system accurately affects current reality. While in other cases, it may be desirable to consider how we might help society reach a more fair and equitable state via product intervention.”
The Google insider translated into plain English what “helping society” looks like in the Google hive:
What they want to do is they want to act as gatekeepers between the user and the content that they’re trying to access. They’re going to come in, they’re going to filter the content. They’re going to say, “Actually, we don’t want to give the user access to that information because it’s going to create an outcome that’s undesirable to us.”
This exposé will come as no surprise to former Google employee Mike Wacker, recently fired for publicly criticizing Google’s “outrage mobs and witch hunts.” Wacker shared that the Google outrage mobs (OMs) demanded Google have nothing to do with the conservative Heritage Foundation, calling its president Kay Cole James the Grand Wizard of the KKK. For those who don’t know, Kay Cole James is black and endured egregious racist attacks when growing up.
You may wonder exactly how the OMs could justify calling a black woman the Grand Wizard of the KKK. Well, this particular OM has concluded, apparently with no scientific proof, that masquerading as the opposite sex is analogous to race, and, therefore, opposing things like co-ed restrooms and locker rooms—which the Heritage Foundation does—is analogous to racism.
Wacker revealed that one Google employee was reported to Human Resources (HR) for sharing a National Review article, and another was reported for appearing “to be promoting and defending Jordan Peterson’s comments about transgender pronouns,” which allegedly made some Google employee “feel unsafe at work.” #eyeroll
What other subjective, often-changeable feelings will Google OMs conclude are analogous to race? Will those employees who disagree with the hive’s assumptions about those other feelings be safe in that “nonpartisan,” inclusive space to express their views? And what if the OMs are wrong? What if cross-sex identification, cross-sex hormone-doping, surgical mutilation, and co-ed private spaces are, in reality, neither good nor right?
While Wacker lost his job, Blake Lemoine retains his job as senior software engineer at Google. The name Blake Lemoine may sound familiar. He made the news in 2018 for calling Tennessee Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn a terrorist for writing an op-ed critical of the obvious bias against conservatives and Republicans within tech companies like Google and Facebook.
Wacker reports that in internal Google employee forums, Lemoine also said this:
If you think that trans women aren’t women then you can either keep it to yourself or GTFO [Get the f**k out]. Google’s corporate policies are crystal clear on that.
While Google employees are free to say that “transwomen”—who are objectively, immutably, scientifically verifiably men—are women, others are not permitted to say “transwomen” are men. Deviate from the deviant narrative and off with your head!
Trouble seems to follow Lemoine—who identifies variously as a pagan priest and Gnostic Christian—wherever he goes. The “bisexual” Lemoine who is in a “non-monogamous” relationship with his wife enlisted in the U.S. Army in 2003 and then in 2004 “realized he did not like working with U.S. Army troops.” When the Army refused to allow him “to quit the Army,” he went on a work strike and then a hunger strike. He was court-martialed and discharged for bad conduct.
Before whistle-blower Mike Wacker, there was former Google engineer James Damore who was fired in 2017 after he wrote and distributed a measured internal memo replete with evidence in which he criticized Google for, among other things, being “an ideological echo chamber.” Can’t have any Google employee pointing out that the emperor brooks no dissent. Off with his head!
IFI Fall Banquet with Franklin Graham!
We are excited to announce that at this year’s IFI banquet, our keynote speaker will be none other than Rev. Franklin Graham, President & CEO of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and Christian evangelist & missionary. This year’s event will be at the Tinley Park Convention Center on Nov. 1st.
U.S. Representatives Trent Franks (R-AZ) and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) have reintroduced the “Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act,” an earlier version of which passed the U.S. House of Representatives in the summer of 2013 but was stalled in the Harry Reid-controlled U.S. Senate. If passed, this bill would prohibit abortions performed past 20 weeks, the point at which some research suggests babies can feel pain.
According to Huffington Post, Cecile Richards, president of the feticide-profiteering organization Planned Parenthood, is already proclaiming victory:
This is an unconstitutional ban, and this is something we expect to defeat….The people of this country believe Congress should be focused on making people’s lives better, and they shouldn’t be involved in making personal medical decisions for women and their doctors.
First, let’s not forget that the U.S. Supreme Court has on occasion erred in its decisions regarding the constitutionality of laws.
Second, increasing numbers of “people in this country” believe that “making people’s lives better” necessarily involves preventing innocent people from being murdered, including those who are guilty of nothing other than being unwanted by their mothers. In fact, according to a Huffington Postpoll, 59 percent of Americans support laws banning abortion after 20 weeks.
Third, the decision to kill a preborn baby is rarely a “medical” decision. When the life of the mother is not in jeopardy, the decision is first and foremost a moral decision.
What is most troubling is the pathological commitment of “progressives” to preserving the legal right of women to exterminate their own babies. The regressiveness of their commitment to barbarism becomes increasingly evident when they defend it.
Huffington Post links to a New York Timesarticle in which experts conclude that the science regarding when preborn babies are capable of feeling pain is inconclusive. How can Cecile Richards and other pro-abortion dogmatists oppose this bill if there’s even a possibility of a baby feeling pain—perhaps excruciating pain—during an abortion? Civilized people would err on the side of compassionate caution. Remember, “progressives” are the same people who believe that waterboarding terrorists or testing cancer drugs on mice is a moral bridge too far.
When “progressives” wax indignant about the ethical outrage of waterboarding, let’s remember that all Special Operations Units volunteer and journalist Christopher Hitchens volunteered to be waterboarded. When was the last time you heard of anyone volunteering to have their skin chemically burned off or be dismembered as can happen in late-term abortions? This is not a defense of waterboarding. It’s an attempt to point out the Left’s inconsistent moral reasoning. If waterboarding is torture, abortion most assuredly is.
In a concession to the possibility that preborn babies feel pain as their skin is burned off or their bodies dismembered, some doctors, including Dr. Kanwaljeet Anand whose research is often cited by supporters of this bill, recommend administering a heart-stopping poison medication as the solution to the problem of a preborn baby feeling pain:
“In the very few abortions where fetal pain could possibly occur…consider what can be done to avoid inflicting a lot of pain on the fetus.” [Dr. Anand] said a common method used after 20 weeks—injecting amniotic fluid or fetuses with heart-stopping medication before removing the fetus— “would be fine, really, from a point of view of fetal pain,” a “compassionate way to do it.”
At this point, regressive absurdists really get themselves trapped in an ethical sticky wicket. They’re recommending pain management in the service of killing an innocent human being. Barbarism is redefined as “compassion.”
Not to worry—absurdists assure the morally sane among us—even if preborn babies feel pain after 20 weeks, only a relatively few are being exterminated that far along. According to the liberal, pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute , in 2011 there were 1.06 million abortions, 1.2 percent of which were performed after 20 weeks. For the math-challenged among us, that means last year 12,720 preborn babies were killed in utero after 20 weeks. It’s important to note, that many in the pro-life movement believe post-20-week abortions are underreported, so 12, 720 may be an inaccurately low figure.
Let’s see, how many terrorists were waterboarded? Oh, yes, three. Let’s even count each number of times each terrorist was waterboarded. With Khalid Sheikh Mohammed being waterboarded 183 times, let’s round it out to 200 times radical Islamists have been waterboarded as compared to 12,720 preborn late-term babies wiped out.
Those who oppose this law make the silly suggestion that conservatives have a secret ulterior motive for this law. The Left suggests the real motive is to limit abortion. That must be the worst kept secret in America.
What may be news to “progressives” is that those who oppose the intentional killing of preborn babies have more than one reason for supporting legislation that limits or better still prohibits abortion. The central reason is that no ethical, compassionate, civilized society permits the intentional killing of innocent humans—especially children.
The second reason is that no ethical, compassionate, civilized society permits torture in the service of killing innocent humans—especially children.
And the third reason is that no ethical, compassionate, civilized society would permit any means of killing innocent girls and boys that may even potentially torture them before it kills them—even if it’s a mere 12,720 children annually.
Last time I heard, the product of conception between two humans is a new human with its own unique genetic code. A compassionate and just society doesn’t condone the killing of humans based on their location (e.g., in utero), their dependency-status, their physical or cognitive abilities, or the feelings other humans have about their existence.
Every year in America, more than 18,000 perfectly healthy babies – developed enough to feel pain and, in many cases, survive outside the womb – are brutally killed in their mother’s wombs.
Eighteen thousand.
Can you imagine the public outrage if 18,000 babies died every year from faulty baby formula or substandard infant car seats? Liability lawsuits would flood the court systems and manufacturing companies would shutdown in bankruptcy and disgrace.
These particular 18,000 babies have been growing for 20 weeks or more in their mother’s bodies.
“These are innocent and defenseless children who can not only feel pain, but who can survive outside of the womb in most cases, and who are torturously killed without even basic anesthesia. Many of them cry and scream as they die, but because it is amniotic fluid going over their vocal cords instead of air, we don’t hear them, ” U.S. Representative Trent Franks of Arizona told LifeSite News this week.
Eighteen thousand innocent babies.
Next Wednesday, 42 years after the U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe vs Wade decision legalizing abortions for any reason up to the moment of birth, Franks and U.S. Representative Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) will ask their Congressional colleagues in the U.S. House to vote on H.R. 36 – a federal measure to protect those 18,000 innocents from painful, violent deaths.
Franks and Blackburn expect to be joined by nearly 180 other House members who will co-sponsor the measure.
Five Illinois Congressmen have signed on thus far as co-sponsors, four Republicans: Randy Hultgren (Geneva), Peter Roskam (Barrington), Aaron Schock (Peoria) and John Shimkus (Effingham) and one Democrat: Dan Lipinski (Chicago).
Three Republican House members have yet to commit on the bill: Adam Kinzinger (Rockford) and newbies Mike Bost (Murphysboro) and Bob Dold (Mundelein). Historically the remaining Democratic members of Illinois’ delegation have supported abortion advocates’ position.
Abortion defenders are holding the line against any restrictions whatsoever. They deny the medical studies showing 20 week old preborn babies can feel pain.
“The studies are pretty clear — at 20 weeks, there is no indication that nerves are developed. Abortion is really rare past 20 weeks and is incurred because of a set of complex circumstances,” Jamila Perritt, MD, medical director of Planned Parenthood of Metro Washington, D.C., said at a press conference this week.
In response, numerous brain and nerve activity experts cite the need for prenatal surgeons to anesthetize their patients during in utero surgical procedures.
“To experience pain an intact system of pain transmission from the peripheral receptor to the cerebral cortex must be available. Peripheral receptors develop from the seventh gestational week,” Marc Van de Velde and Frederik De Buck wrote in, “Fetal and Maternal Analgesia/Anesthesia for Fetal Procedures”:
From 20 weeks’ gestation peripheral receptors are present on the whole body. From 13 weeks’ gestation the afferent system located in the substantia gelatinosa of the dorsal horn of the spinal cord starts developing. Development of afferent fibers connecting peripheral receptors with the dorsal horn starts at 8 weeks’ gestation. Spinothalamic connections start to develop from 14 weeks’ and are complete at 20 weeks’ gestation, whilst thalamocortical connections are present from 17 weeks’ and completely developed at 26–30 weeks’ gestation. From 16 weeks’ gestation pain transmission from a peripheral receptor to the cortex is possible and completely developed from 26 weeks’ gestation.
Numerous other doctors have filled in about prenatal infants’ pain capability and made their testimony available at www.doctorsonfetalpain.com.
Medical science is convincing the American public that preborn babies can indeed feel pain. In a March 2013 survey by The Polling Company, 64 percent of 1003 registered voters said they would support a law such as the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act prohibiting abortion after 20 weeks — when an unborn baby can feel pain — unless the life of the mother is in danger. Less than a third opposed such legislation.
It’s very likely Franks and Blackburn’s H.R. 36 will pass the U.S. House as the nation remembers the U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe vs Wade decision. It could also pass the U.S. Senate in the days after.
However, Congress.gov says the measure has less than a five percent chance to be implemented because it’s unlikely President Barack Obama, who hailed the practice of Partial Birth Abortion, would ever sign abortion restrictions into law.
And what about the chances of overriding an Obama veto?
“I’m told there is no way there are 60 votes to override a veto in the Senate,” said nationally-popular prolife bloggerJill Stanek.
So why try to so hard pass legislation that won’t become law?
“We just keep pushing, educating, making a big deal out of the humanity of preborn babies and pain,” Stanek said. “This will be similar to when [former President Bill] Clinton vetoed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban twice.”
The Partial Birth Abortion Ban was finally signed into law by President George W. Bush November 5, 2003 – nearly eight years after the first version was introduced.
H.R. 36 prohibits an abortion from being performed if the pain-capable child is 20 weeks or more, except when a mother’s life is endangered, or the pregnancy is the result of reported rape or incest.
How can anyone oppose saving those 18,000 innocent babies’ lives and protecting them from potential inhumane pain and suffering?
On the other hand, perhaps we should ask ourselves how we could ever explain to future generations how we didn’t even try.
Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to your U.S. Representative asking them to support H.R. 36, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. Or call the Capitol Switchboard to ask to be connected to your U.S. Representative’s office: 202-224-3121.
If you live outside of Illinois, Click HERE to send an email through the National Right To Life Committee’s web site.
The Truth Project
First Annual IFI Worldview Conference
featuring Dr. Del Tackett April 10-11, 2015
