|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 23, 2019 11:33:56 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 23, 2019 13:35:38 GMT -6
www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-06-23/giant-pedophile-and-former-obama-organizer-sues-new-york-city-back-payFormer Obama Organizer Busted For Child Porn Sues NYC For Back Pay ....... The former president of the Manhattan Young Democrats and giant pedophile Jacob Schwartz is suing New York City for pack pay, claiming that he was unfairly compensated for overtime. Schwartz, 31, recently pleaded guilty to possessing a large trove of child porn on his laptop, according to Fox News. The former Department of Design and Construction employee was arrested in 2017 after police found over 3,000 images of child pornography and 89 videos. Some of the victims were as young as 6 months old. Schwartz is demanding $18,000 - claiming that for the two years he was working for the city at $66,000 per year he was usually paid "comp time" instead of time and a half when working over 40 hours in a week. For a time, Schwartz was a rising star in Democrat circles - rubbing elbows with and promoting Hillary's campaign manager Robby Mook. From a now-deleted biography of Schwartz from the Manhattan Young Democrats. Jacob was born and raised in the heart of Greenwich Village, and was involved in political organizing from a young age. Some of his oldest memories are handing out leaflets for his father, as he campaigned for District Leader. More recently, he helped start the New Democratic Alliance in New York City, and, in 2012, worked for the Obama campaign as a Field Organizer in the Lehigh Valley. The lawsuit was filed in Manhattan Federal Court by his father, prominent attorney Arthur Schwartz - described by the New York Post as a "politically connected labor lawyer." The elder Schwartz served as council to Bernie Sanders during the 2016 election. He was also a delegate during Barack Obama's 2008 run for president. Schwartz has also represented SEIU, several unions, and served as general council to ACORN from March of 2009 to October 2010. He referred to his son's arrest as a "personal tragedy," telling the New York Post "They owed him money and he tried for two years to get paid," the elder Schwartz told the New York Post.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 23, 2019 18:57:04 GMT -6
And another leftist with a Trump/Hitler comparison:
Time cover:
Leftist outrage:
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 23, 2019 19:02:33 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 24, 2019 5:34:18 GMT -6
Rep. Nunes also gave Maria Bartiromo an update on his lawsuit against Twitter. Devin Nunes sued Twitter for $250 million in damages for censoring conservatives back in March. A 2018 study by the leftist website VICE News found that Twitter is censoring top pro-Trump lawmakers. Twitter is targeting pro-Trump Republican lawmakers Matt Gaetz, Devin Nunes, Mark Meadows, Jim Jordan and John Ratcliffe with the same shadowbanning technique. Twitter was (and is) also censoring prominent pro-Trump accounts including: Mike Cernovich, Jack Posobiec, Paul Joseph Watson, TGP’s Jim Hoft, Cassandra Fairbanks, former TGP writer Lucian Wintrich, Cristina Laila and Laura Loomer . Laura Loomer has since been eliminated from Twitter. Vice article referenced above: news.vice.com/en_us/article/43paqq/twitter-is-shadow-banning-prominent-republicans-like-the-rnc-chair-and-trump-jrs-spokesmanTwitter is limiting the visibility of prominent Republicans in search results — a technique known as “shadow banning” — in what it says is a side effect of its attempts to improve the quality of discourse on the platform. The Republican Party chair Ronna McDaniel, several conservative Republican congressmen, and Donald Trump Jr.’s spokesman no longer appear in the auto-populated drop-down search box on Twitter, VICE News has learned. It’s a shift that diminishes their reach on the platform — and it's the same one being deployed against prominent racists to limit their visibility. The profiles continue to appear when conducting a full search, but not in the more convenient and visible drop-down bar. (The accounts appear to also populate if you already follow the person.) Democrats are not being “shadow banned” in the same way, according to a VICE News review. McDaniel’s counterpart, Democratic Party chair Tom Perez, and liberal members of Congress — including Reps. Maxine Waters, Joe Kennedy III, Keith Ellison, and Mark Pocan — all continue to appear in drop-down search results. Not a single member of the 78-person Progressive Caucus faces the same situation in Twitter’s search. “The notion that social media companies would suppress certain political points of view should concern every American,” McDaniel told VICE News in a statement. “Twitter owes the public answers to what’s really going on.” Presented with screenshots of the searches, a Twitter spokesperson told VICE News: “We are aware that some accounts are not automatically populating in our search box and shipping a change to address this.” Asked why only conservative Republicans appear to be affected and not liberal Democrats, the spokesperson wrote: “I'd emphasize that our technology is based on account *behavior* not the content of Tweets.”
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 24, 2019 19:42:54 GMT -6
www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-06-24/chicago-communists-estatic-over-leftward-shift-within-democratic-partyAmerican communists are very excited over the progressive shift happening within the Democratic party. Kicking off its 100th anniversary celebration on Friday at the university of Illinois Chicago student center, Communist Party USA (CPUSA) vice-chair Jarvis Tyner "set the record straight" - telling a Chicago audience who greeted each other as "comrade" that "The truth is the communist party isn’t out to hurt you," adding "It will set you free," according to The Guardian. www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/23/communist-party-usa-chicago-cpusa-conventionOf note, Tyner was the Vice Presidential candidate when CPUSA chairman Gus Hall ran for president in the 1970s - who former CIA Director John Brennan and former FBI Director James Comey voted for. The remarks, met with applause, came on the first day of CPUSA’s 31st national convention – and at a moment in American politics in which democratic socialism and progressive ideas are increasingly finding a home in the mainstream of the Democratic party. Communists from across the US, along with international delegates from Germany, Canada, Venezuela and elsewhere, sought to send the message that their party has been the most consistent champion of those ideas, has been on the right side of some of the most consequential ideological battles of the last hundred years, and is ready to continue the fight into its second century. -The Guardian Tyner suggested that while the party has differences between some Democratic Socialists such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the surge of progressivism has emboldened the Communist Party and attracted new members. As an example, the CPUSA-affiliated news outlet People's World claims its readership has increased this year according to its editor-in-chief John Wojcik and managing editor CJ Atkins - both of whom spoke at the convention.
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Jun 24, 2019 23:37:31 GMT -6
Hillary's senior campaign adviser was on Fredo live tonight. She was ecstatic because Liawatha and others are showing the country that a woman can be president. What about her gal? Everyone wouldn't shut up about her. Maybe she should be explaining why they got their ass kicked.
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Jun 25, 2019 4:28:34 GMT -6
Wanna' take a wild guess as to what she had to say?
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 25, 2019 7:10:32 GMT -6
Trump Derangement Syndrome. It's all the way down to stitching now: thefederalist.com/2019/06/25/knitting-site-ravelry-casts-off-trump-supporters-white-supremacy/DIY Knitting Site Ravelry Casts Off Trump Supporters For ‘White Supremacy’ ‘If I had to guess, I would say the vast majority of women…who are crafting with their hands tend to be more conservative than average, not liberal,' says this minority Ravelry user. Michele Blood By Michele Blood JUNE 25, 2019 Ravelry has banned support for President Trump and his administration on their wildly popular fiber arts membership website, because “support of the Trump administration is unambiguously support for white supremacy.” Ravelry’s unapologetically discriminatory policy does not mince words. “New policy: Do not post in support of President Trump or his administration,” reads the title of the document detailing their intention to silence the artists and presumably advertisers with whom the social media site’s owners disagree. “We cannot provide a space that is inclusive of all and also allow support for open white supremacy,” it says, in Orwellian prose. “Support of the Trump administration is undeniably support for white supremacy.” Ravelry’s advertising guidelines boast 7 million users in “nearly every country in the world” reaching 5 to 6 million daily page views. SimilarWeb ranks the site first in the hobbies and leisure crafts category, and estimates 13.59 million monthly visits, 56 percent of which are from the United States. As this article was being written, 5,204 “revelers” were surfing the site. There, they share, buy, and sell patterns for everything from crocheted shawls to felted sculptures with, of course, the site’s owners taking a cut of the financial transactions. Ravelry’s decision to openly display their political biases definitely netted an upside—it was trending on Sunday and Monday on Twitter. Perhaps, however, its leadership underestimated the downside—a substantial portion of crafters are not keen on being served a side of politics with their knitting patterns. “That’s defamatory and really unfortunate,” responded knitter Harmeet Dhillon in an interview on Sunday afternoon. “I’m an immigrant myself and am not white. [Ravelry’s new policy] is offensive and inflammatory.” Ravelry member and attorney Harmeet Dhillon, California’s Republican National Committee committeewoman, is an immigrant, a woman of color, and a Trump supporter— characteristics the 7 million-member platform’s founders, Jessica and Casey Forbes, may be surprised to learn co-exist. Despite unconvincing doublespeak such as “we are definitely not banning conservative politics” and “we are not endorsing Democrats nor banning Republicans” in Ravelry’s policy notes, it is quite clear that the only people welcome at Ravelry are those who espouse liberal, progressive views. Curiously, Ravelry also emphasizes in its policy notes that “you can still participate if you do in fact support the administration, you just can’t talk about it here” (emphasis added). This “don’t ask don’t tell” spin seems somewhat hypocritical in light of the organization’s open support for LGBTQ+ people. While banning users from Trump-supporting speech, the website openly fosters anti-Trump speech and activity. Ravelry provides patterns for the infamous anti-Trump p-ssy hat along with a social group with which to interact about politics while creating it. Nearly 13,000 of the now-iconic, pink chapeaus have been made by Ravelers so far. The hats made their famous appearance on the National Mall in Washington D.C. during the Women’s March following President Trump’s inauguration in January 2017. If the p-ssy hat is too tame or passé, Ravelry members may prefer one of the variety of currently available “f-ck Trump” patterns. They include hats, scarves, socks, and even a dishcloth. The “Donald Trump Voodoo Pincushion,” apparently, does not constitute a violation of Ravelry’s prohibitions against hateful speech and imagery in their Community Guidelines. Versions of the voodoo doll featuring Theresa May and Boris Johnson are also available from the same seller. Since the announcement, Twitter has been replete with cheers and jeers of those reacting to the new policy. Take this sick burn gushing with fiber arts-related puns from TechCrunch’s Catherine Shu: “For anyone giving Ravelry grief about this: may your stitch count always be off, your circs come undone constantly and your FOs pill into eternity. Frog yourself.” Shu added in a second tweet that “. . . There is no way you can separate the political and the personal-even hobbies now.” Here’s the thing, though, Catherine. You most assuredly can—and often should, for the sake of sanity—separate the political and the personal. Here’s why. “They may have misread their customer base,” said Dhillon. “My impression is that there is a handful or minority of militant leftists who are louder than the larger population of people. And if I had to guess, I would say the vast majority of women who are knitters and spinners and people who are crafting with their hands tend to be more conservative than average, not liberal.” This winter’s “reckoning with racism” within Instagram’s knitting community, as leftist media outlet Vox described it, did not resonate with Dhillon. “I don’t really view the world through that lens,” she said of complaints that the knitting community was too exclusive and that non-Caucasian people were not featured enough in advertising or designs. “It seems like an unnecessary announcement; an unnecessary rule; a solution in search of a problem.” Dhillon aptly summed up the feelings of many Ravelry users: “It’s unfortunate to politicize what is a very apolitical, creative world.” Despite the current social media furor over the policy change, Dhillon doubts Ravelry will face substantial, sustained blowback, noting that she is opposed to “boycotting and politicizing everything.” So because conservatives are less likely to practice the left’s polarized politics, leftist business owners can often afford to spit in conservatives’ faces. “I don’t go [to Ravelry’s site] for politics, so I’m not going to stop going there because of politics. . . It’s probably not going to impact my user experience,” she said, adding that she realizes some conservative crafters may react more indignantly.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 25, 2019 7:36:04 GMT -6
Seems like a Captain Obvious type of question: thefederalist.com/2019/06/24/psychologists-cant-figure-out-hardly-anyone-wants-to-date-a-trans-person/Psychologists Can’t Figure Out Why Hardly Anyone Wants To Date A Trans Person A study recently found that most people are not interested in dating transgender people. But why would this be a problem? Nicole Russell By Nicole Russell JUNE 24, 2019 A recent Journal of Social and Personal Relationships study found that nearly 90 percent of survey respondents are not interested in dating transgender people. In a Psychology Today article on the study, coauthor Karen Blair implies these findings demonstrate significant discrimination—or at least an unwillingness to be inclusive—in dating. However, instead of pointing out the obvious truth that biological cues are foundational for sexual and romantic attraction, the author goes to great lengths to convey sympathy for the exclusion of transgenders in the dating field as if it’s merely a social justice issue. This is yet another avenue progressives are using to encourage others to deny biological reality and normalize abnormal behaviors. Blair explains that she and a colleague asked 1,000 survey participants, “Would you consider as a potential dating partner (check all that apply): a cisgender woman [someone who lives as her sex] a cisgender man [someone who lives as his sex] a transgender woman a transgender man a person with a non-binary gender identification” [someone who tries to look neither male nor female] The results showed “87.5% of the participants who were asked this very question only checked off the cisgender options and excluded transgender and non-binary individuals from their hypothetical dating pool.”
Blair explains how important finding love is to happiness. Hardly anyone would disagree with her there. Then she goes on to say, “If very few people are willing to date trans people, what does this mean for their health and well-being? If trans and non-binary people lack access to one of the most stable sources of social support, this could explain some of the existing health disparities within trans communities.”
Instead of analyzing why this might be the case, or what it might say about the transgender movement, Blair immediately assumes trans people are being actively excluded, even discriminated against. Obviously, her logic goes, nearly 900 people are wrong.
Blair also found that “only a very small minority of cisgender, heterosexual individuals (3.1%) were willing to date a trans person, a much greater percentage of individuals who identified as bisexual or queer provided inclusive responses (55%).” However, Blair still seems puzzled at the responses that indicated “individuals were least likely to express an interest in dating trans women, even if their sexual identity would otherwise indicate an interest in women (i.e., straight men, lesbian women, or queer/bisexual individuals).”
Blair didn’t ask why respondents felt disinclined to date transgenders, Perhaps it was never her intention to extrapolate on the data, but I think it’s important to attempt to do so. This data on dating could hold many clues for why so many people struggle with defending the transgender movement.
Duh: Attraction Is About Sex Blair goes to great pains to skip over why she found the results she did and instead presumes transgender people are the subjects of sheer prejudice. This is a partisan reading of these results, so much so that her conclusions nearly abandon science altogether. Jesse Singal, who wrote a fascinating article in The Atlantic last fall about transgender children (and received significant heat for it), tweeted this observation of the article:
He also tweeted “The point is that people’s attraction patterns, at root, largely have to do with biological sex cues. You can’t ideology your way out of that.” Finally, he tweeted:
Singal makes a salient point: By nature, people attracted to others based on obvious sex cues. This concept is easily observed in social settings, in television and film, and has been studied ad nauseum within the scientific community. When those innate cues are erased in favor of gender “reversals” or an androgynous or “non-binary” appearance, the natural anchors for attraction either disappear or are muddled.
If I am a man, why would I be attracted to someone who wants to look like neither a man or a woman? If I am a woman, why would I be suddenly attracted to someone who identifies as a woman yet retains many masculine traits? This is confusing and goes against nature. Blair’s refusal to acknowledge these possibilities could actually be damaging to gender-natural and transgender people alike.
Race and Ethnicity Are Not Delusions
Blair compares the quest for including transgender people in the broader dating pool to how interracial dating was viewed decades before:
Just as sociologists have tracked acceptance of inter-racial relationships as a metric of overall societal acceptance of racial minorities, future fluctuations in the extent to which trans and non-binary individuals are included within the intimate world of dating may help to illuminate progress (or lack thereof) with respect to fully including trans and non-binary individuals within our society. Neither of her conclusions could be further from the truth. A lack of interest in dating a transgender person has no parallels to interracial dating. Being black is not the same as choosing to dress “non-binary” and denying reality.
The extrapolations of this study are painfully obvious: The results indicate that biology-affirming people fail to be attracted, sexually or romantically, to people who have chosen to live outside biological norms. This is not only ideologically sound but biologically normal and healthy. Because of this, many people will continue to find love, and heck, even procreate.
Frankly, I’m relieved to see that romance has yet to fall prey to social justice inanity. The majority of people who are just average male or female folks do not need to start dating transgender people. Rather, transgender people need to accept that adhering to biological norms is healthy, not discriminatory. In fact, socially pressuring people to date them is far more prejudiced — against reality.
|
|
|
Post by wishboned on Jun 25, 2019 8:08:56 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 25, 2019 8:37:25 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 25, 2019 8:58:19 GMT -6
More taxes to pay for illegal benefits. Welcome to liberal utopia: www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/06/25/california-legislature-oks-health-insurance-mandate/SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — The California Legislature voted Monday to tax people who refuse to buy health insurance, bringing back a key part of former President Barack Obama’s health care law in the country’s most populous state after it was eliminated by Republicans in Congress. The tax now heads to Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, who proposed a similar plan in January — an indication he will likely approve it. The federal Affordable Care Act required everyone to buy health insurance or pay a penalty. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the law, ruling the penalty was a tax. In 2017, Republicans in Congress eliminated the penalty — beginning this year — as part of an overhaul of the federal tax code. The bill passed by Democrats in California would reinstate the tax, effective Jan. 1. No Republicans voted for it. One Democrat in the state Assembly — Rudy Salas Jr. — voted against it. The penalty won’t apply to everyone, including people living in the country illegally. Lawmakers on Monday also approved a bill that would expand government-funded health insurance to low-income young adults living in the U.S. illegally. People in prison and those who are members of an American Indian tribe are also exempt, mirroring what had been in the federal law. Democrats say the plan is part of their efforts to make sure everyone in California has health insurance. If the bill becomes law, California would join Massachusetts, New Jersey, Vermont and Washington, D.C., next year as the only governments in the U.S. to penalize people who don’t buy health insurance. It would also make California the only state to use money it gets from the penalty to help people who earn as much as six times the federal poverty limit pay their monthly health insurance premiums. That means a family of four earning up to $150,000 a year would be eligible. “These new subsidies will impact almost 1 million Californians and help them get the health care access that they deserve,” said Democratic Assemblyman Phil Ting of San Francisco. Republican state Sen. John Moorlach said in 2014 that 82% of Californians who paid the penalty for not having health insurance had taxable incomes of $50,000 or less. “This trailer bill will take money away from people making $30,000 to $50,000 a year and give it to people making between $75,000 and $130,000 a year,” GOP Assemblyman Jay Obernolte said. “That makes no sense.” The state has already extended government health benefits to children living in the country illegally. The plan approved Monday would extend that coverage to people as old as 25. While the proposal easily passed the Legislature, it brought a rebuke from Democratic Sen. Maria Elena Durazo from Los Angeles. She criticized the bill for not providing health care coverage to people 65 and older living in the country illegally. “We’ve missed an opportunity to create fairness and inclusion,” she said.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 25, 2019 11:37:20 GMT -6
www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/06/25/watch-live-lawmakers-native-americans-push-for-revoking-wounded-knee-medal-of-honor-recipients/Three Democrats, a Republican, and Native Americans from several tribes are holding a press conference on Tuesday to push for passage of a new bill, Remove the Stain Act. The legislation would revoke the Medal of Honor that was given to members of the United States Army that fought in the battle of Wounded Knee in 1890. The announcement of the press conference calls that battle “the 1890 Wounded Knee Massacre.” The lawmakers sponsoring and advocating for the bill are Rep. Denny Heck (D-WA), Deb Haaland (D-NM), and Paul Cook (R-CA). Native Americans taking part include Marcella LeBeau, first lieutenant in the Army Nurse Corps, D-Day, and French Legion of Honor, Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe; Manny Iron Hawk, chairman of HAWK 1890 (Heartbeat At Wounded Knee), Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe; and Phyllis Hollow Horn of the Oglala Sioux Tribe. The press conference is scheduled to take place at 11 a.m. EST.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 25, 2019 19:57:19 GMT -6
John Matze, the founder of Parler, a pro-First Amendment platform seen as an alternative to Twitter, revealed that Apple contacted him over a week ago via telephone and told him that his site must ban “offensive” content or they will remove Parler from the Apple app store.
|
|
bk2x
Quarantined
Posts: 68
|
Post by bk2x on Jun 25, 2019 22:54:06 GMT -6
John Matze, the founder of Parler, a pro-First Amendment platform seen as an alternative to Twitter, revealed that Apple contacted him over a week ago via telephone and told him that his site must ban “offensive” content or they will remove Parler from the Apple app store. Supposedly Fortnite does just fine without app store. Just gotta spread the word...
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 26, 2019 16:49:22 GMT -6
Senate will be voting on Friday on an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which would block the White House from taking military action against Iran without congressional approval.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced on Wednesday that a deal has been made to vote on the amendment on Friday.
"We intend to stay in session this week to finish the NDAA bill and allow for a vote in relation to the Udall amendment. Senators should plan to vote on Friday on the Udall amendment,” McConnell said from the Senate floor, according to a report from The Hill. “Here’s the good news, the vote will start first thing in the morning and be held open into the afternoon to accommodate as many senators as possible.”
If passed, the amendment will block funding
The amendment was introduced by Democrat Senators Tim Kaine and Tom Udall, but has gained some bipartisan support. It is unclear if they will be able to pull over the 13 Republican votes needed to pass it, however.
A similar amendment has also been introduced in the House by Democrat Congressman Ro Khanna and Republican Senator Matt Gaetz.
“This amendment affirms what President Trump knows and believes: unfocused, unconstitutional, unending wars in the Middle East make America weaker, not stronger,” Gaetz said in a statement. “Iran must be prevented from obtaining a nuclear weapon and threatening international peace, but Congress must resolve to ensure that any military action is carried out constitutionally.”
|
|
|
Post by oilsooner on Jun 26, 2019 17:36:44 GMT -6
They banned r/the_donald from Reddit...wtf
Fuckin Nazi’s man...
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Jun 26, 2019 17:37:00 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Jun 27, 2019 4:23:41 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 27, 2019 6:10:54 GMT -6
Rep. Matt Gaetz to press charges against woman who hit him with a milk shake.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 27, 2019 7:48:40 GMT -6
thefederalist.com/2019/06/27/ca-legislators-blame-religious-people-high-lgbt-suicide-rates/CA Legislators Blame Religious People For High LGBT Suicide Rates There is no reputable, serious research showing people commit suicide because a particular religion refuses to embrace homosexuality. None. Glenn T. Stanton By Glenn T. Stanton JUNE 27, 2019 Legislators in California have discovered yet another way to make it clear that mainstream religions holding to the sexual teachings of their sacred texts have no business doing so in the Golden State. Why? Because these faiths, which billions of good people worldwide happily hold, do not embrace homosexuality. This includes the three largest: Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. In a resolution that recently passed the state assembly, “the Legislature calls upon all Californians to embrace the individual and social benefits of family and community acceptance” of LGBT people. It singles out especially faith-motivated individuals and organizations. These legislators make a very ugly accusation against such people. California lawmakers are planning to spread the idea, with the power and moral authority of the state, that such religious beliefs actually kill people, including children. The text of this bill boldly states: WHEREAS, The stigma associated with being LGBT often created by groups in society, including therapists and religious groups, has caused disproportionately high rates of suicide, attempted suicide, depression, rejection, and isolation amongst LGBT and questioning individuals… Note the absoluteness of their conclusions, particularly two words: create and cause. Stigma, created by religious groups, causes high rates of suicide. Do Religious People Make Others Commit Suicide? Let it sink in. Christians, Muslims, and Jews, your beliefs make gay people kill themselves. If this is indeed true, we are among the worst of the worst kinds of people. These legislators believe this is true and are doing something about it. California is trying to insist that churches, synagogues and mosques, their leaders, congregants, grade schools, universities, and families fully and uncritically support homosexual, bisexual, and transgender identities in every way. Thus, any teaching, preaching, writings or practices that are faithful to the clear sexual instructions of these faiths will be beyond the pale of official California values. They will not be tolerated. This charge makes this legislation overwhelmingly serious and consequential because of the seriousness of this charge. Either one party is directly culpable for deaths or the other of making such a dreadful allegation. To be clear, what they’re proposing is a resolution and would not have the razor-sharp edge of law. But it would have the real and devastating blunt force of state-sanctioned shaming of religious convictions. They couldn’t criminalize you, but they could obliterate your reputation and your life. There are too many vivid examples of this already. Of course, this resolution will grease the skids for it becoming enforceable law. I want to demonstrate, through some objective and undeniable facts, coupled with simple reasoning, why this long-used accusation has no foundation. The case consists of three basic points: There is simply no dependable research support for the accusation. None. Gay and lesbian individuals themselves report being significantly more likely to choose to attend the very churches that teach a more traditional sexual ethic than they do so-called “welcoming and affirming” churches. The most dramatically gay-friendly places in the world still have incredibly and disproportionately high rates of suicides among their gay and lesbian individuals. 1. No Real Evidence There is no reputable, serious research showing people commit suicide because a particular religion refuses to embrace homosexuality. None. It is largely created as an ideological assumption and political cudgel. But to even question the assertion will cast you immediately as a heartless stone. Remember, any science that does not permit it to be questioned has become fundamentalist dogmatism. There is a very small amount of literature on the general harms of family rejection (which we at Focus on the Family strongly advise against), but none showing it causes suicide. There is certainly none establishing religious causation. That is an objective fact. Quite simply, anyone making the claim family responses and religious teaching lead to suicide do so absent any bit of scientific proof. Let’s just look at two facts that raise serious questions about the “religion kills” assertion. Research done by two gay-friendly scholars from Columbia and the University of California at Los Angeles found that, to their absolute disbelief, church-attending, same-sex-attracted individuals are 2.5 times more likely to attend congregations that hold and teach a more traditional, biblical view of sexuality than they are to attend so-called welcoming and affirming churches. Let’s consider the implications of this interesting finding. Suppose for a moment that the “religion kills” accusation is correct. Either these individuals are too dull to realize they are doing grave harm to themselves by regularly attending such churches, or they find such churches are quite lovely and helpful. Why else would they choose to wake up early on a Sunday morning and go to the trouble of getting themselves there? This study’s abstract states, “Guided by minority stress theory, the authors hypothesized that exposure to non-affirming religious settings would lead to higher internalized homophobia, more depressive symptoms, and less psychological well-being.” They were honest in admitting they found “There was no main effect of non-affirming religion on mental health, an unexpected finding discussed in this article.” No main effect on mental health itself, much less suicide. 2. Gay-Affirming Societies Also Have High Suicide Rates Leading gay activists and their faithful allies in the media and academia operate on a simple and seemingly reasonable premise: non-acceptance of homosexuality leads to greater levels of suicide. To reduce these tragic rates, replace non-acceptance with full affirmation and all will be well. Doing so would not only dramatically reduce suicide, but also the disproportionately higher levels of mental illness among this population, which are strongly and consistently documented. (See here, here and here for just three strong examples.) This thesis is easy to test: Determine the most gay-affirming places in the world. Are the suicide rates of gay and lesbian individuals in these places significantly lower than in non-affirming countries? The most gay-affirming places on the planet are the Netherlands and Scandinavia. In Amsterdam, the gay movement has received every major law, policy, or cultural accommodation they’ve requested, with nearly no opposition, and often with great celebration. They televise their annual gay pride parade, and Amsterdam spends more than a million euros a year to promote itself as “The Gay Capital of the World.” The land of windmills and tulips is gay Valhalla. Their gay and lesbian suicide rates should be extremely low, if non-existent, right? That is not what scholars, government officials, and clinicians find. Rates of suicide and suicidal ideation among gay youth and adults are remarkably, tragically high in the Netherlands. Scholars even have a name for this. They call it the “Dutch Paradox.” Despite the Netherlands’ reputation as a world leader with respect to gay rights, homosexual Dutch men have much higher rates of mood disorders, anxiety disorders and suicide attempts than heterosexual Dutch men. Epidemiologists report similar disparities elsewhere in Western Europe and North America. [Emphasis mine.] Let’s look at just a few examples of evidence. A 2006 Dutch study published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior reported that despite living “in a country with a comparatively tolerant climate regarding homosexuality” gay and lesbian-identified people were at dramatically higher risk for suicidality than the general Dutch population. More recently, a 2016 Swedish study shows that the rate of gay males suffering from lifetime suicidal ideation there is 140 percent greater. The same measure for women there is 110 percent higher than the general population. Bisexuals are curiously even higher, with females 250 percent more likely and bisexual men 160 percent. In France, fourth on the world’s gay-friendly list, gays and lesbians are on average 80 percent more likely to suffer suicidal ideation than their straight peers. All countries that keep such data show similar findings, regardless of changes in attitudes and policies concerning LGB-identified individuals. 3. Do Same-Sex Marriage Licenses Affect Rates? With greater specificity, a 2016 study published in the European Journal of Epidemiology examined how legalizing gay-marriage affected suicidality. It should have reduced it, right? Yet Swedes in same-sex marriages, enjoying their anticipated greater social acceptance and security, retained suicide rates nearly three times that of their married opposite-sex peers. The authors caution these numbers are likely an underestimation. A similar study found that Danish men in legal same-sex unions had a dramatic eightfold increase in suicide deaths over opposite-sex married peers. The fact of the matter is this: There is no research whatsoever demonstrating significantly reduced rates of suicidal deaths or attempts among gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered people as the overall acceptance or affirmation of these groups in a country increases. Any honest person who knows this literature well will admit it. Thus, this is the conclusion that must be admitted: If the “acceptance of homosexuality equals reduction of suicide” thesis has any validity to it, a society would need to far exceed the acceptance, affirmation, and even celebratory actions of the Netherlands and other countries to demonstrate it. Of course, this is reasonably impossible. What is there left to do that these countries are not already doing? Reasonable people, even those in the gay rights movement, must call for a sharp end to the absolutely vile and false accusation that certain mainstream religious traditions are culpable for the deaths of gay and lesbian people. The Bible Belt does not run through Amsterdam, Stockholm, or Copenhagen. We must admit that something else is driving the tragically high suicide rates of our gay and lesbian neighbors, and it’s not traditional faith convictions. True compassion demands we find out what that cause is; these lives are too valuable to play baseless politics with.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 27, 2019 8:09:24 GMT -6
Good on Clint Eastwood for defying the Hollywood boycott and will film his next movie in Georgia.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 27, 2019 11:26:19 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 27, 2019 12:05:23 GMT -6
Not a good poll for the left: www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/06/27/poll-young-americans-lgbtq-acceptance-plunges-63-to-45-two-years/A survey produced by the Harris Poll in partnership with Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) finds young Americans’ comfort with LGBTQ individuals has plunged from 63 percent in 2016 to 45 percent in 2018. According to the Accelerating Acceptance report, Americans aged 18-34 who say they are comfortable interacting with LGBTQ people dropped from 63 percent in 2016 to 53 percent in 2017, and then to 45 percent in 2018. The survey results are published as lesbian, gay, and transgender activists celebrate Pride month. At the same time, the Trump administration continues to attack the LGBTQ community through discriminatory policies and targeted rhetoric, and LGBTQ Americans are becoming more vulnerable to hate crimes and violence,” GLAAD said in response to the survey outcome. ........ Among the survey’s findings are that the acceptance of LGBTQ individuals among young women dropped from 65 percent in 2016 to 64 percent in 2017, and then plunged to 52 percent in 2018. Among males, 62 percent were accepting in 2016, plunging to 40 percent in 2017, and then further down to 35 percent in 2018. The percentage of young Americans who said they were uncomfortable with an LGBTQ family member increased from 24 percent in 2016, to 29 percent in 2017, and then to 36 percent in 2018. Additionally, the discomfort of young Americans has increased with the thought of their child’s placement with an LGBTQ teacher, from 25 percent in 2016 to 29 percent in 2017, and then to 33 percent in 2018. Also, 39 percent of younger Americans said they were uncomfortable discovering their child experienced an LGBTQ school lesson, compared with 30 percent in 2017 and 27 percent in 2016. In contrast, the survey showed that American adults aged 72 and older have decreased in their discomfort with LGBTQ lessons in schools, 47 percent to 37 percent. John Gerzema, CEO of the Harris Poll, called the survey results “alarming” and “toxic,” reported USA Today. “We count on the narrative that young people are more progressive and tolerant,” he said. “These numbers are very alarming and signal a looming social crisis in discrimination.” Gerzema suggested the cause of the drop in LGBTQ acceptance is due to young people on social media who are exposed to “mean tweets.” “Our toxic culture is enveloping young people,” he said. Sarah Kate Ellis, GLAAD president, said the decline in young Americans’ acceptance of LGBTQ is surprising, given their contact with more people who identify as such, noted the news report. In the report, GLAAD notes that “young people are identifying as LGBTQ in higher rates than ever before.” “This newness they are experiencing could be leading to this erosion,” Ellis said. “It’s a newness that takes time for people to understand. Our job is to educate about non-conformity.” The LGBTQ activists explain that, when a decline in acceptance of this population was observed among younger males, “GLAAD launched a program dedicated to working with the video game industry on LGBTQ inclusion, to bring LGBTQ characters and stories to a world where male audiences were consuming content.” According to USA Today, Ellis and Gerzema attribute the drop in LGBTQ acceptance to political rhetoric and policy changes, “such as a ban on transgender people in the military and religious exemption laws that can lead to discrimination, Ellis and Gerzema said. Both are a likely force behind the young’s pushback on tolerance, they said.” “We are seeing a stark increase in violence in the community,” Ellis added. “In this toxic age, tolerance –even among youths – now seems to be parsed out,” said Gerzema. “Nothing today should be taken for granted.”
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 27, 2019 14:00:31 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by redstripe on Jun 27, 2019 14:09:11 GMT -6
Not a good poll for the left: www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/06/27/poll-young-americans-lgbtq-acceptance-plunges-63-to-45-two-years/A survey produced by the Harris Poll in partnership with Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) finds young Americans’ comfort with LGBTQ individuals has plunged from 63 percent in 2016 to 45 percent in 2018. According to the Accelerating Acceptance report, Americans aged 18-34 who say they are comfortable interacting with LGBTQ people dropped from 63 percent in 2016 to 53 percent in 2017, and then to 45 percent in 2018. The survey results are published as lesbian, gay, and transgender activists celebrate Pride month. At the same time, the Trump administration continues to attack the LGBTQ community through discriminatory policies and targeted rhetoric, and LGBTQ Americans are becoming more vulnerable to hate crimes and violence,” GLAAD said in response to the survey outcome. ........ Among the survey’s findings are that the acceptance of LGBTQ individuals among young women dropped from 65 percent in 2016 to 64 percent in 2017, and then plunged to 52 percent in 2018. Among males, 62 percent were accepting in 2016, plunging to 40 percent in 2017, and then further down to 35 percent in 2018. The percentage of young Americans who said they were uncomfortable with an LGBTQ family member increased from 24 percent in 2016, to 29 percent in 2017, and then to 36 percent in 2018. Additionally, the discomfort of young Americans has increased with the thought of their child’s placement with an LGBTQ teacher, from 25 percent in 2016 to 29 percent in 2017, and then to 33 percent in 2018. Also, 39 percent of younger Americans said they were uncomfortable discovering their child experienced an LGBTQ school lesson, compared with 30 percent in 2017 and 27 percent in 2016. In contrast, the survey showed that American adults aged 72 and older have decreased in their discomfort with LGBTQ lessons in schools, 47 percent to 37 percent. John Gerzema, CEO of the Harris Poll, called the survey results “alarming” and “toxic,” reported USA Today. “We count on the narrative that young people are more progressive and tolerant,” he said. “These numbers are very alarming and signal a looming social crisis in discrimination.” Gerzema suggested the cause of the drop in LGBTQ acceptance is due to young people on social media who are exposed to “mean tweets.” “Our toxic culture is enveloping young people,” he said. Sarah Kate Ellis, GLAAD president, said the decline in young Americans’ acceptance of LGBTQ is surprising, given their contact with more people who identify as such, noted the news report. In the report, GLAAD notes that “young people are identifying as LGBTQ in higher rates than ever before.” “This newness they are experiencing could be leading to this erosion,” Ellis said. “It’s a newness that takes time for people to understand. Our job is to educate about non-conformity.” The LGBTQ activists explain that, when a decline in acceptance of this population was observed among younger males, “GLAAD launched a program dedicated to working with the video game industry on LGBTQ inclusion, to bring LGBTQ characters and stories to a world where male audiences were consuming content.” According to USA Today, Ellis and Gerzema attribute the drop in LGBTQ acceptance to political rhetoric and policy changes, “such as a ban on transgender people in the military and religious exemption laws that can lead to discrimination, Ellis and Gerzema said. Both are a likely force behind the young’s pushback on tolerance, they said.” “We are seeing a stark increase in violence in the community,” Ellis added. “In this toxic age, tolerance –even among youths – now seems to be parsed out,” said Gerzema. “Nothing today should be taken for granted.” I had a good chuckle from this in the article: ----------------- According to USA Today, Ellis and Gerzema attribute the drop in LGBTQ acceptance to political rhetoric and policy changes, “such as a ban on transgender people in the military and religious exemption laws that can lead to discrimination, Ellis and Gerzema said. Both are a likely force behind the young’s pushback on tolerance, they said.” ------------ .05% of the push back are from these 2 combined, stupid to even bring them up. The remaining 99.5% is from people being tired of everything being forced upon us. And a lot of the pride parades are not family friendly with weird shit going on.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 28, 2019 14:27:12 GMT -6
President Trump has already ruffled some feathers at the G20 meeting in Japan. The Spanish media is outraged after President Trump appeared to humiliate Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez. Sanchez is a close pal of Barack Obama.
In the video that is making the rounds President Trump appears to direct Sanchez to his seat after the two collide prior to the meeting.
Hah-Hah!
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Jun 28, 2019 17:51:47 GMT -6
President Trump has already ruffled some feathers at the G20 meeting in Japan. The Spanish media is outraged after President Trump appeared to humiliate Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez. Sanchez is a close pal of Barack Obama. In the video that is making the rounds President Trump appears to direct Sanchez to his seat after the two collide prior to the meeting. Hah-Hah! So I take it this is all we have to send the world into a tizzy? I'm guessing no one has anything but whatever we are seeing in the video.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 28, 2019 17:57:12 GMT -6
President Trump has already ruffled some feathers at the G20 meeting in Japan. The Spanish media is outraged after President Trump appeared to humiliate Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez. Sanchez is a close pal of Barack Obama. In the video that is making the rounds President Trump appears to direct Sanchez to his seat after the two collide prior to the meeting. Hah-Hah! So I take it this is all we have to send the world into a tizzy? I'm guessing no one has anything but whatever we are seeing in the video. Basically more of the "Orange man bad" crud.
|
|