The Evil Insanity of Gender Identity, Part Three: Legitimizing Lunacy and Dissolving Sexuality

LGBT, Gender Identity

In part one of this series, we explored how the children who are pushed into ‘transitioning’ from one sex to another are exploited and victimized. Part two was a glimpse at the damage done to society overall by the ‘trans-rights’ movement.

As this aberrant movement has grown in influence in society, the push to legitimize ‘trans-rights’ has rapidly moved beyond cultural acceptance and now reaches to acquire the federal status of law. As noted in this journal, the first stage of the process is already finished with the passage of HR-5 in the U.S. House of Representatives.

The bill was sent on to the Senate in May of this year, where it now sits in the Judiciary Committee and no further action has been taken. No hearings or debates or votes have yet taken place.

Making Lunacy a Legitimate “Right”

Inset.1.11.17.2019The goal of the ‘trans-rights’ community is not the social acceptance of their cause. As important as this is, it is merely one step toward the goal.

The real goal is to make the cause socially ascendant so that ‘transgenderism’s’  claim as some sort of ‘civil right’ is both culturally and legally established. For the Left, whether that conforms to scientific or moral norms is irrelevant to accomplishing that end.

In the previous parts of this series, we have observed how ‘trans-rights’ advocacy and claims have asserted themselves in the areas of family court, women’s sports, and public education. Regulations and the law have been used to promote ‘transgenderism’ as a civil right in each of these areas.

However, since this movement isn’t scientifically or morally correct, the Left’s favorite new social activists, ‘trans-rights’ proponents, began their legal maneuvering by taking aim at the language. Thus was born the epic redefinition of gender as expressed in pronouns.

The Left decided that no longer should anyone be allowed to use the designation “he” or “she” to speak to or about someone who claimed they were ‘transitioning’ from one sex to another. This materialized at a national level in Canada in 2016.

One of the most infamous defiers of this Canadian law is Dr. Jordan Peterson. He has decided that he will not comply with a law that requires him to state what is untrue as if it were true.

In an article about Canada’s Federal Bill C16, Peterson writes that as a part of a video series,

I also indicated my refusal to apply what are now known as “preferred” pronouns to people who do not fit easily into traditional gender categories (although I am willing to call someone “he” or “she” in accordance with their manner of self-presentation).

Inset.2.11.17.2019He also goes on to point out in 2016, that such legal lunacy was already beginning a legislative creep into America.

If you are wondering, reasonably, why any of this might be relevant to Americans, you might note that legislation very similar to Bill C-16 has already been passed in New York City.  Authorities there now fine citizens up to $250,000 for the novel crime of “mis-gendering” — referring to people by any words other than their pronouns of choice (including newly constructed words such as zie/hir, ey/em/eir and co).

Other cities and states have been following suit with enacting ‘misgendering’ legislation. In one example from October of 2017, the California legislature passed, and the Governor signed into law,

SB 219 …was introduced by state senator Scott Weiner (D-San Francisco) and sponsored by Equality California. It penalizes senior healthcare workers who “misgender” any patients identifying as transgender by failing to address the patient by their preferred gender pronouns. Any employees who “willfully or repeatedly violate” SB 219 could be charged with a misdemeanor and subject to punishment of a $1000 fine, or even up to one year in jail.

The battlefront of labor law has not been neglected by ‘trans-rights’ advocates in America. Recently, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission decided to embrace the ‘gender identity’ movement.

the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) interpreted Title VII Sex Discrimination to include the transgender population, and this radically changes employment. …the EEOC believes that a transgender woman should be allowed to use the common women’s restroom, and when not allowed, this is considered disparate treatment. Intentional misgendering or misuse of a transgender employee’s new pronoun or name could also be considered sex discrimination.

Since the language has to change on the pronoun level, it follows that public facilities must also change their designations, i.e. ‘men’s’ or ‘women’s’ restrooms or locker rooms, to reflect the official policy of lunacy in action. It is ironic that should these efforts prove successful, the end result will be the insane dissolution of human sexual nature forever.

Human Sexual Identity Is Dissolved by Gender ‘Fluidity’

30224839423_cf6a9317cd_w

Gender Identity Map with over 100 different divisions

The main premise of the Left’s ‘trans-rights’ crowd is the notion that gender is twofold. First, gender is not a biological designation, it is merely a “social construct” that can and should be ignored.

Second is the belief that gender is somehow ‘fluid’ in nature. That is, gender is not simply male or female but rather exists in a range between these two and can move like a fluid from one pole to another, or settle anywhere in between.

Therefore, when a person is born, their sexual identity is not identified, it is “assigned” and need not be that person’s ‘actual’ identity. In fact, that is what motivates other legislation such as Oregon’s law that one’s designation on a driver’s license or state identification or birth certificate can be marked “x” in place of “m” or “f”.

This legal option is not limited to Oregon alone. Other states with similar laws include California, Washington, Maine, Minnesota, Arkansas, Colorado, Maryland, and Massachusetts, with New Hampshire, Hawaii and, Pennsylvania set to enact such measures in 2020.

What seems to go unrecognized is the logical implication of accepting the ‘trans-rights’ claim upon the people that designate themselves as LGBT rights proponents. For if the ‘gender is fluid’ thesis is accepted, all of human sexuality is called into question.

The ‘binary’ nature of human sexual identity is antithetical to transgenderism, as has already been noted. That being so, any claim that only males are gay, or that only a female could be a lesbian, or even that anyone could be bisexual is rendered null and void.

The claim of the ‘transgendered’ person that gender is fluid means that one might claim they are a gay man today, but tomorrow claim that they are instead a “male lesbian.” In other words, if gender fluidity is real it must always be fluid which means that gender identity can never be settled.

Inset.4.11.17.2019Incidentally, the concept of someone being a “male lesbian” is a real thing and was written about a long time ago in psychology circles. A Montana State University professor who is now retired defined a “male lesbian” in 1987 as,

a heterosexual man who wishes that he had been born a woman, but who (even if he had been a woman) could only make love to another woman and never to a man. Unlike the transsexual, the “male lesbian” does not feel himself to be “a woman trapped inside the body of a man”.

It cannot be that gender fluidity is a temporary reality for anyone if the ‘trans-rights’ advocates are correct. That would mean that ‘gender identity’ is a choice, or a preference, rather than a fact of existence.

This also contradicts the long-held claim by gay-rights activists that homosexuality is not a preference but an inherent condition and thus not able to be changed. If transgender ideas are accepted, one could be a lesbian, a gay male, and perhaps even bisexual within mere moments depending on one’s mindset at the time.

The absurdity of this concept should be apparent but is it less absurd than the idea that “male lesbians” are a real thing? The evil of the ‘gender identity’ offensive is the attempt to force insanity upon everyone who doesn’t believe the lunacy.

‘Gender fluidity’ only dissolves all other categories of gender to create a chaotic mass of madness. That is the logical result of allowing disturbed and irrational minds to determine truth and reality, and it must be shown for the danger that it poses to our children, our society, and to our freedom to speak out and oppose its destructive delusion.

You felt secure in your wickedness; you said, “No one sees me”; your wisdom and your knowledge led you astray, and you said in your heart, “I am, and there is no one besides me.” But evil shall come upon you, which you will not know how to charm away; disaster shall fall upon you, for which you will not be able to atone; and ruin shall come upon you suddenly, of which you know nothing. Isaiah 47:10-11 [ESV]

D.T. Osborn

Sources: The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, Crossway Bibles, 2001

Featured and Top Image courtesy of Mike’s Flickr Page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 1 courtesy of Christopher Sessums’ Flickr Page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 2 courtesy of Gage Skidmore’s Flickr Page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 3 courtesy of Ant Smith’s Flickr Page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 4 courtesy of Heather’s Flickr Page – Creative Commons License

All other sources linked or cited in the text

Originally published in TIL Journal

Advertisements

New Manifestations of Idolatry and Impurity in the Modern Mainstream Church

LGBT, Christianity

Some very recent revelations of actions within two mainstream Protestant church denominations are manifesting levels of idolatry and impurity which are unprecedented and extremely disturbing but are also unfortunately not unexpected. They are but the latest logical extensions of the philosophy the Leftchurch has been operating under for many decades.

One of these actions involves a Seminary famous for its Leftist leanings, while the other involves a local church body belonging to a denomination of which this author was once a member. One act was a blatant display of pagan idolatry, while the other was an act of insanity and impurity.

The Idolatry: Confessing Sins and Giving Worship to Plants

…because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. Romans 1:25 [ESV]

Union Theological Seminary in New York is a very influential “progressive Christian” institution that teaches church leaders from many different Protestant denominations. On September 17, 2019, a professor of worship urged his students in afternoon chapel,

to “confess to the plants” their sins against them.

The purpose of this ‘exercise’ was to give a confession as,

an “expression of worship” and as a “liturgical response to our climate crisis.”

Union Theological Seminary in New York

This is giving worship to what has been created instead of the Creator. It is blatant idolatry in an institution that claims the mantle of “Christian.”

However, I cannot say this is an unexpected development at this institution in particular. The phantom “climate crisis” is but their latest excuse to champion Leftism over God.

On Union Theological Seminary’s website, their “Statement of Mission” begins with an acknowledgment of their Leftism.

Progressive theology has long taken shape at Union, where faith and scholarship walk together to be a moral force in the world.

Continuing on the same page, Union’s “Vision Statement” begins,

Education at Union Theological Seminary is deeply rooted in a critical understanding of the breadth of Christian traditions yet significantly instructed by the insights of other faiths.

The vision statement drones on for another hundred words and this is the only place where the word “Christian” is mentioned. There is one other mention of the word “Christian” in the “Mission Statement.”

However, there is no mention of the words, God, Jesus Christ, Holy Spirit, Lord, Great Commission, or Bible in either official statement of the Seminary. In fact, Christianity is officially regarded as a hodge-podge of “traditions”  to be “significantly instructed by the insights of other faiths.”

Moreover, Union has a very revealing “Statement of Diversity” that includes this;

We recognize that our mission is best fulfilled when we notice and embrace diversity across all social identities (race, class, gender, sex, ability, faith/belief, sexual orientation, age and all of the dimensions of identity that live within us),

Inset.2.9.21.2019The key to comprehending the all-inclusiveness declared here is the phrase “embrace diversity across all social identities” with a parenthesis clarifying that they really mean ‘all’ such identities. This is full-throated advocacy of identity politics and all the dangerous refuse that accompanies it.

The most recent and vociferous identity group to come to prominence has been the ‘transgender rights’ crowd. This movement promotes fantasy over reality and has produced an astounding amount of support for the prospects of child abuse even with toddlers, as this journal has documented several times.

The movement toward transgenderism has now permeated all corners of modern society in the western world. This occupation seems almost complete with the successful foray into formerly “Christian” denominations who are now welcoming and affirming the rights of “transgendered” individuals to lead their congregations.

The Impurity: Calling a Transgender Pastor

For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, Romans 1:21-24 [ESV]

A local church in Ohio did something on July 1, 2019, that I believe is unprecedented among any of the plethora of Baptist church denominations. This congregation enthusiastically called a “transgender woman” by the name of Erica Saunders to be their new pastor.

Peace Community Church in Oberlin, Ohio, welcomed Erica Saunders as their new leader, an LGBT-affirming pastor who started identifying as a female in her first year of seminary at Wake Forest University School of Divinity.

14349176502_719a4da182_mTwo items from this quote stand out right from the start. One item is that the author of the article has perhaps unintentionally accepted that ‘Erica’ is now a ‘her’ despite the biological reality that ‘Erica’ is actually a ‘he.’

Secondly, as was the case with Union Theological Seminary, the aberrant ideas took hold in the academic institution of training for church leaders. I have some experience combatting this kind of mindset in the same denomination which includes this Ohio church.

Peace Community Church is affiliated with the Association of Welcoming & Affirming Baptists, the Baptist Peace Fellowship of North America, the Alliance of Baptists, and the American Baptist Churches of the Rochester/Genesee Region.

I served as pastor of an American Baptist Church for nine years until I left both the congregation and the denomination. I spent a considerable amount of that time battling with many others against the incursion of groups such as the “Association of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists” aka AWAB and the “Baptist Peace Fellowship” into the American Baptist Churches.

The furious struggle of that time in the late 1990s through the mid-2000s was whether or not American Baptist Church congregations should be allowed to “welcome and affirm” practicing homosexuals into leadership positions in the local church while still affiliated with the denomination.

For my part, with God’s urging, I presented the biblical view that this should not be allowed through petition, and in a personal one-on-one meeting with the highest-ranking congregational authority in the ABC. The meeting resulted in a polite but firm refusal to attempt changing this policy of accepting LGBT leaders into the denomination.

The Spirit also moved me to present the biblical case in the form of a proposal at the Biennial Regional meeting of the ABC. All but 3 churches represented there voted to adopt that proposal, however, the vote was disallowed on a procedural technicality. Moreover, even though hundreds of churches and an entire region of the country left the ABC over this, the denomination remained resolute in its insistence upon this radical ‘inclusiveness.’

The church I served tried to carve out a middle way through this morass. On my recommendation, the congregation amended its Constitution to prohibit calling leaders who espoused the LGBT “welcoming and affirming” position. Against my recommendation, they also decided to remain affiliated with the larger American Baptist Churches denomination.

Inset.4.9.21.2019Nor is the ABC the only denomination providing such examples of sinful insanity and impurity within its ranks.  Those who also support the LGBT position include the Episcopal Church, the Presbyterian Church USA, the United Church of Christ, the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, and even some in Reform and Conservative Judaism.

The three largest Christian organizations, Catholics, Southern Baptists, and Pentecostal or Assemblies of God churches do not support such positions. The generally Leftist United Methodist Church has yet to endorse ordaining LGBT supporters, however, it is under some pressure towards that end.

The Indictment: The Mainstream Church has Crossed the Rubicon

“Crossing the Rubicon” is a phrase taken from a historical event in 49 BC. It refers to  Julius Caesar crossing into Italy leading his army specifically against Roman law.

At the time, Caesar was a powerful general of the Roman army and the Governor of the region of Gaul, located in modern-day France. He wanted to enter Italy at the head of his army, which was expressly forbidden by the then Republic of Rome.

When he crossed the Rubicon river, he violated that law and set in motion a war which he would win and become the first ‘unofficial’ Emperor of Rome. It was written that just before Julius Caesar crossed over into Italy, he declared “Let the die be cast!”, and led his troops across the water.

For Caesar, that meant there was no turning back from their course now. It was a course that would rend a republic that lasted almost 500 years, and create a tyrannical dictatorship which would decay into decadence, division, and destruction.

The mainstream church has now crossed her own “Rubicon.” There is no turning back for those who practice idolatry and sanction impurity, except to confess their own sin in sorrow to the LORD Jesus Christ, repent, and “sin no more.”

Inset.5.9.21.2019That is incomprehensible to the Leftist mainstream church leadership today who proudly display their destructive, unrighteous behavior for all to witness. They have become the same as those Paul excoriated who are “claiming to be wise,” and yet they “became fools.”

However, there is a very bright ‘silver lining’ around these stormclouds. That silver lining is the transparency of the modern technological age provided through the advent of smartphones.

This means that the rise of cult-like Christian doctrine is not veiled in secrecy as it once was, because almost anyone anywhere can find these “new” teachings through an internet search. Thus, no person should be able to claim ignorance if they choose to be or remain a part of any organization espousing such evil.

Conversely, this also provides a critical tool for the faithful to warn others away from heretical teachers with the truth of the saving gospel of Jesus Christ. It has literally never been easier to access Scripture online and all the tool needed to understand the Bible.

Anyone can access not only multiple versions of the Bible but the tools needed to find and decipher the original Hebrew and Greek of the Bible and do so for free. For example, my primary source for this is e-sword and can be downloaded for free.

Arm yourselves with the truth, and prayer and the support of brothers and sisters so that, like Jesus, you can tell others that in Christ,

you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free. John 8:32 [ESV]

D.T. Osborn

Sources: The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, Crossway Bibles, 2001

Featured and Top Image courtesy of David’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 1 courtesy of David Merrett’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 2 courtesy of michael_swan’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 3 courtesy of Equality Michigan’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 4 courtesy of Sam T’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 5 courtesy of Kigali Wire’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License

All other sources linked or cited in the text

Originally published in TIL Journal

Reason Won’t Convince The Left: Use it Anyway [Video]

4960622954_01f0d2fc0c_b

I recently read this quote attributed to legendary  actor Clint Eastwood,

If you could reason with Democrats, there wouldn’t be any Democrats.

I immediately thought that truer words have never been spoken. This same idea has rolled around in my brain concerning the Left in general for many years and I have wondered why that is so.

Why can’t reason sway a Leftist? Why is it that using reasonable speech to counter a Leftist talking-point is met with verbal, and sometimes beyond verbal, attempts to silence you?

After much consideration and observation of Leftist behavior, I think I have at least a partial answer.

Why Reason is Unconvincing to Leftists

There are several reasons the Left can’t be reasoned with. However, they can be summed up by the elevation of emotion over truth by the devotees of Leftism.

Leftism, unreasonableIt is important to understand that emotions are not inherently unreasonable. For instance, it is not unreasonable to have strong negative emotions toward someone who has harmed you or your loved ones.

However, emotions become unreasonable when they are allowed to dictate beliefs and actions to such an extent that seeking harm to another is the result. This is, in part, why God’s Word rails against seeking vengeance against an enemy.

Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” Romans 12:19 [ESV]

A specific example of using emotion over reason was analyzed in this journal last year concerning the disgusting behavior of the Left against Justice Brett Kavanaugh. In that drama, the presumption of innocence was tossed aside in favor of a political agenda while smearing an honorable man before Congress.

Moreover, two of the current Democratic candidates for President, Sen. Cory Booker [D-NJ] and Sen. Kamala Harris [D-CA], were exceptionally defamatory and ridiculous at the same time. Recall that the Kavanaugh hearings were where Booker became a self-proclaimed ‘Spartacus.’

Worse, they also did real damage to those who are the vast majority of victims of sexual crimes. Which makes it easier for those who are truly guilty to prey on the innocent.

Moreover, this terrible farce will not serve to help real victims of sexual crimes. Instead, it will make it harder for accounts to be believed even if the stories are credible. So much for the Democrats helping women.

It is unreasonable to advocate for an emotional response which, if successful, would harm those who they claim are their staunch allies.

The Left today epitomizes and advocates incoherent and unreasonable policy in society with enforcement by the state in a number of areas. The attempt to justify this is full of emotional appeals designed to castigate logic and reason.

Leftism unreasonableThe current press of “transgender rights” into society and law is a perfect example of emotion over reason. Reason would recognize the biological reality of male and female and not accept the concept of ‘gender fluidity.’

The emotional appeals of imagined victims who claim their right to ‘identify’ as any sex they wish anytime they wish are used as attacks against not allowing the mentally disturbed to have their way. The impact of the emotion on some drives them to attempt the patently absurd.

For example, witness the infamous case of a Canadian man who now ‘identifies’ as a woman that wanted to have “her” genitals waxed, but was refused service by a real woman who wasn’t comfortable doing that. He is suing the business on the basis of gender discrimination.

The fact that both high-ranking politicians and ‘gender-challenged’ people will engage in totally unreasonable and even deranged behavior invites an important question. What is their motive, that is, what do they have to gain through this?

The Motive Is Power

Put simply, the motive is power. In the case of the man convinced he is really a woman, the motive will be personal power, specifically power to legally invade the privacy of real women and children.

In some particular people, the personal power of gender ‘identity’ is specific to athletic endeavors. The recent domination of several women’s sports on the high school level is evidence of that.

In some, those of means or already in positions of power, such as politicians, the motive is gaining power over others. The Leftist politicians will say that they should be given more power to be used for the creation of a more perfect, humanistic utopia.

Some of those political figures might truly believe in the Socialist ideal of a man-made paradise on earth. If so, they are also exhibiting unreasonable faith in a system that has never worked despite many, many attempts in the real world.

unreasonable LeftTheir misplaced faith is even more deluded given that there are real-time examples of Socialism’s inherent failure going on around the world today. Venezuela is the most recent prominent example of such yet that does not dissuade the enthusiasts of the Left at all.

This faith of the Left, or as they might call it, “progressivism,” is very much like a religious cult without a real Diety. This false faith is placed in imperfect humans in authority with the expectation that somehow a more perfect government and society will be the result.

The Founders of America did not see humanity as capable of perfecting itself, which is why they placed limits on the power of government in the Constitution. The cult of the Left sees the Constitution very differently and the consequence of adopting their view has been leading steadily toward tyranny in America.

Professor Charles Kessler explains this clearly in a portion of his appearance with Mark Levin a few nights ago. Pay particular attention to the last two minutes of the video for some real enlightenment on the Left’s view of the world.

Kessler says that Leftism is really like a medieval religion with an inquisition, an index of forbidden books and thoughts, and a “moral patrol” to ensure no one reads forbidden books or expresses forbidden thoughts.

All three of those qualities are manifested today by the Left on social media. The “moral patrol” on social media can be called the morality police that put those who express forbidden thoughts into ‘Twitter jail,’ or ‘Facebook jail.’

The inquisition can be seen unfolding through the flurry of hostile ‘tweets’ viciously attacking anyone who disagrees with the Left, especially if they can characterize it as ‘offensive.’ The attacks are consistently low on substance and high on overwhelmingly emotional accusations of ‘racism,’ ‘xenophobia,’ ‘Islamophobia,’ ‘Anti-LBGTQ+,’ etcetera, etcetera, which make up the lexicon of forbidden words and thoughts. 

However, these qualities of Leftism are not unique or restricted to social media. As has been seen particularly in Portland, Oregon with the dangerous antics of Antifa, the Left’s morality police on the street will enforce their decrees with violence against innocents.

It is evident the Left is so entrenched in their completely illogical and unreasonable positions that they can’t be argued out of them. So why should conservatives continue to bring logic and reason to the fore to refute the Left?

Reason Is Still Necessary to Combat the Unreasonable Left

unreasonable LeftistsReason is absolutely necessary as a tool to combat the Left and their agenda, despite the fact that it will not convince a committed Leftist to abandon their faith in the cult of Progressivism. There are three key considerations favoring the use of reason against the unreasonable Left.

First, consider that not all Leftists are equally committed to the cause. Because it takes a large amount of blind faith to completely swallow the illogic of Leftism, there are those among them who can be convinced by solid reasonable evidence.

The evidence for this is found in many places online. Examples include the #walkaway movement filled with testimonies on YouTube and FB and Twitter of former Leftists who have “walked away” from that view, and encourage others to do so as well.

Another example is influential broadcaster Candace Owens, a black woman who was a young believer in the Leftist agenda and became a convert to conservatism a few years ago. She is at the forefront of a multitude of black conservatives expressing themselves with both emotion and reason online, some of whom have recently seen the light of conservativism.

Second, consider that there are uncommitted people who are listening and some are looking for reasons to get out of the middle of the road. In many cases, those people are also getting tired of being run over especially by the strident and incessant clamor of the Left in society.

These are the people who just wanted to live a peaceful, non-political life raising a family and perhaps gaining some relative prosperity in the process. That is until they found out that their kids were being forced to support the delusion of ‘transgender identity’ in the classroom of their public school.

These parents were living and enjoying life and just minded their own business. But now, the Left has begun to push into their own lives and that makes it their business, thus they are listening for ways to combat the Left.

gospel and reasonThird, consider that it is always right to present the truth against falsehood even if the odds seem to be against you. That is the example provided by God in His Word to counter the greatest falsehood of all, the falsehood of hopelessness.

The gospel of Jesus Christ is the greatest truth in history which banishes the lie of hopelessness against the reality of sin. All people know and are bothered by the fact that in some way, they are imperfect and incomplete both without and within.

However, not all understand that this condition is really the inherent sin common to all. Some will react with a denial that there is a problem, even going so far as to unreasonably deny the existence of God, and abandoning any hope or effort to find the truth.

By the way, denying the existence of God is an unreasonable position. But that is a subject for another time.

Others will try almost anything to remedy their imperfections both physically and spiritually from cosmetic surgery to psychic “ascended masters,” without success. That leads to a sense of frustration and hopelessness.

However, the gospel presents the truth that there is hope in Jesus Christ and relief from the imperfection and destruction of sin is found for each of us through faith in His sacrifice on the cross. A sacrifice prompted by the perfect love of God to bring hope to humanity.

The truth that as you or I grow in faith, we can with renewed hope see the time when faith comes to completion and we are made perfect in Christ. That hope is one good reason among many to accept the gospel truth.

For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known. 1 Corinthians 13:12 [ESV]

D.T. Osborn

Sources: The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, Crossway Bibles, 2001

Featured and Top Image courtesy of yoppy’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 1 courtesy of Thoth God of Knowledge’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 2 courtesy of EYE DJ’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 3 courtesy of Lau Ardelean’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 4 courtesy of Tomas’ Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 5 courtesy of Sharon Tate Soberon’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License

All other sources linked or cited in the text

Originally published in TIL Journal

Dangerous Over-reactions to the Recent Mass Shootings [Video]

Gun control

The recent mass shootings in El Paso, TX, and Dayton, Ohio this past weekend have once again turned the political spotlight on the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Left always has its attacks primed for these eventualities, and as usual, their arguments are forceful demonstrations of folly.

Of course, that does not discourage the Left from screechings at conservatives, directly blaming President Trump, to calling for completely unconstitutional measures that would demonstrably violate the 2nd Amendment. None of those actions are unexpected from the Leftist core believers as well as their political shills.

This journal has warned before of the danger of trying to infringe on the 2nd Amendment rights of Americans. In this instance, the danger may be taking a surprising twist.

What is surprising, and alarming, is the reaction of some conservative law-makers and frankly, some statements from President Trump himself. He gave a critical speech about the shootings and gave some proposals which are ostensibly tailored to help reduce or prevent such horrific happenings in the future.

However, before I delve into the President’s words, I need to confront the absolute false narrative of the Left that Trump is a racist white supremacist and responsible for the shootings. Those on the Left, at whatever level of government or media they exist, are simply lying to advance their evil agenda.

Trump’s speech more clearly than ever should have satisfied the most ardent critics that he is not a racist or a white supremacist. He could not have more forcefully denounced both claims on a comprehensive level, but that doesn’t stop the malicious Left from lying about him and trying to silence him.

Not only has President Trump never said the racist things the Left keeps lying about, but his actions also demonstrate that he is not racist in any way. He spoke with sincerity, grace, and firmness in his response to the shootings.

His speech contained many statements that were both correct and consoling to the victims of these shootings. However, some of the proposed “solutions” are cause for real concern.

A Warning About The Mental Health Warning

Mass shootingsPresident Trump called for legal action which would deny the possession of firearms to people who are determined to be ‘mentally ill,’ in some manner. This certainly sounds like a reasonable proposition, however, as with many such measures, it is far more complicated and fraught with danger than most realize.

The first problem is akin to almost any type of government ‘solution’ proposed to almost any problem in society, the problem of abuse. It is not stretching the truth to say that for most laws if someone wants to abuse it in their favor, they can find a way to get what they want.

There are already forms of such laws denying firearms to those deemed mentally ill in certain places around America. One example is Florida’s “Baker Act” law, which provides for temporary commitment to a mental institution up to 72 hours with a minimum of due process.

The Baker Act is an existing law that provides for temporary institutionalization of individuals who meet certain criteria. It can only be used by specific authorized persons, including judges, mental health professionals, law enforcement personnel, and doctors. More importantly, the law is limited by the fact that those officials must have sound evidence suggesting that the individual might meet the Act’s definition for mental illness. In addition, he must pose a risk of harm to himself or others – or demonstrate self-neglect.

With this existing statute, there are at least some reasonable legal safeguards determining who can be subject to being held in custody. For instance,

people cannot be involuntarily institutionalized simply because they’re acting strangely, refuse to seek psychiatric examinations, or have occasional mood swings or outbursts.

The questions looming over this new proposal is ‘On what basis, and by whom, is someone to be declared too mentally ill to keep freedom and their 2nd Amendment rights?’ Moreover, if the existing measures are not adequate now, how far is the government willing to go to in this area?

Perhaps more frightening and direct measures will be deemed necessary. Which brings us to another, and more concerning subject, the idea of so-called ‘Red Flag’ laws.

The Red Flags About ‘Red Flag’ Laws

Gun control laws‘Red Flag’ gun laws function as gun confiscation orders. In his speech, President Trump called them “extreme risk protection orders.”

They are designed to deny access to, or possession, of firearms to those deemed at extreme risk to commit violence with those firearms. They could be deemed as an ‘at extreme risk’ individual according to certain ‘red flags’ which those close to the person had determined might be dangerous.

John Lott, the president of the Crime Prevention Research Center and an expert on ‘Red Flag’ laws commented on the nature of these laws during an interview on “The Buck Sexton Show,” from August 5, 2019.

You’re trying to predict whether somebody’s going to go and commit a crime. …It’s kind of like the old Tom Cruise movie “Minority Report,” without the psychics.

This moves beyond the mental illness warning criteria to include things such as criminal history when evaluating whether or not someone should have a firearm. However, as Mr. Lott also points out, we already have access to criminal records and felonies as well as some misdemeanors already disqualify a person from owning a gun, so this is superfluous.

The potential for abuse lies in the additional legal measures these laws propose in order to confiscate someone’s guns. Some have suggested that simple arrests, even without a conviction, should be considered as possible ‘red flags’ to trigger the seizure of firearms.

The abuse comes into play easily when, for example, a disgruntled spouse or employee is the target. They can be essentially flagged as a threat to commit violence on the say-so of someone who doesn’t like them and is looking for an excuse to punish the offending party.

Some might ask, ‘Won’t these individuals be assessed by mental health professionals?’ Even if that is true, the record of mental health professionals in predicting future criminal behavior is abysmal. As author Rob Morse notes,

Psychiatrists who have access to complete medical records often have to assess if a patient will be violent. They make that assessment for the safety of the patient and for the safety of hospital staff. These doctors make the correct prediction 60% of the time when they are predicting behavior for the next 24 hours. That means they are slightly better than flipping a coin while they are looking a day into the future. Psychiatrists have no idea if the patient will be violent in the next week, the next month, or the next year. These highly educated and dedicated specialists can’t predict the future. That record will get worse as red-flag laws let non-professionals disarm near strangers with a phone call.

Moreover, this could easily result in making situations worse rather than better. Morse goes on to make this salient point.

Concealed carry holders are several times less likely than the police to shoot innocent people. Who is at risk when the police knock in the dark of night to confiscate legally owned firearms?

The danger of this becoming law is rapidly coming upon us, as Senator Lindsey Graham is already proposing ‘red-flag’ legislation. No details of his plan are available at present, except that he makes a point of mentioning that Trump seemed ‘supportive’ of it.

The Hate Crime ‘Death Penalty’ Threat

Inset.3.8.8.2019This is perhaps the most disturbing part of President Trump’s address. In a brief but powerful sentence, he called for the death penalty for both mass shooters those who commit “hate crimes.”

Admittedly, there is little time in such a short speech to elaborate on the meaning of this declaration. No real details about the proposal were presented there.

The danger lies within the very nature of the ‘hate crime’ designation. It is far too ambiguous a label to use for this extremely important issue.

The current legal definition of a hate crime according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation is,

…a traditional offense like murder, arson, or vandalism with an added element of bias. For the purposes of collecting statistics, the FBI has defined a hate crime as a “criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity.”

The FBI is quick to add that hate itself is not a crime, and thus they are committed to also protecting a person’s right to free speech. To be blunt, the FBI has not inspired a lot of trust among regular Americans since the exposure of their spying operations against a sitting president and the hate their operatives have displayed against Trump and his supporters.

So please forgive me if the assurances of the FBI do not really reassure me at this point. Moreover, the expansion of hate crime accusations and arrests in many nations are alarming, to say the least.

In fact, in 2013 the Canadian Supreme Court actually declared that certain types of religious speech qualify as hate crimes. In this case, it involved biblical speech against teaching homosexuality in public schools.

Should such offenses as these be punishable by death? Or would that only apply to certain groups in society, perhaps of the Christian variety?

Lest one think that this could not happen in America, consider this. In 2012, just seven years ago, no one was even considering banning people from social media for ‘misgendering’ a transgender man who claimed he was a woman.

Real Problems and Solutions Are Ignored

Inset.4.8.8.2019The true tragedy of this is that there are real problems with the amount of gun violence overall, and some real solutions to them which are being completely ignored while potshots are being taken at the 2nd Amendment, pun intended.

For example, in just the cases of mass shootings in the United States, one factor is more common in all of them since Colombine in 1999. The environment of the home and family.

If there’s a thread, it’s young men whose biological father was missing in their lives. After the Parkland school massacre in Florida, the Heritage Foundation cited a study showing that among the 25 most-cited school shooters since Columbine, 75 percent were reared in broken homes. Most, according to psychologist Peter Langman, an expert on school shooters, came from homes that also experienced infidelity, substance abuse, criminal behavior, domestic violence and child abuse.

It’s not racism, not ‘white supremacy,’ not even mental health, video games, and certainly not those who support the 2nd Amendment the most, law-abiding gun owners! It’s the absence of a father in the home.

Isn’t it strange how this particular metric is also a great predictor of criminal activity as well as mentally disturbed behavior? For instance, witness these statistics,

  • 85% of all children who show behavior disorders come from fatherless homes – 20 times the average.  (Center for Disease Control)

  • 80% of rapists with anger problems come from fatherless homes –14 times the average.  (Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26)

Perhaps our political leaders should focus more on that very real problem if they aim to slow gun violence and violence itself in society. In fact, a large number of problems could be ameliorated if more families remained intact, but that is fodder for another time.

But the one who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, he will be blessed in his doing. James 1:25 [ESV]

D.T. Osborn

Sources: The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, Crossway Bibles, 2001

Featured and Top image courtesy of Maryland GovPics Flickr page -Creative Commons License
Inset Image 1 courtesy of Barrett Cook’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 2 courtesy of Obama44worst ever’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 3 courtesy of Paul Schreiber’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 4 courtesy of Quinn Dombrowski’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License

All other sources linked or cited in the text

Originally published in TIL Journal

Why We ‘Object’ to the Left [Video]

Leftism

I begin with a note of full disclosure that I am an unabashed fan of almost all things Star Trek. In fact, I have been a fan since I viewed the original series when it ran the first time.

My favorite character from that series has remained my favorite Star Trek character of all; ‘Mr. Spock,’ masterfully portrayed by the late Leonard Nimoy. I was enthralled as a youth by Spock’s embrace of logical thinking and calm clarity in very sticky situations.

Among the multitude of insightful statements made by ‘Mr. Spock’ one, in particular, seemed to apply quite well to the current state of mind of the Left in our society. It is from one of my favorite episodes with the title, “The Squire of Gothos.”

Spock is verbally confronted by an almost omnipotent, yet rather childish, alien being known as “Squire Trelane” who has captured the Enterprise crew.

TRELANE TO SPOCK: I don’t know if I like your tone. It’s most challenging. That’s what you’re doing, challenging me?

SPOCK: I object to you. I object to intellect without discipline. I object to power without constructive purpose.

The two phrases, “intellect without discipline,” and “power without constructive purpose” describe the Leftist mentality and goals to a tee. As conservatives, we should oppose the Left and forcefully state what ‘Spock’ declared to ‘Trelane,’ “We object to you!”

The Left Epitomizes ‘Intellect without discipline’

AOCThe prevailing mentality of the modern Left is the epitome of ‘intellect without discipline.’ On just about any subject that requires a modicum of clear thinking and logic, Leftists have zero discipline.

Intellectual discipline demands at least an attempt to be accurate and truthful when presenting arguments, and the Left routinely ignores this principle in every area. A prime example was recently presented via the voluminously ignorant Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortex [D-NY] commenting about illegal aliens in government detention.

In a tweet she remarked:

“The U.S. is running concentration camps on our southern border,…That is exactly what they are. They are concentration camps.”

Note that AOC didn’t simply compare the temporary border detention centers to concentration camps. She literally called them concentration camps.

This level of ignorance combined with defiant confidence in spite of the truth is evidence of a completely undisciplined intellect. That is particularly objectionable in someone charged to represent American citizens.

Examples of this abound among the Left in every arena of life. The whole “climate change” hysteria is a hoax that demonstrates undisciplined intellect on a massive scale, all for political payoffs.

The video reveals the lengths to which ‘climate change’ advocates will go to foster their false and destructive narrative upon everyone else. As conservatives, we rightly object to this demonstration of ‘intellect without discipline,’ and the inevitable harm that results.

However, there is another aspect which needs to be explored. That is, what motivates the Left to push for nonsensical and demonstrably destructive changes in all facets of human existence.

As it happens in human affairs, the motive at the bottom is power and control. Make no mistake, for the Left, it is power without any constructive purpose whatsoever. In fact, the power they seek is inherently destructive to Western society and freedom itself.

The Left Seeks the Power that Destroys

LeftistsIt is no secret that those on the Left seek ever-increasing influence and power within Western nations, as well as globally. Such efforts are aimed at establishing the authority of the state in a Marxist/Socialist manner in the assurance that this would herald the illusionary utopian society of Leftist imaginations.

There is a substantial factual difficulty with the purposes of the Left. At every point in time and at every place on the planet where Socialism has been established, the results are always destructive.

The most prominent example of this today is, of course, the devastation experienced in Venezuela. What was once the most prosperous country in South America, with the largest oil reserves in the world, is now reduced to the status of the third-world nation whose people are starving.

Aside from chubby dictator Nicolas Maduro and his fellow elites, the Venezuelan people are running out of food and medical supplies. In their starving desperation, citizens have resorted to breaking into zoos to slaughter and eat the also malnourished animals; buffalo, pigs and horses are top choices on the menu.

SocialismMoreover, we should not forget the horrific destruction of Socialism throughout history, most notably the bloody tally of the 20th century. It is noteworthy that many on the Left specialize in denouncing Nazism while forgetting that Hitler’s ideology was simply another form of Socialism.

Understand that Socialism has various pedigrees, but the same evil end. The Nazi party in Germany was officially known as the “National Socialist German Workers Party.” Together with Germany’s National Socialism, the Communist Socialists such as the old USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) and Communist China have racked up a body count of over 150 million people!

If one took a cursory look at any portion of life or any sector of culture, a plethora of destructive examples rear their heads in constitutional rights, education, science, politics, entertainment, media, religion, marriage, and the family. Consequently, the question becomes, ‘How do conservatives best object to the use of ‘undisciplined intellect’ towards no ‘constructive purpose?’

How to Object to the Left

I believe the most effective way to object to the Left is with determined, steadfast and immovable opposition to their destructive aims. We must do so with a manifestly disciplined intellect and striving toward a truly constructive purpose.

This means employing a disciplined intellect to invariably counter the Left’s fallacies with actual facts. It means never letting them go unchallenged when making their fraudulent claims.

In order for this to happen, we can no longer remain uninformed or unequipped to counter the destructive squawking of Socialists. A continuing innocent ignorance will only serve to empower the Left toward its destructive goals.

Social Media censorshipThis also requires the ability to engage Leftist arguments in the open arena of social media. Unfortunately, the social media giants of our time are awash with the vapid ideas of Leftists who control the most sought-after platforms such as Google, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, making it difficult to have opposing views published and widely disseminated.

There are four possible responses to such Leftist efforts to censor and banish conservatism from social media. One is to attempt creating a new social media platform allowing a free exchange of ideas, however, that task is beyond most of us but a select and daring few.

The second response is to exclusively support and use alternative social media that operate with freedom of speech, meaning to abandon the use of entities such as Facebook altogether. The prospects for success in that venture are only slightly greater than creating one’s own platform from scratch.

The third response is a hybrid of utilizing alternative media as well as the social media goliaths of today. This is a more promising alternative, though I believe it is still short of the real solution.

The fourth response is likely the most effective in both the short and long run. It is a push to break up the social media monopolizing of the Left by advocating legal action.

Rather than take unnecessary space to explain the justification and need for this, I’ll let Bill Whittle lay out the case in the following video.

A thousand more words would not suffice to comprehensively catalog all the incidents of conservative voices being banned or demonetized by the huge social media machine. This must be fought with determined effort until the goal of a truly free internet is realized.

The most precious item destroyed by Leftist ideals is individual liberty. The Socialist Left would rather each individual ‘know their place’ as part of a slave-like society forfeiting all rights to the omnipotent government.

Conservatism inherently believes in individual freedom under representative government accountable to its citizens. Our solution to the purveyance of “bad” destructive speech is to encourage more “good” constructive speech and be free to announce and support it publically.

It is not our aim to ban or shut down Leftist voices whether on social media or not. It is instead our aim to ensure an open and upfront debate in the marketplace of ideas.

Sooner or later [hopefully sooner] we can realize this aim, and a renewed hope for the future can come to light, with God’s help. As was said long ago, we should

pray as if everything depends on God, work as if everything depends on you.

Therefore, with redoubled effort and conviction, let us stridently stand and declare to the Left, “We object to you!” And let us lean upon the LORD who is with us to proclaim and act upon the truth.

So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed him, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” John 8:31-32 [ESV]

D.T. Osborn

Sources: The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, Crossway Bibles, 2001

Featured and Top Images courtesy of Chris Potter’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 1 courtesy of Dimitri Rodriguez’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 2 courtesy of Bronson Abbott’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 3 courtesy of Ivy Dawned’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 4 courtesy of Matthew Semrau’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License

All other sources linked or cited in the text

Originally published in TIL Journal

A Behavioral Experiment: Predicting the Pro-Abortion Left’s Response to Alabama and Company [Video]

Scientist.article.5.23.2019

There has been a number of states who recently passed measures to severely limit and outlaw abortion. These pro-life laws have brought down the wrath of the Leftists who favor abortion at all times and for any reason.

The most controversial of these so far is the new Alabama law criminalizing abortion except for saving the life of the mother. With this and other such activities in mind, I decided to conduct an experiment concerning Leftist’s mindsets on abortion and see if they really were as easy to predict as I surmised.

This experiment was conducted in two steps. First, I drew from my experience in the pro-life movement for 36 years and predicted seven reactions from the Left to this law in advance. Then I compared my predictions to the actual responses represented by 10 articles either giving the Leftist response or pieces talking about multiple responses.

Predicting the Predictable

Leftist, pro-abortion

My predictions took the form of generalizations, as I had no way of knowing in advance the precise wording which was used in the articles. Here are my seven prognostications of Leftist responses to the new pro-life legislation in states such as Alabama and Georgia.

1.) In at least one article, [and likely many] the response that the new law is attempting to regulate women’s bodies will be mentioned.
2.) Ditto for one or more mentions that the law is a threat to Roe v. Wade.
3.)There will be false assertions of what the law actually requires.
4.) In some manner, the humanity of the unborn child will be denied.
5.) It will be asserted that the law will harm women.
6.) Trump will be criticized because he is pro-life.
7.) The ‘far-right’ and/or the ‘religious right,’ will be blamed and scorned.

I made these predictions at 8:51AM, CDT,  on May 18, 2019. I realize that the reader will have no way of knowing for certain that I didn’t read the article responses ahead of time except for my word that I didn’t do so.

However, besides my assurance, when the results are tabulated it should bolster my claims… I hope. I returned to the experiment for part two on 5/21/2019 and checked on how my predictions panned out.

The results are calculated by number for each source that was cited. Whether or not a particular prediction was actually used more than once in an article was not noted, merely counted as one ‘fulfillment’ of a prediction.

It should be noted that this is far from any kind of scientific survey. I selected 10 examples only, which is insufficient for any definitive conclusion according to statistical science.

I suggest, however, that even this small sample could be expanded over a longer period of time with more responses and the results would vary only slightly. More importantly, even this smattering of evidence reveals the priorities and motivations of the Left when they try to argue for a woman’s ‘right to choose.’

Each example of at least one predicted response is noted in the list below. I read each article and recorded the instances when a predicted Leftist reaction/response occurred and assigning it a number from my list of 7.

218px-Protesting_Illinois_6th_District_Republican_Congressman_Peter_Roskam_Chicago_Illinois_7-26-18_2843_(42951185284)In other words, in the first article, I found at least one example of my number 2 prediction that the new laws would be seen as a threat to Roe v. Wade. This ‘raw data’ if you will, is compiled and analyzed afterward, as will be seen.

1.) From a Reuters story, 5/16/2019: Responses 2, 4, and 6 were shown in this.  https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-abortion-republicans-idUSKCN1SM2KL

2.) From a Washington Post story, 5/15/2019: Responses 2, 4, 5, and 6 occurred here. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/democratic-2020-candidates-warn-roe-v-wade-at-stake-after-alabama-abortion-bans-passage/2019/05/15/f4f77c7a-7719-11e9-bd25-c989555e7766_story.html?utm_term=.9f0f3f2842b3

3.) From Townhall.com story about the reactions 5/16/2019: Responses 1, 2, and 4 are used in this example.   https://townhall.com/columnists/davidlimbaugh/2019/05/17/democrats-unhinged-over-alabamas-abortion-bill-n2546477

4.) From a NY Times article on 5/14/2019: This uses predicted responses 2 and 5  https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/14/us/abortion-law-alabama.html

5.) From a NY Times ‘op-ed’ with a pro-abortion actress, 5/15/2019: Here we find responses 1, 4, and 5.  https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/15/style/busy-philipps-abortion-youknowme.html?  action=click&module=RelatedCoverage&pgtype=Article&region=Footer

6.) From an article concerning Leftist talking points on “The Federalist” site highlighting social media posts from the pro-abort crowd: Here it can be seen that points 1, 2, 4, and 5 are used.  https://thefederalist.com/2019/05/17/many-pro-choice-talking-points-border-propaganda/?utm_source=The+Federalist+List&utm_campaign=215d30f116-RSS_The_Federalist_Daily_Updates_w_Transom&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_cfcb868ceb-215d30f116-84040107

7.)From a National Review article concerning NPR’s rules for discussing abortion: Predicted response number 4 is mentioned.  https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/nprs-abortion-rules/

8.)From a May 19, 2019 ‘Intellectual Conservative’ article on leftist reactions: Here predictions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 can be found. http://www.intellectualconservative.com/the-progressives-socialist-anti-science-on-abortion/

9.)From a May 21, 2019, Townhall Article on a pro-abortion rally in D.C.: Numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 are featured. https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethbaumann/2019/05/21/pro-abortionists-held-a-stopthebans-rally-outside-the-supreme-court-heres-what-n2546698?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&newsletterad=05/22/2019&bcid=8620a513a8eac12722df4b6aed35298b&recip=27779030

10.)From May 21, 2019, on ‘Twitchy.com’ about the pro-abort protest in D.C.: This piece featured responses 1, 3, 4, and 5. https://twitchy.com/sarahd-313035/2019/05/21/wtf-is-she-smoking-dem-rep-jackie-speier-takes-a-page-from-aocs-book-to-argue-for-abortion-rights-video/?utm_source=twtydaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&bcid=8620a513a8eac12722df4b6aed35298b

Results and Some Surprises

Leftist, Pro-abortionThe results of this ‘experiment’ yielded a mixed bag of the expected and the surprising among the pro-abort Left’s responses.

All of the predicted responses appeared at least once. However, the top four responses are revealing about the mindset of the Leftists as these give vital clues to what they consider most important in the abortion battle.

The highest frequency pro-abort response among those I had predicted was number ‘4.) In some manner, the humanity of the unborn child will be denied.’  In 9 of the 10 examples, this response was observed.

The next most frequent Leftist response was number ‘2.) …mentions that the law is a threat to Roe v. Wade.’ This was used in 7 different pieces.

The third most frequent response was recorded 6 times in two different articles. First is prediction ‘1.) In at least one article, [and likely many] the response that the new law is attempting to regulate women’s bodies will be mentioned’ which is tied with response number ‘5.) It will be asserted that the law will harm women.’

The other three predicted responses had a large drop in stating what I assumed they would. Only 3 pieces used predicted reaction number ‘3.) There will be false assertions of what the law actually requires.’ Two articles used the number 6 prediction that ‘Trump will be criticized because he is pro-life.’

The most unexpected result to this author was that only one response used number 7.) The ‘far-right’ and/or the ‘religious right,’ will be blamed and scorned. In some cases responses that I should have predicted also appear in these articles I examined.

One of those is the false claim that the Bible and Christianity are supportive of abortion, which was cited in at least one case. This journal has covered that claim in a number of past articles.

Another false claim from the Left that I should have expected was the accusation that these laws are a reflection of ‘racism’ on the part of conservatives. The racism claim did surface, however, I did not record the number of times it appeared.

In The Final Analysis

From this small experiment, we can only make limited assumptions rather than hard conclusions. Yet, these assumptions are not without merit and can be instructive to gain some understanding of the destructive worldview that pro-abort Leftists embrace, in order to rightly oppose its evil design.

Of course, the pro-abort Left could as easily make predictions about the pro-life responses to these new state laws concerning abortion. I would concede that, however, I also would stress that one side is predictable for its object to preserve life, while the other is staunch in a campaign to destroy life.

Leftist, pro-abortion

If the frequency of occurrence indicates importance, the factor the pro-abort Left considers most important is that the humanity of the unborn is denied always, regardless of the truth. The pro-abortion mindset is that above all else and at any cost, it cannot be admitted that the unborn child is a living human being.

The second most important point is that Roe v. Wade must be untouchable. Roe v. Wade is the Left’s symbolic Holy Grail and it is considered a sacred validation of an absolute right.

The problem with that position is the history of bad precedent from the U.S. Supreme Court, namely the 1857 “Dred Scott” decision. “Roe” has been compared many times with this infamous SCOTUS ruling which enshrined the institution of slavery as a supposed constitutional ‘right’.

The comparison is from a different era and addresses a different issue, but the point is the same. That point being that just because the SCOTUS makes a ruling does not automatically create a newly-imagined Constitutional right.

The third item on the pro-abortion acolytes’ list of most cherished beliefs is that pro-life advocates wish to regulate and control women’s bodies. Any threat to the full legalization without exception of abortion on demand is a perceived threat to a woman’s bodily autonomy, and therefore must be opposed.

The final important finding is that abortion is portrayed as good for women’s ‘health,’ while any other solution to a pregnancy, including birth, is harmful to women. This fiction is peddled constantly and is easily refuted by many facts, not the least of which is this, as Anna Paprocki writes in the Federalist,

There is no federal abortion reporting requirement. Even the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute acknowledges that the current “patchwork of surveillance efforts” relies on “incomplete” reports from states and that California—estimated to account for 17 percent, or one out of every six abortions in the country—is one of three states that “do not report to the CDC at all.” Guttmacher uses voluntary reporting from abortionists, filtered through its own ideological lens, which fails to fill these gaping holes.

The following video demonstrates the use of these four beliefs employed by the pro-abort Left in a brief debate recently shown on CNN.

The desperation of the Leftist pro-aborts is evident from the blatant denial of reality especially on the part of the woman in the video, as well as the deflection of the host. For example, Cuomo is correct when he says that no states currently allow for the killing of a child already born in an attempted abortion.

However, he also fails to mention that Virginia recently tried to pass such a law which was proposed in January of this year. The law failed to pass in that state, but it is a harbinger of things to come if Leftists have their way.

America must make the choice to embrace either life or death and in doing so embrace either God’s curse or His blessings. The lovers of abortion today are clearly favoring a choice of death without understanding the terrible consequences that will follow.

I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live.  Deuteronomy 30:19 [ESV]

D.T. Osborn

Sources: The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, Crossway Bibles, 2001

Featured and Top Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons by Isaiah Mahanga – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 1 courtesy of Wikimedia Commons by JRBrown – Public Domain
Inset Image 2 courtesy of Wikimedia Commons by Charles Edward Miller – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 3 courtesy of Wikimedia Commons by Sam Pullara – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 4 courtesy of Wikimedia Commons by Rebecca W. – Creative Commons License

All other sources linked or cited in the text

Originally published in TIL Journal

Sacrifice

Sacrifice is the mother of everything.

Without sacrifice, you can’t get what you want in your life.

Your success always demands great sacrifice from you.

Are you ready for that?

Ask yourself.

Then you’ll know how to sacrifice in your life.

Source: POSITIVE THOUGHTS OF SELF-MOTIVATION! Only you can motivate yourself… Only you can bring positive changes in your life…. Birister Sharma

To Buy this Book- POSITIVE THOUGHTS OF SELF-MOTIVATION!

Thank you for reading. Let us make a beautiful world together. God bless!

Follow me On Twitter

Follow me On Facebook

COPYRIGHT © Shubham Verma

The Left and Islamofascism: A Strange and Troubling Alliance, Part One [Video]

Leftism

Much has been written here and elsewhere about the many detrimental elements that the 2019 crop of Democratic congressional rookies have brought to American society. However, there is at least one somewhat positive service these neophytes have done for the public, they have visibly revealed the mind of the activist Left.

One of the more troubling revelations that have come to light is the political and societal alliance between the far Left and Islamofascists in the United States. No, there isn’t a formal written agreement between the two groups, nor could there be one that truly states the intentions of either party, as will be seen.

However, each of these ‘movements’ has something to gain through cooperation in their fight against a common foe, the traditional, conservative Judeo-Christian society of the West. Whatever differences they may have they are unified in this immediate goal.

The Political Alliance

IslamofascismThe political alliance of the Left with Islamofascism in America began immediately following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and the opportunity was unwittingly provided by former President George W. Bush. In a speech six days after 9/11, Bush declared that,

The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That’s not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace.

The naivety of President Bush was a denial of the brutal history of Islamic Jihad and its resurgence in modern times. Yet the refrain that “Islam is a religion of peace,” became the moral pedestal for the Left to the present day.

Most political conservatives at that time were approving of Bush’s call for tolerance out of a sense of solidarity and the inherent conservative tendency to place blame for evil acts on the individual perpetrators. The other side of that coin is conservatives, in general, tend to trust others until given a good reason not to trust them.

During the remainder of the Bush presidency, Islamic terrorists focused on America’s efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the homefront was relatively quiet. However, that situation began to change after the ascension of Barak Obama to the Oval Office.

One of the first actions President Obama took after his inauguration was to embark upon what became known as his ‘apology tour,’ in various countries. During that international speaking jaunt, Obama routinely degraded American policy, both with dictators in places such as Cuba, and shamed our conduct of the ‘war on terror’ in Islamic nations.

LeftismPresident Obama then proceeded to initiate secretive ties to the Muslim Brotherhood around the time of the so-called ‘Arab spring,’ uprisings in Egypt during 2011. Obama supported the uprisings which were aided by the Muslim Brotherhood.

At the same time, Obama began to withdraw troops from Iraq, which quickly resulted in the rise of ISIS and their successive military conquests in the Middle East. This set the stage for the veil to be lifted on any pretense that our Commander in Chief and his cohorts were not aligning with radical Islamofascism against American interests.

The veil came off on September 11, 2012, at Benghazi, Libya. The Obama administration, in a strategic alliance with Islamic terrorism backed by Leftist political players including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, covered up a clear Islamic attack on Americans by falsely blaming the attack on an internet video.

This horrible event cemented the troubling alliance between the political Left and Islamofascism. The stage was now set for a new crop of eager young Leftists and Muslim terror apologists to arrive in 2018.

The chief representative of the Left is, of course, the ever verbose Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez [D-NY]. The main apologist for Islamic terrorism is the slightly less infamous Representative Ilhan Omar [D-MN].

Rep. Omar has been featured in a previous article and the clear danger she poses to America was thoroughly outlined in that piece. However, there is another necessary element which supports the pernicious alliance between the Left and Islamofascism. That element is the Leftmedia.

The Leftmedia Supports Islamofascism

IslamofascismThe conglomerate of the Leftist media apparatus has shown unwavering support for the assault of Islamofascists upon Western civilization at every juncture, especially during Obama’s tenure. The pre-eminent example of this was the lack of honest coverage by the Leftmedia network outlets after the terrorist attack on Benghazi.

For the seventh night in a row, ABC’s World NewsCBS Evening News, and NBC Nightly News refused to give one single second of coverage to the Obama administration’s deceitful response to the terrorist attack on the US consulate in Benghazi on September 11.

However, there are many other examples where Islamic terrorist attacks on American soil were downplayed or dismissed altogether. One prominent example that has faded from memory, especially if one is of the millennial generation, occurred in 2009 at my former military home base of Food Hood, Texas.

U.S. Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan went on a premeditated murderous rampage at Ft. Hood on November 5, 2009. As was later uncovered, Hasan was a sympathizer with Islamofascism groups and vocally declared his allegiance to Islamic Jihad as he shot and killed 13 American soldiers.

The response of the Leftmedia was to cover-up Hasan’s clear connections to Jihadists with every lame reason they could concoct including PTSD, though Hasan never served overseas. Prominent among the fables was the Left’s favorite screed of ‘racism’ directed against Hasan which caused him to kill his fellow soldiers.

Media outlets found another convenient motive that would fit its worldview — racist U.S. soldiers drove Hasan to kill. ABC News ran a story the day after the attack titled Nidal Malik Hasan, “Suspected Fort Hood Shooter, Was Called “Camel Jockey.” This allowed the media to ignore any relationship between the attack and Islam and blame it on “racist” U.S. military personnel.

Examples such as this abound including the Leftmedia. Another example is the media blaming conservative groups like the Tea Party for the Boston Marathon bombing in 2013.

On April 15, 2013, two pressure cooker bombs exploded during the Boston Marathon, killing 3 people and injuring 264. Before the scene was even cleared, many in the media had a suspect — the Tea Party. Chris Matthews and CNN’s Wolf Blitzer attached great significance to the fact that it was Patriots Day. Michael Moorealleged that the Tea Party was behind the bombing. CNN’s security analyst Peter Bergen “suggested more than once that a right wing extremist group could be behind the attacks.”

IslamofascismFast forward to 2019 and the same Leftmedia apologists are busy excusing the anti-Semitism of Ilhan Omar. As a result of this support, the House of Representatives changed their mind about a critical resolution against anti-Semitism and instead passed a meaningless one which spoke against several categories of so-called ‘hate speech.’

Her recent characterization of 9/11 as “some people did something” rightly garnered harsh criticism. It also brought sympathetic support from some of her Democratic colleagues as well as those in the Leftmedia who said that outrage over this comment was phony and insisted the real problem was bigotry against Muslims.

This is a small sampling of the evidence that the Left in America is allied with those whose objective is to further Islamic Jihad. It is also but a fraction of the evidence seen around the globe, perhaps most notably in Europe over many decades.

Moreover, this strange alliance between the Left and Islamofascism involves one final serious participant. It is the Left wing of the ‘Christian Church’ around the globe, which will be examined in part two.

I have sent to you all my servants the prophets, sending them persistently, saying, ‘Turn now every one of you from his evil way, and amend your deeds, and do not go after other gods to serve them, and then you shall dwell in the land that I gave to you and your fathers.’ But you did not incline your ear or listen to me. Jeremiah 35:15 [ESV]

D.T. Osborn

Sources: The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, Crossway Bibles, 2001

Featured and Top image courtesy of Chris Rojas’ Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 1 courtesy of Image Editor’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 2 courtesy of Jack’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 3 courtesy of Twitter Trends 2019’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 4 courtesy of Danny Hammontree’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License

All other sources linked or cited in the text

Originally published in TIL Journal

The Long and Short of Cultural Change [Video]

Leftist culture

There is little doubt that Western culture is in desperate straights today. The assault of the Left on multiple fronts pushes hard at the traditions and values that conservatives hold dear and are necessary to the existence of Western civilization itself, and it is no understatement to say that the Left and Right are at war for the soul of the Western world.

Most of the major cultural battlegrounds of the conflict have seen exposure previously in this journal. Everything from ‘climate change‘ to the leftist radicalization of the mainline churches to the ‘transgender rights‘ movement has been covered, commented on and analyzed.

However, what has been lacking is a strategy to defeat the Leftist enemy on a societal level. Therefore, I propose a strategy that addresses the problem much like playing a strategic game such as chess, or military war games.

In these and other similar contests, there are really two games going on at once. One is the ‘short game,’ as I call it.

The ‘short game’ is the game which focuses on the crucial immediate moves needed to position the player for quick defense and battleground victory. The ‘long game’ focuses on a step-by-step approach, blocking the enemy and opening the way to winning the cultural war/game.

The Short Game and the Long Game

Leftist cultureThis idea occurred to me as I was reading an article about why newly declared Democratic presidential candidate Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke needs to be defeated. The author outlined both the ‘short’ and ‘long’ game approach in the political arena.

He cites O’Rourke as a danger because “Beto” comes across as a bit less radical than the other offerings from the loony Left. That may strongly appeal to the middle of the road voter between perceived extremes.

While that may seem a desirable outcome for conservatives in the ‘short game,’ it could easily prove disastrous in the ‘long game.’ It would insulate the people from the inevitable failures of full-fledged Socialism while moving the political needle steadily towards the Left and eventual Socialistic ruin.

Thus, the article argues, we should welcome the wackier Leftist candidates and their ideas being presented in a general election. This is why it is Mr. O’Rourke who poses a danger as a less radical alternative who could ease these ideas into acceptance.

These young people, millennials, will grow out of supporting guaranteed incomes, abolishing fossil fuels, slavery reparations, abolishing planes and cars, eliminating cow farts (and cows), retooling every building in the country for green energy and all the rest of the foolishness offered by Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand, Bernie Sanders and the rest of the gang. But an election that fully exposes that idiocy will let the American people drive that socialist nightmare underground for a generation.

This is an interesting premise, and as far as it goes, it appears solid. That is, as long as the millennial voters behave as the author believes they will.

Moreover, this is a great example of playing the ‘short game’ at the political level. The ‘short game’ counters the immediate threat, “Beto” becoming the nominee, with a move to encourage the insane radicalism of the far Left in order to secure a longer-term victory in the political phase.

Leftist cultureHowever, a big problem is that this premise does not go far enough in the ‘long game.’ The ‘long game’ in this instance only looks at the political gains to be had among millennial voters once they ‘grow out’ of their juvenile leftism.

The true ‘long game’ must go beyond politics and reach the culture, especially the youth. For the Left, politics and culture have become inextricably entangled in their personal lives.

Moreover, winning the ‘long game must’ account for more than the millennial generation. It must envision the state of generations to come and make critical moves to ensure the destruction of the Socialist agenda for the foreseeable future.

Countering the Immediate Threats of the ‘Short Game’

Conservatives today are visibly engaged in countering the aggressive attacks of the Left from multiple angles. However, that has not always been true, and as a result of being late to the game, the Left garnered a substantial head start in the cultural conflict.

For this moment the conservative defense of Western society requires steady and strong vigilance to continue to fight the many challenges the Left has put forth in every area of culture. The cultural line must be held at each point of attack.

This means equipping ourselves through self-education concerning the plans and tactics of the Left. Which means learning many unsavory proposals designed to break through societal norms at every point.

Such self-education is not pleasant, take it from one who knows. You will learn terrible things that are true, and be asked to believe terrible things that aren’t.

Leftist cultureLearning that there are people who have no qualms about carving up or poisoning babies in the womb is sickening. Moreover, learning that the present push is to assassinate newborns who happen to survive the murderous onslaught is both infuriating and appalling.

This is but a single point of attack in the Leftist scheme to win the culture completely.

There is the immigration invasion which the Left wholeheartedly endorses. This provides them with new supporters and their children who can be easily indoctrinated and recruited for the Socialist Left.

Combine these with other issues the Left is promoting, such as gun restriction and eventual gun elimination, free-market economics destruction through things like the “green new deal,” and the expansion of a centrally controlled national government (which means the elimination of the Constitution) and the immediate task seems overwhelming.

Nonetheless, these issues are where the fight is the most urgent, and being overwhelmed may be the price which must be paid. That being the case, it makes the warrior mindset all the more imperative for conservatives in the fight.

However, winning the frenetic ‘short game’ battles need not be a daunting task, because of a factor the Left disdains. That factor is the power of our LORD to overcome any odds against those who fight for righteous liberty in His name and for His people.

As long as the odds may seem for victory in either the short or long term war for the culture, they are no longer than what David faced when he made this statement as a boy facing the 9-foot giant, Goliath.

This day the LORD will deliver you into my hand, and I will strike you down and cut off your head. …that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel, and that all this assembly may know that the LORD saves not with sword and spear. For the battle is the LORD’s, and He will give you into our hand. 1 Samuel 17:46-47 [ESV]

The short ‘game’ is the urgent one, and vital to purchase time and pave the way for the lasting generational cultural change to be sought via the ‘long game.’ In part two, we will discuss what it will take to implement the conservative ‘long game,’ and help rescue a beleaguered Western civilization from Leftist devastation.

D.T. Osborn

Sources: The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, Crossway Bibles, 2001

Featured and Top Image courtesy of blugrn’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 1 courtesy of Modes Rodriguez’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 2 courtesy of Mpls55408’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 3 courtesy of Blink O’fanaye’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License.

All other sources linked or cited in the text

Originally published in TIL Journal

Transgender Tyranny Is Here

2151548269_0dc93c5515_b

Girls will be boys, and boys will be girls, it’s a mixed up, muddled up, shook up world.

Lyrics from the hit song “Lola” by The Kinks. The tune was released on June 12, 1970.

Ray Davis has claimed that he was inspired to write “Lola” after Kinks manager Robert Wace spent a night in Paris dancing with a transgender woman.

Three of the four original band members, including the composer[s] of “Lola” reformed The Kinks in June of 2018. It would be interesting to know what they think of the current socio-political push for “transgender rights,” in Western society almost 50 years later.

This journal has chronicled the devastating and dangerous movement to enshrine “transgenderism” as a basic human right on several occasions. In the past few years, advocates of this reality-denying cult have begun to quietly manipulate the legal system to their ends, especially concerning what can only be called forced transitioning of young children. 

However, before the gender ID enforcers could make meaningful legal strides, they believed they had to accomplish three things. First, left-wing academia had to be convinced to normalize ‘transgender rights’ as a health issue.

A New and Dangerous ‘Diagnosis’

transgenderismThe crucial turning point which empowered the transgender movement and helped launch it into the ‘mainstream’ of culture happened not quite six years ago. It came in a publication that most don’t know about, the Diagnostics and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders or the DSM.

 

The DSM is the ‘biblical’ authority of the psychiatric profession. It is,

published by the American Psychiatric Association (APA). In the United States, the DSM serves as the principal authority for psychiatric diagnoses. Treatment recommendations, as well as payment by health care providers, are often determined by DSM classifications, so the appearance of a new version has significant practical importance.

Until 2013, the fourth edition of the DSM was in effect. The DSM-IV classified those who believed they were ‘assigned’ the ‘wrong’ gender as suffering from Gender Identity Disorder.

As a “disorder,” it was a mental illness. Today, due to political and cultural pressure, the DSM-V calls this condition Gender Dysphoria. Such a classification is not considered a mental illness. Rather it is considered a kind of psychological discomfort and confusion. This is how mental illness can be masked as a difficult, but “normal,” reality.

The necessity of lessening the severity of what is a delusional disorder is evident. In this way, the Leftist ‘science’ community could grant ‘scientific’ credence to the notion that transgender ‘rights’ advocates represent a group of people being ‘victimized’ by the predominant culture.

Which leads to the second step to be completed for the transgender ‘rights’ advocates to be successful. That is the step of playing the victim card.

Playing the ‘Victim’ Card

In the culture war, the victim ‘card’ is the favorite choice of the Left. This card has been successfully played numerous times in the past.

The pattern of play is similar in each case. First, a group must be identified which could be characterized as ‘victims’ of some terrible abuse.

2580363763_b709cda150_qNext, the group must be canvassed somehow to isolate individuals within it who could be used to showcase their ‘victimhood’ publically. It has become all too familiar to see such an individual or even a small group in front of the cameras and microphones speaking about their tragic ‘victimization’ at the hands of evil people who are also not-so-coincidentally conservative.

This strategy accomplishes two things. It demonizes the evil conservative ‘oppressors’ while garnering pity and synthetic ‘outrage’ on behalf of the perceived ‘victim.’

Whether or not the offense against this poor ‘victim’ is true is irrelevant to the Left. There are many examples both recent and decades-old of this phenomenon.

Most recently there is the example of the hoax hate-crime orchestrated by Jussie Smollett in Chicago. The purpose here was to demonize Trump supporters while increasing Smollett’s value as a Leftist extremist and thus enriching him as an actor.

The fact that this was carried out so carelessly almost immediately revealed it was a hoax. But for the Leftmedia, that was only a slight inconvenience as they immediately labeled it a “hate crime,” with a little apology when they were proved wrong.

Smollett himself is facing some very serious charges that could result in severe punishment from the courts. He is facing 16 felony counts in Chicago as of today.

However, the penalties which are inflicted upon children in the transgender ‘rights’ cause are far more severe than Smollett’s because of the lifelong damage that could ultimately result. It is indeed tragic that children, some whose ages register in the single digits will become the true victims of adult manipulation, in the name of illusionary rights.

It is also tragic that adult transgenders cannot see their own delusion. A delusion so pervasive that it warps biological reality, and causes its adherents to lash out with tyrannical demands for all of society.

Turning Tragedy into Tyranny

transgender agendaIt is unequivocally a tragedy that for the sake of creating a phantom human ‘right’ people will not only mutilate themselves, via having body parts cut off and others sowed on, but will insist that others change their own lives to accommodate the delusion. Those who desire to live in reality are now expected to alter their speech, i.e. no unapproved pronouns allowed.

Moreover, society as a whole must now deny the exclusiveness of male and female bathrooms, lockers or dressing rooms in public areas and schools, according to trans-activists. This insanity is seeking the force of law to turn a tragic condition into a normal one.

The Leftmedia, whether on social media outlets or through the airwaves, engages in the third step which is pushing the narrative. A narrative that is dangerous to adults, and extremely dangerous for children.

Thus, the Leftmedia is less likely to report about the enabling of pedophiles through the transgender ‘rights’ movement. However, there are cases of adult male predators ‘identifying’ as female and accosting young girls in public bathrooms.

In Scotland, an 18-year-old male who identifies as a woman was given a slap on the wrist by authorities earlier this month after assaulting a 10-year-old girl in the restroom. According to The Courier, the suspect, who goes by the name Katie Dolatowski, sexually assaulted the unidentified little girl in a supermarket restroom on March 4, 2018, reportedly grabbing “the terrified youngster by the face, shov[ing] her into the cubicle and order[ing] her to remove her trousers.”

The penalty for this individual should have been some lengthy prison sentence. Instead, he was

banned from having contact with children and given community service and electronic tagging.

How can the parents of this child be assured this predator will not strike again under the guise of identifying as a female? How has the legal system not only in Scotland but in many other countries turned to favor the transgender agenda?

The short answer to that last question is twofold. One reason is the cultural acceptance of transgenderism for adults, as seen especially in the instance of Caitlyn [formerly Bruce] Jenner’s relatively recent popularity.

Secondly, trans-activists have been ‘teaching’ and promoting their cause as ‘experts’ both in the medical community and at legal conferences in various states. These disturbed ‘health’ professionals have also gained the support of the American Academy of Pediatricians in a recent statement affirming ‘transitioning’ for children.

Dr. James Cantor explained in his detailed analysis of the AAP policy statement, “almost all clinics and professional associations in the world use what’s called the watchful waiting approach to helping GD children, [but] the AAP statement rejected that consensus, endorsing only gender affirmation.

Trans-Activists Are Targeting Children

It is alarming is that trans-activists are pushing their sex-change agenda on pre-pubescent children and threatening the parents if they object. Their pernicious influence has reached even the level of state government in South Dakota.

[Last month] the Health and Human Services committee of the South Dakota House killed a bill that would have protected the right of parents to refuse to consent to medical or psychological treatment for a child suffering from gender dysphoria if the treatment “would induce, confirm, or promote the child’s belief that the child’s sex or gender identity is different from the child’s sex presented at birth.”

transgenderism

This is tyranny at a level so fierce that it promotes children not just acting against their parents’ wishes, but advocates punishing the parents with the force of law if they object. In South Dakota’s case, this means that children would not be afforded counseling unless that counseling affirmed the “child’s belief” they were somehow trapped in the wrong biological sex.

 

There are also some in America specifically targeting children as young as 4 years old. This tactic began to surface about 3 years ago in custody battles during divorce proceedings.

Dr. Michelle Cretella, executive director of the American College of Pediatricians. …“…first began hearing from distraught parents in this situation in 2016 and in 2017, I heard from seven families in as many different states in this situation. In all but one case the child was a 15 year-old girl who never had any sexual identity confusion prior to her parent’s divorce,” Cretella said. “The other case involved 4-year-old triplet boys whose mother desperately wanted a girl. The mother was a psychologist herself and had cross-dressed one of the boys for two years, insisting that it was his idea. In each of the seven cases the guardian ad litems and judges removed the right to medical consent and/or custody from the parent who objected to transition with puberty blockers and hormones.”

Puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones are not well-studied and thus the harmful side effects are also not well-known. The physical damage of these potent and potentially dangerous drugs was not considered by the judges or the mother in this case.

The state of California has decided to tyrannically bypass the concern of parents and the judgment of the courts. This was accomplished by passing an insidious law affirming transgendered treatment for children as young as 12 in foster care without the caregiver’s knowledge.

[In California] you only need to be 12 years old to privately seek and consent to treatment for gender transitioning.

However, California decided to go even further by also requiring the taxpayers to foot the bill for this absurdity, whether they like it or not. In one section the new law states,

All children in foster care, as well as former foster youth up to 26 years of age, are entitled to Medi-Cal coverage without cost share or income or resource limits. The Medi-Cal program provides transition-related health care services when those services are determined to be medically necessary.

As has been chronicled in this journal and in many others, such ‘transition-related’ treatments, I will not call this ‘health care,’ are never necessary for children. Many studies have shown that 75-95% of children and adolescents lose these feelings of gender confusion when they become adults.

Once a person is an adult, the choice to poison and mutilate themselves because they deny reality is their own individual, if unwise, choice. That is, provided that choice does not make unreasonable demands on others to also deny biological reality with their speech and with public accommodations.

However, there is no right of choice allowing adults to manipulate children who have not yet matured mentally into life-altering and dangerous gender “affirming” actions. Nor should the law uphold and force such tyrannical nonsense upon society while endangering children in the process.

See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that in heaven their angels always see the face of my Father who is in heaven. Matthew 18:10 [ESV]

D.T. Osborn

Sources: The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, Crossway Bibles, 2001

Featured and Top Image courtesy of caseywest’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 1 courtesy of Jonathan Oakley’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 2 courtesy of melissa jonas’ Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 3 courtesy of Adam Jones Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 4 courtesy of MaX’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License

All other sources linked or cited in the text.

Originally published in TIL Journal