San Diego Bishop Makes a Mockery of Faith, Reason to Justify Voting Hillary September 30, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Abortion, different religion, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, unbelievable BS.
What tangled webs we weave, when first we practice to deceive – apparently, the motto of the Bishop of San Diego, widely known liberal Robert McElroy.
McElroy recently published some electoral guidance for his flock. The core of it, the conclusion, it’s raison d’ etre, is that intrinsic evil – as he defines it – is a poor standard by which to make electoral decisions, because ALL candidates support one intrinsic evil or another, and thus Catholics have to make “complex moral calculations.” If it sounds like shades of grey, the return of the discredited seamless garment, and not much more than an elaborate attempt to justify that H! sticker on his car, you’re not wrong at all. I will lay it all out, providing my own analysis of where the wolf in sheep’s clothing errs:
Many widely circulated independent Catholic voter guides propose that the concept of intrinsic evil provides an automatic process for prioritizing the elements of the political common good in the United States.
The church teaches that certain acts are incapable of being ordered to God since in their very structure they contradict the good of the person made in God’s likeness. Such actions are termed “intrinsically evil” and are morally illicit no matter what the intention or circumstances surrounding them. Those who focus primarily on intrinsic evil make two distinct but related claims: 1) that the action of voting for candidates who seek to advance an intrinsic evil in society automatically involves the voter morally in that intrinsic evil in an illicit way; and 2) Catholic teaching demands that political opposition to intrinsically evil acts, like abortion, euthanasia and embryonic experimentation, must be given automatic priority over all other issues for the purposes of voting. [Well what other moral issues, bishop, rise to the level of the murder of over a million innocents a year? You bring us “starting a major war,” below, apparently still reeling from an offhand remark Trump made 6 or 9 months ago, but there hasn’t been a war anywhere in the world in the past 20 years that has killed as many people in its totality as are killed by abortion in this country in a single year. THERE IS NO MORAL EQUIVALENT TO ABORTION ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD AT THIS TIME!!!!! So if you want to use elaborate moral calculus to make your electoral choice, abortion gets a value of infinity, and everything else, some finite value which doesn’t matter, because infinity trumps all. That is what Bishops Farrell and Vann said in 2008, that there is simply no issue that compares with abortion in this country at this time, and it is an issue of such overwhelming moral import that it is impossible for Catholics to support an openly pro-abort candidate for any reason at any time whatsoever. And now we have democrat candidate and party platform calling for repeal of all limits on abortion and federal funding for it, which funding would surely cause a MASSIVE EXPANSION in the number of abortions in this country. There is no other comparable evil being endorsed, or even fleetingly addressed, by any major candidate. You cannot draw a false equivalence between limiting numbers of immigrants, or reducing welfare expenditure, or ]
The recent statement of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship,” shows why this argument is simplistic and thus misleading. The bishops’ statement clearly asserts the absoluteness of the prohibitions against concrete intrinsically evil acts, emphasizing that no circumstances or intentions can justify performing or illicitly cooperating with such acts. At the same time, “Faithful Citizenship” recognizes that voting for a candidate whose policies may advance a particular intrinsic evil is not in itself an intrinsically evil act. Voting for candidates is a complex moral action in which the voter must confront an entire array of competing candidates’ positions in a single act of voting. It is crucial that in voting for a candidate who supports the advancement of an intrinsic evil, Catholic voters not have the intention of supporting that specific evil, since such an intention would involve them directly in the evil itself. But voters will often find themselves in situations where one candidate supports an intrinsically evil position, yet the alternative realistic candidates all support even graver evils in the totality of their positions. [“Forming Consciences” is an extremely dubious and problematic document that Bishops Farrell and Vann more or less repudiated in 2008. This kind of false moral equivalence is oriented towards doing little but giving false “moral cover” to those who endorse candidates supporting the most evil acts imaginable. And I think many moral theologians would disagree that there is no culpability in supporting such a candidate, that saying “voting for” but not supporting this or that evil is a very weak moral defense]
This is particularly true in the United States today. The list of intrinsic evils specified by Catholic teaching includes not only abortion, physician-assisted suicide and embryonic experimentation but also actions that exploit workers, create or perpetuate inhuman living conditions or advance racism. It is extremely difficult, and often completely impossible, to find candidates whose policies will not advance several of these evils in American life. [THERE IS NO MORAL EQUIVALENCE BETWEEN “ADVANCING RACISM” AND THE MURDER TO 1-2 MILLION BABIES (IF NOT MORE, IF WE FACTOR IN CHEMICAL CONTRACEPTIVE ABORTION!!!!!! This is really clever and insidious. He’s trying to say “Oh, all these things are evil, and thus equal,” when that is not at all the case. When we look at the Left today, which defines racism not by some real prejudice or hostile acts directed at members of a certain race, but some invisible “privilege,” can the bishop not see that what he is advocating is basically an endlessly false moral equality that can be made to justify everything and nothing?!? This is naught but a most sorry exercise at self-justification and provision of the flimsiest of moral covers. And since this is all really about giving cover to Hillary supporters, does the bishop really think that allowing millions of illegal immigrants to come here is a way to prevent exploitation of workers?!? The entire reason for allowing them here is to drive down wages and to give seedy employers the ability to pay people pennies on the dollar. I would say that controlling and limiting immigration is the best way to prevent exploitation of workers in this country]
Even more important, a fatal shortcoming of the category of intrinsic evil as a foundation for prioritizing the major elements of the political common good lies in the fact that while the criterion of intrinsic evil identifies specific human acts that can never be justified, it is not a measure of the relative gravity of evil in human or political acts. Some intrinsically evil acts are less gravely evil than other intrinsically evil actions. Intrinsically evil action can also be less gravely evil than other actions that do not fall under the category of intrinsic evil. For example, telling any lie is intrinsically evil, while launching a major war is not. But it would be morally obtuse to propose that telling a minor lie to constituents should count more in the calculus of voting than a candidate’s policy to go to war. [Excuse me, but did he just say that? Am I the only one who takes this as a most pathetic attempt to explain away Hillary’s manifest perjuries and constant recourse to public lies? Man he has really gotten twisted off by some PuffHost articles on Trump and supposed warmongering. Clutch that woobie tight, Bishop McElroy. It’ll protect you from the mean, awful monster Trump] It is the gravity of evil or good present in electoral choices that is primarily determinative of their objective moral character and their contribution to or detraction from the common good. Moreover, because voting is a complex moral action involving mitigating circumstances, a vote for a candidate who supports intrinsic evils often does not involve illicit cooperation in those acts. For these reasons the category of intrinsic evil cannot provide a comprehensive moral roadmap for prioritizing the elements of the common good for voting
With “shepherds” such as these, there is no wonder at all that the Church is in the state she’s in. It is almost a diabolical mixture of truth and falsehood. Notice how he switches subjects there at the end, when he does mix in some truth (that there are different grades of intrinsic evil), from a ludicrous example of a small lie vs. starting a major war, as opposed to addressing the single most pressing issue facing the country (and most of the world) today, which is the mass slaughter of innocents in the womb. Why suddenly make this switch (of which evils he is highlighting, having brung up abortion previously), unless to press a dubious comparison between the two primary candidates? “Hillary may be a pathological liar, but Trump’s going to start wars all around the world!” Please.
Who was Secretary of State that was on watch, and may even have caused, the Mideast to erupt in flames? Which administration helped precipitate (if it was not the direct cause of, as many think) the most grievous ongoing war in the world right now, one that has caused even more deaths than our disastrous adventure in Iraq? Which administration has caused the worse relations with Russia in nearly 30 years?
Here It Comes? Obama SecEd “Concerned” About Homeschooling September 29, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, persecution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society, unadulterated evil.
Oh, please do share your enlightened, benevolent, and always self-giving knowledge with the rest of us. Please do show us how you plan to frame “homeschooling” as a “crisis” or “problem” to be addressed by the federal government:
The opening shot in a widely anticipated establishment crackdown on educational freedom may have been fired last week. Speaking at a breakfast with reporters, Obama’s controversial Education Secretary, pro-Common Core activist John King (shown), said he was “concerned” that some home-educated children were not getting the “breadth of instructional experience” they would get at a traditional school. While the senior Obama bureaucrat acknowledged that many homeschool families are doing it well, he also repeated the debunked smear that homeschooled children lack opportunities for socialization. Experts and critics, though, promptly lambasted King for his naive or malicious comments, suggesting that, if anything, he ought to be far more concerned about children in public schools. Some experts even offered to help educate Obama’s education chief on the issue.
Secretary King’s controversial remarks about home education were made during an event hosted by the Christian Science Monitor. While the Monitor‘s website did not report about the home-education comments, several other outlets, including Politico, did so. According to Politico, King said he was “concerned” that homeschooled students are not “getting the range of options that are good for all kids.” [Like exposure to crime, early sexualization, having to around kids from bad homes, leftist indoctrination, and all that sweet, sweet government money that is dependent upon headcount!] He also claimed to worry that “students who are homeschooled are not getting kind of the rapid instructional experience they would get in school,” unless parents are “very intentional about it.” [Rapid instructional experience? What does that even mean?] He said the “school experience” includes building relationships with “peers, teachers and mentors,” something that he claimed was “difficult to achieve in homeschooling unless parents focus on it.”
Ah, the old, tired, socialization meme. I guess I’ll just retort, for about the 500th time, that my homeschooled kids interact with both peers, and especially adults, far, far better than most public school kids. They haven’t been traumatized by bullying, exposed to drugs or pornography, or taught to teach adults as a weird and alien phenomenon. They’ve been taught to respect adults and to treat other kids with Christian charity. I can’t say how many times adult strangers have marveled at the behavior of our kids, and they are nothing extraordinary by homeschool standards.
It seems our friends on the left can’t make up their minds. While decrying the absence of your kids and mine from their schools, some are advocating that the ideal way to deal with climate change is to more or less snuff ourselves out by refusing to reproduce. Ah, with environmentalists, it all comes back to Malthusian misanthropy. As Gordon Gekko said in Wall Street, WASPs love animals, but hate people:
Carbon dioxide doesn’t kill climates; people do. And the world would be better off with fewer of them.
………After years of policymakers’ yammering about carbon-light or carbon-free this-or-that, Rieder basically zeroes in on the fact nobody wants to acknowledge: The number of people in the world—particularly in affluent countries—is literally a part of the equation.
Think of Rieder’s as the argument waiting in the wings should the 195-nation Paris Agreement, which came within a shade of enactment this week, fail to address the problem. [And yet the world is not warming. All those “warmest year ever!!11!” claims are based on junk science from ground-based thermometers placed over an asphalt parking lot, or next to an air-conditioner condenser, or adjacent to a large roadway, etc. See Anthony Watt for verifiable proof of that – almost all the purported warming, which satellite data continues to refute – is due to bad placement of US-based thermometers. Did you know, for instance, that US-based thermometers make up over 60% of worldwide ground-based temperature sensors? That’s a severe bias right there]
……….Total emissions is per-capita emissions times population, minus technological advances. We’ve been trying to get you to give up your toys—to change per-capita emissions. So if you’re really going to continue to show reluctance, well, here’s the other option: We’ll start putting pressure on families. If that pressure’s really, really, really undesirable, then, well, maybe people decide to start doing the other thing. [He actually tries to attribute this to a tiny slice of the population – the very rich, with private jets and 10,000 square foot homes. But to drastically reduce carbon dioxide emissions – a substance we all exhale! – he knows, though he does not say, that average people like you and I would be the ones that would have to suffer an incredible decrease in our standard of living, to such a degree, I’m sure, that living in the Sun Belt would become untenable since not many folks could continue here in the 100 degree heat without AC. Of course the leftist elite, however, especially the academics, would continue in very comfortable sinecures, well-paid, well-fed, well-housed, and enjoying all the accouterments of 21st century living, the freaking hypocrite]
If we could fix everything through decarbonizing our economy, then it’s likely that the population variable wouldn’t be a real concern.
So here’s your choice: freeze to death in the dark, mostly starved, or don’t have any kids. He actually speaks of using very heavy moral and even physical/financial pressure to bar people from having “too many” children. Enjoy that total economic implosion about 30-40 years later.
This is a literally insane religious conviction with very little, and mostly very poor, scientific backing. This is the anti-fat craze, the anti-eggs/butter/use chemicals instead craze, this is the phrenology, the eugenics of the 21st century. It seems the Left always has to hang its hat on some unsupported/unsupportable claim from dubious or plainly false science. It’s their substitute religion for real religion, but with a seeming compulsion to latch onto the more authoritarian and frankly false aspects. Of course, the compulsion is a feature, not a bug, extremists like this guy cast about from one purported looming disaster to another, all with one goal in mind: power for them and/or bending society to their preferred vision. Personal liberty and individual choice are anathema to such types, unless it has to do with the groin.
Every single left-wing movement has resulted in a mass catastrophe for humanity, almost always with millions of people dead. Babies that fail to be born through chemical or surgical abortion/contraception are just as dead as the millions who perished in Stalin’s GULAG or Hitler’s death camps. There is something utterly diabolical and full of hate for mankind – people not like themselves, specifically – in these kinds of insane extremists.
Only a PhD “ethicist” totally detached from the Truth of Jesus Christ could arrive at so macabre a conclusion. Perhaps instead of killing children, we should look for another course, like doing away with “ethicists” twisted by ideology and possessed of a reprobate sense.
In reality, this man desperately needs prayers. A soul so lost is a massive tragedy, not only for his evil influence, but in and of itself.
h/t reader TT both links
The Question Is Who Is To Be Master, That Is All September 29, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, Basics, disaster, error, family, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, Revolution, sadness, scandals, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society.
So said Humpty Dumpty in the child-predator Lewis Carroll’s fantasy Alice in Wonderland. This thought sprang into my head, after being sent the following link from regular reader RDLG, which demonstrates that now that devotees of the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah have achieved what they wanted in the culture using the “born that way” argument, they are now proclaiming sexual orientation to be “fluid,” probably because they think that will prove convenient and beneficial to their cause.
At least as far as the socio-political Left has been concerned – and many with same-sex attraction fall under this banner – this movement has been primarily about power. “Born that way” was an incredibly convenient defense, intended to appeal entirely to emotion rather than reason, while the sexual revolutionaries were in the process of making their next big “advance.” Now that they have it, either they feel “fluidity” serves their ends better now, or they feel there is little harm in the real truth coming out.
I’d say that even more than sexual orientation being fluid, for a certain time in some people’s lives (though in most people’s, especially those living in the state of Grace, the natural orientation is very much fixed), there is almost a push, a drive, a peer pressure towards at least experimenting with the same-sex, most especially among young women but as a growing phenomenon among boys/young men, as well (which……ick). Early and frequent exposure to porn can certainly cause children to develop such disordered appetites that even coming to have a certain curiosity or attraction for the same sex cannot be ruled out. And, we’ve all probably known a few kids growing up who, for various reasons, usually related to issues with the father or some trauma, but sometimes also, inexplicably, who seem to have a hard time figuring out who and what they are. A certain professor at the University of Texas at Dallas Department of Arts and Humanities, at which my mother worked for over 20 years, derailed his career for preying on just such a confused young boy.
Anyway, it seems that now that they have what they want, the truth can now be told:
A top researcher with the American Psychological Association (APA) and lesbian activist has acknowledged that gays are not “born that way.”
Dr. Lisa Diamond, co-editor-in-chief of the APA Handbook of Sexuality and Psychology and one of the APA’s “most respected members,” says sexual orientation is “fluid” and not unchangeable.
As clinical psychologist Dr. Laura A. Haynes summarizes Diamond’s APA Handbook chapters, her book and YouTube lectures, “The battle to disprove ‘Born that way and can’t change’ is now over, and (Diamond) is telling LGBT activists to stop promoting the myth.”
Contrary to the typical argument that homosexuals are “born gay” as “who they are” and cannot change, the APA officially recognized sexual orientation change in 2011.
Diamond summarized relevant findings in a lecture at Cornell University (2013), stating that abundant research has now established that sexual orientation — including attraction, behavior, and self-identity — is fluid for both adolescents and adults and for both genders.
This flies in the face of recent laws promoted by gay activists and passed in several states banning “reparative therapy,” which seeks to help patients experiencing same-sex attraction to change.
The stated justification for anti-reparative therapy laws is that anyone who experiences same-sex attraction is not only gay and born gay, but his/her homosexuality is unchangeable and so “reparative therapy,” it is argued, is not only unfruitful but cruel. The argument goes, “You can’t change who you are.”
Additionally, many gay activists call sexual orientation “the civil rights issue of our time,” and analogous to race. Diamond and the APA, however, refute this argument.
Fr. Johannes Jacobse, founder of The American Orthodox Institute, called Diamond’s “course correction” a “stunning reversal” of oft-repeated gay justification. “Sexuality desire is fluid, homosexual desire is not ‘hard-wired;’ that ‘born that way and can’t change’ is a myth; feelings don’t overrule volition (behavior is a choice, one does not need to act on every feeling — especially sexual feelings); the ‘born that way’ argument is political, not scientific; sexual orientation is subject to change among others.”
“The idea that what a person feels defines who he is — who God created him to be — is false,” Fr. Jacobse wrote. “If a person feels homosexual desire, it does not mean he is created homosexual.”
We can surely expect this “revelation” – which is no revelation at all – to be hotly debated and vehemently opposed by the promoters of the sexular pagan revolution. Should this fact gain broad acceptance – how can I even have to say that! – it could obliterate moves for things like banning “reperative therapy” and really destroys the fundamental argument in favor of pseudo-sodo-marriage (how can you be so mean as to deny someone “born that way” of the right “to be happy?!?”)
I’m sure we’ll hear a great deal, both ways, depending on who is speaking and what their agenda is.
The horrifying part is how this revolutionary advocacy plays out in the lives of real people. Lives are ruined. Families are torn apart. Souls are lost, sometimes, in an unbelievable tragedy, forever. And even in lives that are not “ruined,” a relatively brief youthful error, a falling into the wicked ways of this perverse and darkened world, can lead to a lifetime of regret and self-loathing.
And it’s happening to families very close to many of us. May God have mercy on them, and all of us, in these despicable times. Please pray for those undergoing this terrible suffering. I also pray I may never be put in this awful position, of having to choose between endorsing a child’s wickedness and having a relationship with them.
My wife and I have discussed, and we know which way we shall choose:
Targay Getting Pummeled by Boycott? September 29, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, Basics, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, It's all about the $$$, persecution, rank stupidity, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, Society.
That’s the implication of the data below from The American Thinker, which shows that Target’s sales have slid much farther than their competition’s, and that their market cap has taken a serious tumble. I frequently read or hear that boycotts don’t really work, but could this be an exception, or is this sudden collapse at Targay simply coincidental?
In the wake of its five-month-long bathroom policy, Target (TGT) Corporation continues to implode.
Within a month after the misguided policy, the company’s market cap had already declined by $9 billion compared to where it should have been had Target kept its pre-April 19 correlation with its primary competitors, Walmart (WMT) and Costco (COST).
By late May, the market cap hit reached $10.5 billion. As of the second week of June, the loss was $11 billion.
Second-quarter earnings data are now out, showing that Target’s earnings plummeted nearly 10%, with projected lower sales estimates for the remainder of 2016. Net sales declined more than 7% from the same period year over year.
Corporate executives are leaving in droves. Just 10% of the most senior executives in place two years ago remain with the company, including two major losses during the past month.
Had Target’s market cap continued to follow close pace with Walmart, as it had done in the months before the bathroom policy was implemented, it would have increased 1% compared to its value on April 19 of this year. Instead, Target’s market cap is now down 23.3% over this time frame. [That’s the kind of thing that gets a CEO fired, usually within a few quarters. I’d say if things don’t improve markedly by year’s end, the CEO who instituted this disastrous transgender policy will be gone. But will his replacement have the will to withstand the firestorm of criticism that will almost certainly attend its reversal?]
This adds up to a $12.2-billion market cap decline that is likely to be directly attributable to the failed bathroom policy.
The American Family Association’s boycott of Target, which has collected 1.42 million signatures, appears to have driven much – if not nearly all – of this drop. In response, Target recently announced it would spend $20 million to install single-stall locking bathrooms for those customers who are concerned over its “inclusive” washroom policy.
Whether its the boycott or not, Targay is hurting. Now they are caught in a quandary of their own making, where no matter what they do they are sure to experience a fiery backlash. Continue with the policy, continue offending many customers, and sales continue to tank. Reverse the policy and the extremely powerful pro-perversion lobby and their media allies with absolutely pillory them. It’s refreshing to see the kind of cheap moral posturing and virtue signaling – which in reality forms a powerful form of persecution against Christians – far too many businesses are engaged in can come with a real cost. Target thought they could sow the wind, now they get to reap the whirlwind.
Maybe we should boycott the NCAA and Atlantic Coast Conference next.
The Profound Hypocrisy of Business Elites Masquerading Business Decisions as Moral Outrage September 28, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, disaster, error, General Catholic, It's all about the $$$, persecution, rank stupidity, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, unbelievable BS.
Some great commentary from Franklin Graham, scion of the well-known evangelical family, on the blatant hypocrisy of the NCAA, ACC, and other business organizations punishing North Carolina for forbidding sick and/or perverse men from using women’s restrooms in public, while doing business with organizations with far more problematic, even immoral ties (via Pertinacious Papist with my comments):
As a lifelong resident of North Carolina and current CEO and president of two organizations employing nearly 1,500 North Carolinians, I am saddened — even outraged — by the vote of the ACC Council of Presidents to move conference championships from our state in protest of legislation requiring people to use public bathrooms that correspond with their birth gender.
While I recognize this legislation — and legislation like it in other states — is complicated by society’s continued blurring of the lines of gender and sexual identity, I also recognize the profound hypocrisy of the ACC, the NCAA and other companies and organizations who are making calculated business decisions disguised as moral outrage. [Great point. Do tell more]
For example, the football championship game your conference voted to move from Charlotte in December is called the “Dr. Pepper ACC Football Championship.” Dr. Pepper and its parent company, Cadbury Schweppes and Carlyle Group, proundly sell their products in countries where homosexuality is illegal. Will ACC drop its title sponsor? And why isn’t the LGBT community demanding you sever ties with such a “bigoted” corporate sponsor? [Of course they won’t. Because moving the championship game costs the ACC or NCAA nothing, while it hurts North Carolina a bit. But severing ties with all corporations that conduct business in lands with violent, repressive governments would have HUGE cost, so that, of course, goes out the window. This is the very definition of hypocrisy, and is also how the left-dominated elite works on a daily basis. Targeted outrage, targeted punishment, all directed towards a political goal, a goal that yields a tangible economic benefit. Support the leftist power structure, get amazing $$$$, oppose it, and get crushed]
Currently, LGBT relationships are illegal in more than 70 countries — including 10 where homosexuality is punishable by death. Dr. Pepper is often bottled under contract by Coca-Cola bottlers — yet Coca-Cola conducts business in virtually every nation on earth, including nearly every country where homosexuality is currently criminalized. Can your conference continue to tolerate that?
The ACC website proudly features Toyota as an “Official Corporate Champion,” yet Toyota maintains factories and distribution centers in several of these discriminatory countries, including Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Egypt. Where is the moral outrage of the presidents of Boston College, Clemson, Duke, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Louisville, Miami, UNC, North Carolina State, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia, Virginia Tech and Wake Forest?[Once again, this inconvenient fact reveals the monetary scheming at the heart of this duplicitous “stand” against North Carolina’s bathroom law]
Indeed, the ACC’s member schools compete in 25 sports divided by gender — 12 men’s sports and 13 women’s. Though gender issues may be becoming more complicated in higher education and other parts of society, the athletic conference you serve as commissioner doesn’t seem to have any problem distinguishing between the two genders — male and female. Yet, when a state like the one I live in seeks to make the same distinction with regard to use of public bathrooms in an effort to protect its citizens from those who would use the men’s room today and th women’s room tomorrow, the academic elites who comprise your conference fake a moral outrage that is frankly shameful.
Ironically, the NCAA is more discriminatory towards transgender people than the public policy they apparently wish to see as law in America. For example, opponents to legislation like NC House Bill 2 support permitting people to use the bathroom which corresponds to the sex they identify with on a given day — meaning someone might feel like a man today and a woman tomorrow, switching bathrooms at will.
Yet even the NCAA doesn’t allow such casual gender identity for participation in collegiate athletics. The NCAA Policy on Transgender Student-Athlete Participation states, “Any transgender student-athlete who is not taking hormone treatment related to gender transition may participate in sex-separated sports activities in accordance with his or her assigned birth gender.” [Lying money-grubbing self-serving Christian-persecuting blankety blank…….]
I think I represent the views of millions who would rather preserve gender-specific public bathrooms — a mainstay for generations — than to attend a football game in my state to determine the champion of a conference governed by politically-correct, morally hypocritical academics.
Commissioner, in your statement today you said, “the ACC Council of Presidents made it clear that the core values of this league are of the utmost importance, and the opposition to any form of discrimination is paramount. Today’s decision is one of principle.” Will this same paramount “opposition to any form of discriminatin” have you now sever ties with Toyota and Dr. Pepper?
Again, we know the answer to that. Cutting ties with Dr. Pepper would not only deny the conference a shoot-pot full of money, it could cause a lot of other corporate sponsors to bail out and really hurt their bottom line. And they can’t have that. It’s entirely a moral outrage of convenience. No cost to the ACC, Google, NCAA, Facebook, and all the others virtue-signalling saps out there who only care about today and tomorrow’s profit, and care nothing for the destruction of the moral order in this nation or the souls whose lives – and prospects of salvation! – will be ruined in the process.
If these self-serving business interests had a moral bone in their bodies, they would immediately stand in staunch and total opposition to abortion and contraception, but I’ll be King of Mars before that happens.
But, of course, the self-anointed elites don’t believe Heaven, hell, or any of that kind of crap anymore.
A New Cristiada Brewing in Mexico? September 28, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, disaster, error, General Catholic, horror, persecution, priests, secularism, shocking, Society, unadulterated evil.
I was stunned to read in the article excerpted below, that 31 priests have been murdered in Mexico in the past 10 years. The killings have most often been associated with the drug cartels, which are also, not coincidentally, tightly associated with the same Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) that instigated the original Cristiada under communist President Plutarco Elias Calles in the 1920s. Tensions have risen markedly between the PRI and the Church in recent years, as the PRI has legalized abortion in Mexico City and is atttempting to impose pseudo-sodo-marriage on a quite strongly opposed Mexican populace.
Three priests were murdered in Veracruz this past week, and the PRI-run government there engaged in a smear campaign against the priests, strongly implying they had been engaged in something nefarious and earned their demise. The people would have none of this, as these priests were too well known as good and pious men, relatively speaking, for such an accusation stick. Of course, in the original Cristiada, the PRI-run government accused priests and religious of all manner of immoral acts and perversions, engaging in the time-honored left-wing practice of psychological projection. Amazing to see how little has changed in almost 100 years:
Mexico’s Roman Catholic Church on Monday harshly criticized what it called a campaign to smear three priests murdered in less than a week by suggesting the victims had been involved in questionable behavior.
The outrage came in response to a state prosecutor’s allegations that two of the dead clerics had been drinking with their killers beforehand and media reports suggesting the third had last been seen with a young boy. [This kind of guilt-by-insinuation has been a hallmark of the PRI since its inception in the dark days of 1917. Of course, the PRI was taught much of its tradecraft by the more radical elements of the Lodge in the US]
“In these cases it has become clear that state governments that cannot handle the drug cartels are criminalizing the victims, depicting some as drunks and another as a pedophile, making it look like the crimes were not related to drug cartels but because of some immoral conduct,” said the Rev. Hugo Valdemar Romero, spokesman for the Catholic Archdiocese of Mexico City.
“To physical death they are adding moral assassination, slandering the priests and holding them up to ridicule,” Romero said, “and that has caused deep indignation in the church,” Romero said.
Two of the slain priests were shot to death in Veracruz state last week and their bodies dumped on a roadside. On Sunday officials confirmed that the other priest had been shot to death in Michoacan state after being abducted……..
………Parishioners in the Veracruz city where the two priests were killed have also said they were skeptical of the prosecutor’s account and suspected an attempt to quickly shelve the case.
Romero said of the government, “the least we expect is a public apology.” [Since I first read this article on Saturday, and when I accessed it today, it appears to have changed. It formerly included a statement from the prosecutor’s office largely retracting the nasty implications first made against the priests. That text appears to be missing from the article now]
It is unclear whether drug gangs were directly involved in last week’s killings, though most attacks on priests in Mexico in recent years have occurred in areas plagued by cartel violence. [And most areas plagued by cartel violence are led by the PRI, where government officials willingly accept heavy bribes to use the power of the state to help enforce the will of the cartel]
Prosecutors have suggested the robbery of a couple hundred dollars in church collections may have been a motive in the Veracruz killings.
But Cardinal Francisco Robles Ortega [of Guadalajara, one of the best Mexican prelates] of the western state of Jalisco said priests there have been subjected to extortion demands, a common practice among drug cartels in Mexico.
Mexico’s Catholic Media Center says 28 priests have been killed in Mexico since 2006, not counting last week’s slayings. It says Veracruz, Guerrero and Mexico states are the most dangerous for priests; along with Michoacan, they are some of the state with the worst drug-cartel problems.
The original article also spoke of the growing conflict between Church and state over such matters as pseudo-sodo-marriage, but that apparently was also judged inconvenient and so was flushed down the memory hole, too.
This is the danger of electronic media, it is subject to endless revision at the behest of political, economic, and cultural elites, becoming little more than a tool for propaganda, or at least the suppression of embarrassing evidence.
Buy as many books as you can. But, of course:
I found a really good piece by Angelo M. Codevilla examining the background to the election in 2016 and the dire portents for the future of the American Republic. Codevilla goes to significant lengths to prove the nightmarish, evil influence the self-anointed elites have had on this country, and how their self-serving beliefs portend only widening hatred of Christians, increasing persecution, and growing national malaise followed by ultimate collapse.
Codevilla quite rightly notes that the rise of Donald Trump is much more an expression of exasperation by a broad swath of the populace with the ruling elite who have all but destroyed this nation than it is an indication of a clearly defined set of policies. Certainly, there are aspects of Trump’s popularity that have to do with policy – his claims to reduce or eliminate muslim immigration, build a wall to contain illegal immigration from south of the border, and his erstwhile support for some kind of return to an actual rule of law in this country – but most of all, he is supported for being perceived as an outsider, even an enemy, to the ruling class that has insulted and persecuted millions of Americans for decades, and which millions see as driving this nation off a cliff.
But Codevilla notes a danger here, on two fronts: one, even Trump, and many of his most fervent supporters, seem enamored of the same kind of rule by decree, punish your enemies philosophy that has been the primary tool of the leftist elite in this country for decades. Secondly, Trump may well fail to “Make America Great Again,” leaving tens of millions even more aggrieved, more antagonized, more disenchanted with the political process in this country, and potentially open to revolution, or really, what might be a violent counter-revolution against the slow-moving revolution of the Left we have endured these past 50 years or so.
Thus, the prospects that Trump will return the US to some kind of pre-revolutionary Constitutional footing, the America That Was, seem slight, at best. Having spoken with a number of ardent Trump supporters, however, many seem cognizant of this “long shot” aspect to Trump’s candidacy, but given the choices in 2016, many were willing to role the dice on a perceived outsider, hoping against hope that he might somehow find a formula to roll back the entrenched attitudes of the leftist elite, or even, even more miraculously, somehow displace that elite with a new elite, much more in line with traditional American values and support for the Constitution.
And there are glimmers of hope for this. Trump has displayed an uncanny ability to both survive virtually unscathed the usual left-wing attacks that leave other politicians gravely wounded (or at least severely cowed), and to squash the fatal conceits and internal contradictions of cultural marxism. Cultural marxism/political correctness has been the primary vehicle by which the ruling elite – which Codevilla repeatedly notes, includes both demonrats and Republicans, all sharing the same assumptions and hideous errors – has imposed its will on the American people. It is one of the aspects of Trump’s rise I find most attractive. But will Trump simply be a “reactionary” version of the same thing we have been enduring for decades, with rule by decree, executive action, secret handshakes, and all the other contra-Constitutional behaviors that have defined the ruling elite, only turned around and directed at those who have held sway for the best part of 56 years?
Codevilla’s work is long, but very much worth reading from beginning to end. It’s also quite dense, and not easy to excerpt, so I’ll only provide his conclusion below.
His overall takeaway, however, is that whatever Trump is, and whatever good he might do, it is probably too late to preserve this Republic. The toxic ideas of the marxist-inspired Left in this country have sunk in too deep, done too much damage, and influenced the thinking of far too many LIVs and other useful idiots to be checked by a single politician, even an exceptional one (which is far from certain, to my mind). This is precisely my view, and has been for some time. America has fallen beyond the realm of a political savior. Politics is downstream of culture, the leftist pseudo-religion has definitively won the culture war (in terms of getting a large majority of people to accept their false precepts and diabolical doctrines), and only a religious renewal on a massive scale can possibly turn this country around.
I see little evidence of that, however. What I fear will happen is just more of the same, but with limitless boundaries, as Codevilla notes, as this country transmogrifies into some kind of socialist pseudo-dictatorship of the oligarchy, with endless repression of Christians and traditional beliefs, generally.
Trump’s slogan—“make America great again”—is the broadest, most unspecific, common denominator of non-ruling-class Americans’ diverse dissatisfaction with what has happened to the country. He talks about reasserting America’s identity, at least by controlling the borders; governing in America’s own interest rather than in pursuit of objectives of which the American people have not approved; stopping the export of jobs and removing barriers to business; and banishing political correctness’s insults and injuries. But all that together does not amount to making America great again. Nor does Trump begin to explain what it was that had made this country great to millions who have known only an America much diminished.
In fact, the United States of America was great because of a whole bunch of things that now are gone. Yes, the ruling class led the way in personal corruption, cheating on tests, lowering of professional standards, abandoning churches and synagogues for the Playboy Philosophy and lifestyle, disregarding law, basing economic life on gaming the administrative state, basing politics on conflicting identities, and much more. But much of the rest of the country followed. What would it take to make America great again—or indeed to make any of the changes that Trump’s voters demand? Replacing the current ruling class would be only the beginning.
Because it is difficult to imagine a Trump presidency even thinking about something so monumental as replacing an entire ruling elite, [how could such even be accomplished? Shut down all Ivy League and most other colleges, most public schools, where the indoctrination is so firmly entrenched rocing a change seems essentially impossible?] much less leading his constituency to accomplishing it, electing Trump is unlikely to result in a forceful turn away from the country’s current direction. Continuing pretty much on the current trajectory under the same class will further fuel revolutionary sentiments in the land all by itself. Inevitable disappointment with Trump is sure to add to them.
We have stepped over the threshold of a revolution. It is difficult to imagine how we might step back, and futile to speculate where it will end. Our ruling class’s malfeasance, combined with insult, brought it about. Donald Trump did not cause it and is by no means its ultimate manifestation. Regardless of who wins in 2016, this revolution’s sentiments will grow in volume and intensity, and are sure to empower politicians likely to make Americans nostalgic for Donald Trump’s moderation.
Two last things: first, I don’t take this piece as anti-Trump. I think it realist. I have become increasingly anyone-but-Hillary in the past 2-3 months, but I am highly skeptical that Trump will really turn things around in this country. I am skeptical that any man, especially a politician, could do so. We’re in the hands of God at this point.
Secondly, I am increasingly doubtful there will be some kind of revolutionary or counter-revolutionary reaction against the entrenched elites. I mean, given the insults, persecutions, and unjust treatments we’ve already swallowed, what will we not swallow? The elites are absolutely banking that we’re far too spoiled, comfortable, and afraid of losing what we have to do anything radical. I see little evidence they are not right.
But should they begin to truly impoverish Americans en masse via things like carbon taxes, banning of fossil fuel production/use, implementation of hard-socialist policies a la Venezuela or Bolivia, then………maybe. Note, however, that even in Venezuela, strident protest and violent reaction against the country-destroying socialist regime has been really quite limited, and the government is not experiencing an existential crisis just yet.
Why Black Lives Matter More in North Carolina than Oklahoma September 27, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, It's all about the $$$, pr stunts, rank stupidity, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, unbelievable BS.
Another title I considered for this post: Black Lives Matter (BLM) actually means GHE – Get Hillary Elected.
A writer at American Thinker noted what many others have, that the BLM movement, which has had profound overtones of racial supremacy and naked bigotry from the start – seems to be, much like the Occupy Wall Street movement of 2011, primarily a vehicle to support demonrat electoral prospects, especially for the office of president. Otherwise, why would protesters be making such a major play in Charlotte, where a black man was shot by a BLACK police officer under slightly questionable circumstances (when you have a group of cops pointing guns at you, who reaches for something, anything, especially when carrying a handgun in an ankle holster?), when in Tulsa a black man was shot by a white officer under what appear to be, or have appeared to be, much more dubious circumstances?
Could the answer be that North Carolina, unlike Oklahoma, is very much “in play” in this election, with Clinton and Trump in a close race? Is that why there was also such a major outbreak of rioting in Missouri and other hotly contested states? Is that why George Soros has put $33 million behind the Black Lives Matter organizers? Is that why paid professional leftist protesters are being bused in from out of state? Think about the more outrageous assaults on those attending Trump rallies, too – they have almost entirely occurred in states that are either solidly democrat, or which are being contested in this election.
Some interesting thoughts to consider:
Charlotte is the latest Ferguson. The facts of the event, still unknown, do not matter. It does not matter that since Obama took office, over three thousand African-Americans have been killed in Chicago by other African-Americans. No one outside their immediate family and friends knows their names. [Which fact shows the prevarication at the heart of the BLM movement, it is entirely about political and economic power, only expressing outrage at certain, politically charged killings. When it comes to black on black violence, which kills almost an order of magnitude more blacks than white on black murder, they are totally silent] Obama does not speak out about their murders or the fact that Illinois’s strict gun laws have done nothing to reduce the number of shootings in Chicago. So, curiously, Charlotte is the scene of riots, looting, and more violence like Ferguson, Baltimore, and Dallas. Many of the protesters are being bussed in and paid, quite possibly with dollars donated by George Soros. He was behind the paid protesters in Ferguson and is most likely behind the chaos in Charlotte. Last night, seventy percent of the people arrested were not from North Carolina.
So why are there riots and demonstrations in Charlotte and not in Tulsa? Could it be because Oklahoma is a conservative state? The citizens of Tulsa know that the law will prevail. North Carolina is, according to the polls, split between Trump and Clinton. Is it possible that the Clinton campaign thinks that rioting and chaos by the Black Lives Matter crowd will help her in that state?
Why on Earth would she think that? Because she is the racist who assumes that black people watching black people destroy their businesses will blame Trump and vote for her? Might those black citizens be more likely to want some law and order in their communities like everyone else in this country? And if that is the case, won’t they be more likely to vote for Trump, who is the law and order candidate, endorsed by the police union? That would be the logical conclusion if the left were ever logical. But the left is diabolical. Anything for power and control, no matter how sleazy and truly, revoltingly racist. Soros and his acolytes like Clinton are well and truly vile. Our African-American citizens mean nothing to them but voters to be beguiled.
For inexplicable reasons, leftists believe that the violence wrought by angry minorities will benefit them, so they encourage it. They subsidize it. Obama has given his not-so-tacit permission to riot every time one of these tragic events occurs, from the Henry Louis Gates minor incident to the killings of Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, and the Dallas officers. And now BLM is rolling in money, $100M from “social justice” organizations. Soros gave them $33M.
What we see in Charlotte is what they pay for. They are not wasting their money in Tulsa because Oklahoma is in the bag for Trump………[That’s as good an explanation as I’ve heard]
……..In Charlotte, as in Ferguson, Baltimore and Dallas, the rioters/protesters shout their anger and hatred for white people. White people, in their view, are responsible for all their problems. As one protestor said in Dallas, “They have all the money and won’t give us any.” [They said a lot worse than that. On that satanic night, my wife and I watched in stunned disbelief as a local BLM leader expressed zero remorse for the killing of multiple officers and petulantly blamed police for the massacre that happened here, saying, in almost these words, they got what was coming to them. I’ve never been able to find that clip online, though both my wife and I saw it clear as day]
…….That Trump won the Republican nomination was a shock to the Beltway establishment on both sides of the aisle and to many conservative voters. How could this thoroughly unacceptable jerk ever be considered for the office of the president? Charlotte pretty much answers that question.
Interesting conclusion. A lot of people found Richard Nixon unacceptable, and yet elected him in another time of serious social disorder of a racial nature, after two terms of unprecedentedly liberal leadership at the federal government level and a similar collapse in respect for the views of the self-anointed elite. Nixon was, of course, far more accepted by the “establishment” of the Republican party than Trump has been, but he certainly had numerous enemies dating back to the late 40s, within the party and without. That anti-government sentiment, simmering since the early 60s (and with the Goldwater nomination in ’64 as an early reaction sign of it) coalesced in the late 70s around Ronald Reagan and the most conservative American president since the 1920s.
Will a similar outcome occur now? It still seems to remain in doubt, but I have a sneaking suspicion that as much as people are frequently unnerved and even disgusted by Trump, there remains a majority in this country that simply will not be ruled by that vile, corrupt, always self-seeking woman. Trump seems to have a similar capability in preventing attacks from sticking to him (remember Reagan as the “Teflon president?”), and he has a similar capability to cut through leftist shibboleths like a buzzsaw, undermining the always tilts left cultural narrative of the past 100 years or so. Reagan was hated and despised by the Left and many within his own party, but he was able to rise above all that. That’s where the similarities end, Trump has shown himself always willing to get down into the mud, to get bogged down in minor, meaningless spats. Perhaps he’ll finally outgrow that.
But Trump won’t just have to win, he’ll have to win decisively, to overcome what will surely be several million votes worth of demonrat voter fraud.
Win or lose, we can expect the BLM movement, like the “war on women” movement and the “Occupy Wall Street” movement to wither away and be disposed in the memory hole, once this election is complete. They’ll move onto something else for 2020, most likely.
Just Another Day in the Church…… September 23, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, different religion, disaster, Ecumenism, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, Society, the struggle for the Church.
……..silent support for sodomy and transgenderism, Church official praises pseudo-sodo-union, Jesuit James Martin awarded for his role in attacking the Faith, meanwhile, protestants make major inroads in Iran in spite of horrific persecution:
My doctor is an evangelical pastor and he has been to Iran and made a lot of converts. The lady who used to cut my hair is one of them. Her entire family is now Christian. This is a growing, silent threat to the mullah’s satanic regime, but they have been unable to do much to stop it.
Of course, the Church leadership would never want to do anything so crass as proselytize an infidel country. They’d rather pretend their false religion is equal to or superior to our own. Interestingly, left-wingers feel the same way generally, that exotic third world “others” are purer, better, more noble people than anyone in the benighted, Christian-based West. It’s almost as if most Church leaders are far more convicted left-wingers than they are Catholics.
h/t reader TT
Liberalism as Child Abuse…… September 23, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, paganism, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, Society, unadulterated evil.
……..is it a growing phenomenon?
A few days ago in the Washington Post, a rabidly feminist mom of two teen sons declared her antipathy for her sons for insufficiently hating their nature (as men) and buying into radfem rhetoric. It was subsequently revealed that one of the sons of the thrice-divorced mother, who has also, hardly incidentally, had a history of tormented relationships and gives strong evidence of a borderline spectrum personality disorder, has struggled with suicidal ideation.
Thus, mommie dearest exposes a suicidal son to national humiliation. But I think we can rest assured there won’t be visits from the CPS to her in the near future, because some destructive beliefs and actions are approved, while others are most sharply disapproved:
On September 14, The Washington Post published what can only be described as a public display of child abuse. feminist writer Jody Allard chastises her sons for questioning the propaganda she feeds them.
“They’ve been listening to me talk about consent, misogyny and rape culture since they were tweens. They listened to me then, but they are 16 and 18 now, and they roll their eyes and argue when talk to them about sexism and misogyny.” [And atheists declare teaching kids Christianity constitutes child abuse. Reprobate sense, anyone?]
That Allard’s boys won’t take up their mother’s fight makes them “part of the problem,” writes Allard. They’ve “dipped their toes into toxic masculinity,” she adds. Toxic masculinity is a favorite feminist term. It means the more masculine a man is, the more vile he is. Nice, huh?
Fortunately for Allard’s sons, their mother’s efforts to indoctrinate them has failed. [Well, we can hope. It’s far from a sure thing] Unfortunately, her response was to publically shame them.
Yes, you read that right. One of Allard’s sons, the 16-year-old, is a known suicide risk—known to Allard and known to The Washington Post editors. And still they publically shamed him. [It’s called solipsism, and it is rife on the Left. It’s an inability to see anyone else as being really real, really human, really possessed of their own worth and dignity equal to one’s own. It’s a kind of narcissism run wild, and it is becoming more and more common as day care and participation awards turn young people into self-obsessed creatures]
……..She has been married and divorced three times—her exes, of course, were the problem; her biological father abandoned her; she has “divorced” her mother, who she says is “incapable of mothering anyone”; and she’s a victim of sexual abuse. [A huge number of feminists claim this. Being higher on the victimhood pyramid conveys greater moral authority, to them, so who knows] Oh, and she was born with one hand, not two; and her adopted sister, who liked to kill animals, tried to kill her. The list goes on.
How many of Allard’s stories are true (save for the physical impairment) as opposed to ploys for attention is anyone’s guess. What is clear is that Jody Allard is unwell.
What is also clear is that somewhere along the line, feminism became her lifeline.That’s typically how it happens: a childhood goes terribly wrong. As adults, , one that promises to heal the wounds of the past. [Or, perhaps, avenge the wounds of the past. Real or imagined] Rather than deal with problems on their own, they ban together with others who’ve been hurt and blame men and marriage for all things evil.
Jody Allard is one of these women. Upon having sons, she writes that she “had no idea how to raise a boy into a man who wasn’t an asshole.”
Speaking of child abuse, how about encouraging, even forcing kids into this nightmare “transgender” menagerie. It’s also a growing fad among a certain type of parent these days, though, tragically, it’s not only parents of left wing views who are falling into this rape of innocence and identity:
Socially indoctrinating young children toward accepting transgenderism is rampant today in public schools. In Washington state, public schools will begin teaching gender expression to kindergarteners in fall 2017, under newly approved health education learning standards. The gay advocacy network GLSEN received a grant from the federal Centers for Disease Control in 2011 for $1.425 million over five years to promote the LGBT agenda in public schools at taxpayers’ expense.
By infiltrating the curriculum in our nation’s public schools, LGBT activists can groom the next generation of participants. Young people are questioning their gender identity at an alarming rate that seems to be increasing, and are encouraged by educators and medical professionals to experiment with gender transition. Unfortunately, experimentation can cause even more confusion.
Then an interlude discussing adults who have attempted to change sex through the use of dangerous drugs and bodily mutilation, who later greatly regret it.
……..The activists who push this agenda in public school studies ignore the science regarding innate sex. An August 2016 review of the scientific literature finds no definitive evidence in research to suggest that transgender people are born that way. This 143-page report from two distinguished doctors from Johns Hopkins University finds there is not enough definitive scientific evidence to suggest gay, lesbian, and transgender people are born as such. More importantly, they affirmed that innate biological sex is fixed and unchangeable. Only gender persona—appearance and behavior—can be changed. [A huge and none too subtle distinction, apparently lost on all those gender-bending activists out there today, pushing people into shattered lives and unrecoverable misery all in the name of gaining a bit of a political advantage]
I was a kid who started cross-dressing with my grandmother at the age of four. I can tell you from first-hand knowledge that cross-dressing is a psychological indoctrination. It is sadistic to use the public school system, which holds a captive audience, to engage in a social gender identity experiment with the nation’s young people. [To which essentially no one, in the public, has given any kind of consent]
………Today, people write to me about their gender-change experiences. They consistently share how at the time of their transition they were told gender change was the only treatment for their condition. Parents write to me concerned about their adult children pursuing transition because they know no one is considering that trauma from the person’s childhood could be leading to this unusual desire. Parents report that gender therapists don’t want to know about childhood events. The therapist says if an adult wants transition, he or she can have it.
Here is one of those communiques the author received:
Help, my daughter is trying to live as a man and desperately wants gender re-assignment surgery.
Her father was a male to male pedophile. He abused our son. Years later my son became homosexual and is married to a man.
My daughter on the other hand was rejected by her dad. She spent her teen years hating men. She began to engorge herself so that guys would be repulsed by her. She developed obsessive disorders and made sure she looked unattractive to men. She accomplished being unattractive and men turned away from her. She decided to be a lesbian. She decided that wasn’t for her after a bad break-up. Now she wants to become a transgender.
And a closing note on the out-of-control narcissism that drives this kind of behavior, paradoxically self-loving and self-loathing at the same time:
She sees transgenderism as the fix to all this rejection. As a transgender, she can fall in love with herself and avoid rejection. Yes, it is psychologically unhealthy behavior, but it will provide a temporary reprieve from the rejection she has experienced so far in her life.
I’ve long suspected that early trauma and early addiction to porn and self-abuse serve as the psychological motivation behind most of those who purport a desire to become the other sex. Especially in men, the changes in brain chemistry that occur through long-term use of porn and self-abuse can develop a desire to literally become the “other,” the object of desire/emulation, permitting one to literally turn themselves into the real object of gratification they feel denied in real life. There is no possibility of rejection when one does so, adding to the attraction.
Whether I’m right or wrong, it’s a twisted, wicked stew. Whether parents agree or not, more and more of their kids are being propagandized into either accepting this unbelievably destructive lifestyle for themselves, or at least finding it absolutely natural and normal. As the author noted at the top, what this is really about is grooming the next generation of souls lost to perversion and self-degradation. From that comes more power, which is the ultimate motivation behind the Left’s support for this perversion.
Of course, after supporting all manner of perversions and attacks on natural, moral behavior in order to break down society according as they saw fit, the communists in Russia later turned savagely on their creation.
Perhaps that provides all the more reason for the Left’s support for unlimited muslim immigration to this country and so many others. A useful tool when it comes time to cull the herd.