Incredibly, California Democrats are now considering a bill that
would cause parents to lose their children
in custody disputes if they are against their offspring having irreversible sex
changes.
The bill currently being considered in the legislature
would include “a parent's affirmation of the child's gender identity” as a factor
in “the health, safety, and welfare” of a child in a custody dispute. The bill
is being pushed by state Sen. Scott Wiener, who previously introduced the
“sanctuary state” law for child sex changes. The aptly named Wiener also led
the push to lessen the state’s penalty for intentionally exposing people to
HIV. Quite a guy.
The bill is coauthored by Assemblywoman Lori Wilson, who is said
to be simultaneously pushing a different but related bill that would mandate
that foster parents pledge to help their children change genders. Wilson says
that a 7-year-old who is “able to articulate that they believe that they are
not the same gender as they are biologically” should then have that notion
confirmed by their parents. Or guardians. And their teachers. And the world at
large.
So, progressives don’t want to inform parents if say, their seven-year-old son wants to have his penis
lopped off on a whim, but, of course, would report to parents if their
child was found with a pack of smokes. Could anyone imagine this being the case
even just ten or twenty years ago?
How is not
a crime—indeed a heinous one—for the government to forcibly take
your young kids away from you if you don’t like that government encouraging
them to “change” genders?!! How could it possibly be the reverse, except
in one of the Nine Circles of Hell?
What about
the 4th Amendment? Talk about “unreasonable seizures!” (And toss out
the 5th and 6th Amendments, too, while you’re at it, Wiener
and Wilson.) Can you imagine what the Founders would have done, if, instead of
taxation without proper representation (in the form of a relatively minor
increase on the tax on tea) or the imposition of the Stamp Act, King George III
would’ve proposed confiscating their children if they were
insufficiently supportive of their supposed desire to “change sexes?!” Instead
of the Boston Tea Party, history might have recorded the “Boston Sex/Gender
Party.” The Founders might have been so incredulous, so angry-- and therefore
so inspired—the Revolutionary War might have been won sooner, despite the odds.
(Hell, they might have invented nuclear weapons, 170 years before their
time.)
There are
many, even amongst Republicans, that refuse to characterize any policy or law
proposed or enacted by Democrats as “evil,” no matter their ultimate effects.
This is simply a refusal to acknowledge reality— and an admission that one
doesn’t believe in standards, morality, or objective truth.
It’s one
thing to, say, propose taxing certain groups of people at a much higher rate
than others, simply because of their income. But, vandalizing or burning down pregnancy
centers and churches? The
wholesale slaughter of babies for one’s own convenience? Not indicative of good
vs. evil? Patronizing stores that sell apparel or accessories designed by
avowed Satanists? Nothing
to do with good vs. evil? Encouraging
crime and making discouraging crime a punishable offense? Not good vs. evil?
Refusing to recognize biological and physical reality…and God’s plan? Not good
vs. evil? Encouraging young kids to do the impossible and change their
gender…without input from their parents and with the knowledge that they may
well rue their decision a few years hence? Not good vs. evil? Criminalizing parents’
concern for the well-being of their children, both in terms of what they are
taught and their physical integrity? Not good vs. evil?
Speaking
of the Nine Circles of Hell, places like California, Illinois, New York, and Minnesota
are in various stages of physical, spiritual, and moral decay. Power hungry,
hypocritical, unfeeling, utterly intolerant, close-minded, ignorant, ass-hats
are in the process of destroying them, whether their citizens (and burgeoning
illegal alien populations) know it or not.
And,
speaking of power hungry, hypocritical, unfeeling, utterly intolerant,
close-minded, ignorant, attention-seeking, ass-hats-- those such as Al Gore,
Greta Thunberg, and Alexandria-Ocasio Cortez have repeatedly made apocalyptic
predictions that have—in every case thus far —been proven to be untrue, many
wildly so. Back in 2019, AOC claimed that we only had 12 years left to
seriously address climate change…or it will be too late…the damage will be
irreversible. In his 2006 global
warming documentary An Inconvenient Truth, Gore predicted that the
global sea level could rise as much as 20 feet "in the near future."
And that, "Within the decade, there will be no more snows of Kilimanjaro." Both
predictions proved spectacularly untrue. (I wonder if Al would have minded if
the government took his kids from him for making such preposterous and
potentially damaging claims.)
12 years
left to save the planet? That’s obviously bullshit.
However,
what should be clear to every sentient citizen is that we have less than
12 years left to save America. That is not hyperbole. It is an actual “inconvenient
truth.” It is already almost unrecognizable to many of us “seasoned citizens.”
It is
time—past time actually—for us to channel our inner Founder and reaffirm our
fidelity to the words in the Declaration of Independence, to the rule of law,
to limited government…of, by, and for the people…and to inalienable rights
granted to us by our Creator.
No matter
what.
No comments:
Post a Comment