California Democrats Propose Bill To Confiscate Parents' Children If They Oppose Gender Change

 

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 4^th Amendment? Talk about “unreasonable seizures!” (And toss out the 5^th and 6^th 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.