It's time for us to confront these discussions, not run away from them.
These young men are in need of direction.
I think that many of them have bad relationships with their fathers, or they do not know their fathers.
These problems will not get solved by shouting "racist," and then hoping that they go away.
Freedom of speech is the answer to every challenge.
Notice that I let him make his claims (at length) that the Mossad and Israel were behind 9-11. I then questioned him when he claimed that all the Jewish people in the Twin Towers received text messages telling them to get out of the Towers at the last minute.
Where is the evidence for this? Nowhere.
Why would Israeli Secret Service agencies reach out to and work with Al-Qaeda? Why does anyone think that Al-Qaeda would listen to, let alone work with, the Jewish State?
It's time to question the conspiracies. Don't let them stand unanswered.
Here's my full debate with Nick Taurus, a pro-Palestinian Trump supporter from Orange County, CA.
Some people consider that an oxymoron. How can someone support the Palestinian movement, since so many of them are Leftists? Of course, his side, and many of his supporters, counter that Israel and Zionism are the greatest threat
The debate took place at the Laguna Hills Community Center on Wednesday, October 30th, 2024.
Nick reached out to me in the middle of Summer 2024. He was hoping to pair me off against another anti-Zionist speaker. He reached out to a number of left-leaning, pro-Palestinian groups, but none of them would step up.
I was glad to step in and stand for truth, stand for Israel, and expose the truth about the so-called Palestinian movement.
This was not as daunting a task, since I had debated Nick on the Arab-Israeli conflict shortly after the October 7th, 2023 Hamas massacre:
For the October 30th, 2024 debate, Nick provided all the questions in advance, which was great, since that gesture allowed both of us to study, research, and prepare more effectively.
He also provided ground rules, which included no interruptions. I admit that that is my weak point. CRINGE! It's true, and I can laugh at myself about that.
There were supposed to be two moderators, a pro-Zionist and an anti-Zionist, but the pro-Zionist could not make it at the last minute.
Lawrence of Europa served as the moderator, and like CBS or NBC moderators, he broke the rules and interrupted me a few times, but that conflict did not stop me from speaking out.
Some of my friends joined the event, including Rachelle Mand, a Persian Jew who fled Iran before the Ayatollah took over. Keith Hardine of South Los Angeles, John Willis of Upland (both former members of We the People Rising), and Eli Komai of the John Birch Society also attended.
It was a pleasant surprise to see Eli, who is also a friend of Nick Taurus.
GROUP PHOTOS!
The debate was fun!
It was great to stand for truth, to refute a lot of the anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist talking points.
Nick was definitely the more reserved debater, standing behind the podium the whole time. I was more active, moving around a great deal. I don't recall any rules of decorum regarding our behavior, so there is that.
I really enjoyed stepping forward and speaking to the audience directly. For the first time in a long time, I felt really confident about this subject. It was good to interact with people.
Nick referenced a great deal of books, resources, and authors. That did not bother me, since truth is truth, and if lots of information is based on a false premise, everything else is invalidated. I also referenced some books, websites, and authors. I will say this much: I want to work on memorizing more names and more sources for future debates.
Let me get the worst and the missed opportunities out of the way:
Nick pointed out that there are Jewish people in the Biden Administration who are part of the open borders agenda. But who put them there? Joe Biden! I should have responded to that, but there were so many other things I wanted to respond to.
He talked a great deal about "Jewish" NGOs pushing mass migration and open borders. Who funds them, though? Most of the funding comes from rich white liberal Gentiles.
He mentioned the Appollo Affair. Yawn. I had challenged that in the last debate, in which independent American and Israeli investigations confirmed that Schlomo Solomon did not steal any uranium. A third party, Seymour Hersh, did his own investigation and wrote his findings in The Sampson Option.
I neglected to point out that Amin al-Husseini, the grand Mufti of Jerusalem, along with other Arab interests in the Middle East and Muslims in Southeastern Europe, collaborated with the Nazis to exterminate the Jews in Europe instead of expelling them to the Middle East.
Some of the best moments (for me) in the debate:
Pointing out that Israeli police officers arrest hyper-Orthodox Jews when they spit at Christians. That fact deflated the whole talking point from the anti-Zionists in the audience.
Using the phrase "so-called Palestinians" and undermining the legacy and veracity of that term. It felt really good to inform the audience that Zionist founders like Golda Meir and David Ben-Gurion were also Palestinians!
Not breaking a sweat when one of the anti-Zionist members of the audience asked me about the Haavera Transfer Agreement. At that moment, I had not heard of that phrase, although I know that Hilter initially wanted to expel the Jews to the Middle East. Instead of getting flustered, I got to the heart of the issue: "Do you think that justifies pushing 6 million Jews into ovens?" I also stated, "Whatever that is, that does not delegitimize Israel." That's what all these obscure references are really all about.
Refuting the "Dancing Israelis" conspiracy by using the phrase "Dancing Palestinians." I wanted to underscore the reality that it's the so-called Palestinians and their Arab/Muslim allies who are harming this country. I really thank God for having that phrase on the tip of my tongue.
Referencing Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, who served in a foreign military in order to supporting allow American citizens to serve in Congress. Nick acknowledged that point as a good counter-argument, and I respect that.
Repeating the fact that Israel offered the so-called Palestinians a state FIVE TIMES. None on the Pro-Palestinian side can bellyache about fairness or lack of return, when so-called Palestinian leaders just want to push the Jews into the sea.
My favorite moment was turning the tables on a groyper wearing an American Flag jacket during the Question and Answer period. I think his name was Andrew, although I could be wrong. He referenced the Lavon Affair, which is a common anti-Zionist talking point. He went off about the USS Liberty, which I had mentioned before he did. He tried to interrupt me a few times, but I was relentless in pushing back on the anti-Zionist tropes.
I really like that I held him accountable for exploiting those veterans, and I also like that I could get the truth out about Lyndon Baines Johnson, one of the most consequential--and the worst--Presidents in our country's history.
Frankly, I think that the biggest problem for many of these anti-Zionist guys is that people simply do not let them talk, and they do not respond with simple facts or evidence. People get easily offended because of the controversial nature of the subject and just shut off all discussion. That is not the way to win (back) hearts and minds.
I liked that I was able to confront other anti-Semitic conspiracy theories in the audience, and Lawrence could not stop me. The whole situation reminded me of JD Vance, when he confronted the CBS moderator for "fact-checking" him, when the corporate media moderators were just lying. Nick backed me up when the moderator got out of line, which helped a great deal.
Post-debate was great, too. A number of people came up to me and thanked me for coming, including the pro-Palestinian groyper (?) wearing an American flag on his jacket. He came up to me and shook my hand, praising me for stepping into hostile territory and taking a stand for Israel.
I let him share his views on "The Jews did 9-11," and I was able to refute his arguments.
I think it's quite telling that during the Question and Answer period, Nick did not want to spend too much time responding to his question about invading and destroying Israel. Even for anti-Zionists, the American-Flag jacket guy's arguments were way too much!
Nick was very magnanimous and praised me efforts after the debate. I am grateful that I could come and speak up, too!
OK this is my “op-ed” opinion piece but if you follow this stuff even a little bit you see a trend that isn’t shakable. Take the first election when Trump was outspent 2-to-1 over Hillary and she was the odds-on favorite 90%+ to 1 to win by every poll and oddsmakers everywhere. She was going to be the winner and everyone knew it but still…she lost to a non-monarchy, non-politician nobody. Why?There was no cheating; no “disinformation” campaign going on….he won fair-and-square. That was the last election that could not be stolen because the professional people who STEAL them for a living were caught off guard and had no reason to work at it because she couldn’t LOSE (or so they thought).
Not to let that happen again; 4 years later the Democrat machinery had been hard at work and NOW we had hackers, misinformation, social media tipping the scales, influencers, YouTube ads 24/7, ZuckerBUCKS flooding the airwaves and tubs of scarfed ballots being “discovered” at 4 AM after the counting rooms were emptied of watchers due to “water main leaks” that weren’t real. Dinesh D’Sousa recapped the whole thing in his 2000 Mules movie very accurately See it HERE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vadZ0Zevh7s
We saw a guy going to retirement homes and harvesting ballots from the old folks with a YouTube selfie-video of him laughing and carrying 300+ ballots in the back of his car. PLUS:
The Gateway Pundit found out how the USPS was a complicit unindicted co-conspirator when the Dems figured out that they were quicker on the trigger than the slow-moving GOP so they changed “just enough” calculated mail-in ballot recipients ZIP CODE 5 days before the mail went to them and that resulted in EXACTLY enough ballots to not be delivered to the correct recipients. 5 days after the expected delivery date they flipped them all back and the lethargic GOP didn’t notice in time so what happened to the undeliverables? WELL: the complicit USPS stacked them up in special tubs and delivered them to the DNC who promptly filled them out with Joe Biden’s name checked and to show how crooked they were, they didn’t take time to check any OTHER names so those were easily spotted as no “down-ballot” names were checked. BUT then those were quickly counted and disposed of. The perfect crime with no corpus delecti had been committed; eh?
Fast forward to 2022 and that era & the GOP figures out the PLAYBOOK and licks their slow-healing wounds & vows to not let this happen again BUT Biden end-runs them again with the dynamite-the- wall tactic and open the gates of HELL with 15 MILLION more illegals as they hand them free cell phones, plane tickets, hotel rooms, food stamps and many have really good-looking fake ID cards. NOW have you ever seen a first glass fake Mexican made Real ID? About 8 hours after the law went into effect (at least in California) to have a Real ID which had a whole heap of holograms, chips, fake-proofing tricks & secret stuff in them I was SHOWN a Mexican fake ID that looked identical to my new Real ID….they were really good at this so now we have Motor Voter and fake IDs for sale on every street corner. Too bad Newsom needs & wants illegals to vote and does everything to help them thwart FEDERAL law including banning laws to stop illegals from voting which is a FEDERAL crime but it happened so fast that we have plenty of them on the books. Newsom may well engineer a loss for Trump “no matter how many independents & GOP members vote for him” BUT we are only ONE state.
Want more info? The Gateway Pundit has a very recent video here where they uncovered yet another election theft scheme has been exposed; spend a few minutes here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iruWG9YZuC8
Sure we are on to them and the story below will tell you the feds are getting faster on hacking the hackers but hold on; sometimes “things work out for the best” and this may be one of them so consider this sequence of events:
SO we already know that Trump got elected by a huge margin LEGALLY the first time and he is vastly more popular the second time around with many more votes to prove it but LOSES in that rigged election to Biden who amazingly got 10% more votes than the most popular Democrat in history: OBAMA and now you know how it happened BUT. NOW it is 2024 and the GOP knows how they did it and are on to them and the shields are UP and you have all heard Trump yell to get more votes out with a landslide “Too big to RIG” so let’s assume that they can’t get enough fake ballots to overcome it and he WINS in 2024…what then?
This doesn’t happen often; Grover Cleveland also lost his second term opportunity but did a comeback 4 years later and suppose this happens again with Trump-Vance for 4 years and THEN I predict this alternating dynasty starts:
Trump can’t have a third term BUT Vance can have his first term as President in 2028 and let’s say Donald Trump Jr. gets picked to be running mate for President Vance and they BOTH can run again BUT
4 years later in 2036 Vance is termed out and he can pull Don Trump Jr. up to President and he can bring in one of the Trump girls to become the first woman president in the new Trump Dynasty….sounds like a Kennedy deal eh?
Call ME crazy if you want to but there is way better than an even chance that the always-wrong pollsters missed it once again and that ‘neck and neck’ story is just more fake news….Wednesday night will tell the story AND here is one more to read about how we are solving the stealing and skullduggery quicker and more relentlessly than ever before…..this is truly one for the history books (too bad that isn’t taught in schools eh?) Read ON:
The U.S. has a new strategy for combating foreign election interference and it is working (Yahoo News):
Last week, a video popped up on social media falsely claiming to show someone ripping up ballots in Bucks County, Pennsylvania. In a matter of hours, the clip went viral, pulling in hundreds of thousands of views after a now-deleted post on X.
In a break with past practice, U.S. intelligence and law enforcement officials decided to quickly issue a statement the day after the video appeared, saying Russian operatives “manufactured and amplified” the material as part of a wider campaign to divide Americans and “raise unfounded questions about the integrity of the U.S. election.”
The swift response, which was followed by another alert on Friday citing a second Russian-made video falsely claiming voter fraud, underscored how intelligence and FBI officials have forged a new strategy to combat the onslaught of false information from Russia and other foreign adversaries.
Scarred by their experience eight years ago when a Kremlin election interference campaign caught federal authorities off guard, intelligence agencies and the Justice Department are moving faster to expose and disrupt disinformation operations to try to knock foreign actors off balance, according to current and former officials.
Instead of relying on flagging suspected foreign disinformation posts to social media companies, U.S. authorities are declassifying information about foreign election interference in an unprecedented way, seizing web domains and issuing indictments that have exposed the mechanics of Russian and Iranian information warfare, officials and researchers said.
“There’s no question they are moving more rapidly and declassifying intelligence to try to get ahead of the problem,” a congressional aide said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive issue.
MY COMMENT IS THAT THEY ARE FACE-SAVING NOW BECAUSE REMEMBER HOW THE FBI GOT EGG ON THEIR FACES DURING THE BIDEN ELECTION WITH THAT LAPTOP AND BOGUS STORIES THEY BUOYED? YEP; THEY GOT CAUGHT BIG TIME!
Bill Clinton tells all about Oslo Accords and attempts to create another Two-State Solution:
Bill Clinton On the Palestinians:
“And the only time Yasser Arafat didn't tell me the truth was when he promised me he was gonna accept the peace deal that we had worked out, which would have given the Palestinians a state on 96% of the West Bank and 4% of Israel, and they got… pic.twitter.com/kQZrqdU3zW
Confronting and questioning the judicial nominees was the best part of the taskforce. For years, I have wanted to hear these judicial candidates justify their campaigns, actually explain to voters why we should give them the time of day, let alone allow them to serve six-year terms in the Superior Court.
Judges are important. They don't (or at least they are not supposed to) make laws, but the interpret and apply the law. They also supervise the court procedures for criminal and civil cases. They also mete out the sentences once defendants are found guilty.
In the 1970s and 1980s, many of the judges in Los Angeles County, the Bay Area, and even the California Supreme Court were content to flout the law and allow repeat offenders to be released on their own recognizance, without any regard for the safety, welfare, or well-being of the surrounding community. We have witnessed current liberal judges in the Bay Area let off offenders with very weak sentences, like the college student who raped an unconscious woman, who only got a month in jail!
That judge was recalled.
Another judge, this time in Orange County, was recalled in 2003 because he was caught with kiddie porn, and lots of lawyers lined up to take that creep's place. That guy did not have the common decency to resign from office. Then again, someone who wants to sexually abuse children has no decency to begin with -- and he was removed from the bench.
By and large, though, bad judges don't go away. They just get re-elected over and over, and nothing is done to get rid of them. Most of the voters don't know or don't even care, and they don't make any effort to find out.
This forum gave us all a great opportunity to find out about many of the judicial nominees.
None of them were incumbents, so that was an interesting start.
They all gave opening statements, stressing their prior legal experience as well as their commitment to equity, diversity, fairness, diversion, i.e. all the liberal buzzwords that most LA County voters want to hear.
George Turner arrived late, so he did not provide an opening statement.
He did make the case for his campaign (somewhat) in this video:
To repeat, many of them talked about diversity. They talked about a balanced approach to justice. It's understandable, because (no doubt) every individual on that dias was a registered Democrat. It's impossible to compete countywide as a Republican right now, although I think that RINO Steve Napolitano is still part of the GOP, and he received a number of endorsements from other liberal Republicans--as well as the Los Angeles Times! George Turner is his opponent, and the general public would get a broader glimpse into his--and everyone else's--judicial philosophy.
Wokeness is not justice, and it's the last thing that our court system needs.
To their credit, the nominees talked about the needs of victims and the importance of providing order in the courtroom. Steve Mac was the most disciplined of the candidates, with Renee Rose a close second. The other candidates seemed too casual or too partisan for the job. More commentary to follow.
Two of them were late, which was a little disconcerting. Why bother showing up at all if you don't care to be on time? Of course, I have run across judges in other settings, like at the LA County Registrar-Recorder's office, who display another level of incompetence altogether. One lady was running for a seat on the Superior Court, and she was turning in her paperwork to file.
And she filled out the paperwork incorrectly. She readily admitted as much in front of everyone else at the Registrar-Recorder's office. What is this?!
But back to the Civic Engagement Forum of Judicial nomimees ...
One of the questions posed to the judicial nominees touched on the legal matter of Judgment non obstante veredicto.
That was my question, and I submitted it to the moderator because I wanted to tease out the nominees' general legal competence.
It was pretty disappointing!
The moderator struggled with the language of the question, which is understandable.
But so did the nominees! They weren't sure of what the question was asking them!
When I shared that I was the one asking the questions, I confirmed that I was asking their views on when is it appropriate to set aside the verdict of a jury.
And they got it wrong, for the most part.
Here's the legal definition, for anyone is still curious:
A judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) is a rare
legal process that allows a trial judge to reverse a jury's verdict. The Latin
phrase non obstante veredicto translates to "notwithstanding the
verdict".
A judge may grant a JNOV if they believe the jury's verdict:
Is not supported by the facts, Contradicts the law, and Should have resulted in
a directed verdict
There was a general set of questions about judicial philosophy and temperament in the courtroom, as well as how they would rate their ability to withstand public pressure to make decisions:
In this segment, the judicial nominees talked about their prior legal experience and how it best prepared them for judicial service:
In this segment, the nominees explained their judicial philosophy (originalist, textualist, pragmatist?):
This was another bewildering demonstration of incompetence.
Most of the nominees had no idea what a textualist or an originalist interpretation even was!
YIKES!
Here are the comments on whether endorsements mar their capacity to be impartial in the courtroom:
I give George Turner credit for recognizing that this question was a very good question. Indeed, I think many voters should be concerned that the vast majority of these judicial nominees are begging the leftist LA County Democratic Party to line up behind them and endorse them.
All the candidates justified receiving endorsements from political parties or other interest groups. They also swore--sure--that they would not allow those endorsements to sway their thinking or their rulings or their judicial philosophy in the courtroom.
I do not believe that for one second.
One of the best questions posed to the nominees was "Do All Lives Matter?"
This was a particularly striking question, since most of the judicial nominees were black liberals, and presumably lined up with the whole Black Lives Matter agenda, which does not care about black lives--or anyone's lives, for that matter.
How they responded was actually pretty reassuring.
Here are their responses:
George Turner was the only nominee who went out of his way to politicize the question, pointing out that it seems to conflict with the "Black Lives Matter" movement. That was a very disturbing answer, to say the least.
Judges must be impartial, and they should not allow the skin color of a defendant or a victim to come into play with how they rule on motions, cases, or sentencing. We don't need more racism in the courtroom. We don't need more wokeness and moral corruption in the courtroom!
Final Reflection
Because of the relatively intimate nature of the forum setting, the nominees seemed more than happy to speak freely on issues. They showed their true colors, their lack of understanding on certain issues, but also a ready commitment to get to work on Day One, relying on all their prior legal experience.
Whether they were public defenders or prosecutors or county counsel, they all demonstrated a considerable pedigree of experience. This forum afforded the general public an opportunity to question and hold judicial nominees accountable at least once in their political careers.
Nancy Pearlman is an environmentalist and grassroots candidate running for the LA Community College District Board of Trustees.
This is a pretty important position but like many of the county-wide offices, most people are not paying attention to it.
Jerry Brown served on this college board before ascending into statewide politics. A seat on a county college board can springboard a candidate into higher office.
Nancy Pearlman announced upfront that was she was a former member of the college board, and she was running again to get the board back on track. She also made it clear that she was not seeking higher office:
Her opponent is a well-financed, union-backed incumbent.
She was lively, wily, and spritely throughout the entire debate. She talked a great deal about her prior experience as an educator, as well. Somewhat like me, she had taught every level of education, from kindergarten to college, and she had the chops and experience to prove that she could serve on the community college governing board.
I must admit that most of her positions were very left-leaning. She wanted to make college free, including the textbooks. That kind of thinking is fundamentally flawed, since someone is going to have to pay for it (you and me, of course, the vast majority of whom are not attending community college to begin with).
I do agree with her stance on getting rid of all the administrative overhead. Too many white-collar administrators going to meetings are sucking up all the money from the students.
I also liked that she wants to oppose enrollment quotas.
Unfortunately, she also gave the same left-wing pablum about the need for more women's empowerment, even though the majority (vast majority) of students attending community college and universities are women:
I liked her spirit, and I liked her dynamism. She is connected to the community college movement, and she wants it to prosper. Community colleges in general are good for students, especially because they can help you save money for long-term university enrollment.
She was too liberal for my taste, but at least she showed up and spoke up.
The two men are cosplaying a married couple. There is no easier way to put this.
The two selfish men, who clearly have identity and other emotional issues, laugh at their adopted son when he calls out "Mom."
Children want, no NEED their Mom and their Dad.
It's wrong, it's selfish, it's disgusting for these broken adults to create more broken lives by harming these children.
When are conservatives in general and pro-family activists in particular going to speak up for the children? Who cares about your personal freedoms or your selfish license? We need to put the needs of children and the well-being of the community first!
Look again at those two silly, selfish, effeminate adult men. They laughed at "their" adopted son. They mocked him because he wanted his mama.
Every child has that need, and that right, to access their natural parents, and to connect with their mother and father. It's time for the local and state governments to step in and protect the needs and proper natural access of every child.
And next time someone says to you that two moms or two dads are just as good as a natural family of father and mother, just show them the video above
(And you can show them the growing body of research exposing the dangers and harm of same-sex "parenting":
In California's newly designed 36th Congressional district, an independent journalist and researcher is taking on Lyin' Ted Lieu. Lieu has been an eyesore in the Westside for ten years now, and he is still holding on, pushing pro-terrorist propaganda while holding up costly progressive regulations and anti-constitutional edicts on the voters of the South Bay and Santa Monica.
I can't wait to get rid of that guy.
Unfortunately, in the last election cycle a shameless grifter named Joe Collins ran for Congress, pushing out a qualified conservative candidate named Derrick Gates: a pastor who had been ministering to the poor and homeless throughout the country for years, then settled in spiritually troubled California to make the difference. Collins was running to make consultants rich. He didn't put out yard signs. He didn't debate with anyone. He was just grifting, then he moved to Texas to run for state rep, where he lost badly to a real Texas conservative. Good riddance to that guy.
And now we have Melissa Toomim!
She announced her bid for Congress fairly early, to her credit.
I first met her at a meeting of the South Bay Republican Woman Federated in Torrance, CA in September 2023. She was collecting signatures in early for her Congressional bid, so that she would qualify for the ballot.
I was glad to see her launching her campaign as soon as possible, since too many Republicans do not get started soon enough, and then they fail to get into the general election.
She had some novel ideas, as well, on rolling back the surveillance state and treating individuals who refuse vaccines as a protected class under the Civil Rights Act.
And she was the only Congressional candidate who had the courage to show up and debate for the 36th Congressional District seat.
Here is her opening statement at the Civic Engagement Taskforce Forum:
She did a lot of research and investigative work in to terrorist groups, and she found out that the current Congressman Lyin' Ted was connected with these groups. Let's not forget that Lieu supported giving terrorist-sponsor Iran lots of money to appease them from building nuclear weapons (which has not worked).
Check out below her answers to other questions at the forum.
She goes into greater detail why she decided to run for Congress:
To her credit, she helped Dr. Kenneth Wright when he was challenging Ted Lieu, in large part because no one else had the guts to step up and take on that corrupt progressive. Toomim made it clear to the audience that she is a team player, not seeking to be the center of attention but rather focused on doing what is best for everyone else.
Kenneth Wright left the GOP in 2020, and he did not advance to the general election that year. I mentioned the failed grifter Joe Collins earlier.
She also pointed out her interest in focusing on federal issues: stopping illegal immigration and international terrorism. She knows these threats, and she understands what it takes to stop them.
She also talked about economic issues:
It's time to cut the regulations, and it's time to restore a more welcoming atmosphere for the entertainment industry. I really liked that she talked about the attacks on freedom of speech as well as crime.
This was my favorite response from Melissa Toomim:
Here, she had the courage to talk about the gender attacks on boys and men, particularly in education settings. She has the novel knack to point out serious concerns in public policy, ones which too many people in government and think-tanks are content to ignore.
Good for her! Boys, men, and masculinity are under attack like never before, and she called that out!
She also talked about education:
And she made some great points about infrastructure issues in Los Angeles County:
She faced a distinct challenge when answering some of these questions, because of the subject matter does not necessarily fall under federal authority, like improving education, but she did her best.
The DSM manual (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) goes through periodic revisions.
They recognize certain behaviors as mental illnesses, and then they remove certain problems from their lists, as well. What they remove is proof that the DSM process has become so politicized, that one should wonder whether it can be trusted any longer.
Confused men in dresses are trying to tell us that their confusion is not a delusion.
Find out what Gina Roberts did to normalize his fetish:
Gina Roberts: "I had the opportunity of working on the DSM4... I think it was when we actually declassified transgender dysphoria from a mental illness to a condition." (min 31:05)https://t.co/PSoK7VDgma@fd_mass@mass_tx
I blame my generation, the champions of abortion, drugs, radicalism and sexual dysphoria, if the Harris/Walz madness prevails in this election. As we matured, my generation foolishly let schools, media, and the culture itself slip into the hands of a Democrat Party even John…
The Baby Boomer generation, with their attention to free sex, love, and no responsibilities, has crashed into the present and ruined the future for the country.
Of course, it's not fair to blame every Baby Boomer. Many of them are stepping up and fighting the good fight against the moral rot pervasive in our country.
For the rest of this post, I will refer to them as Hippie Boomers.
And those Hippie Boomers, to this day, are proud of the liberalism which they forced into the country.
I joined a Braver Angels event in Venice a few months ago. At this gathering, a group of red angels (conservatives?) join with the blue angels (liberals) to discuss how to come together and restore civility in the country, despite all the polarization breaking out in the country.
What struck me as interesting, though, was that one couple, an elderly couple of about 70 years old, were talking about how the country has embraced legal abortion and same-sex marriage all because of the efforts of the Baby Boomers. The two gave the impression that these changes for the worse were actually good things for the country.
After sixty years of steady moral degradation in the United States, we can clearly state otherwise. Treating children as commodities or annoyances to reject has harmed fellow feeling in this country. Exalting immediate gratification and moral license has created more harm, more division in this country, since people don't care about other people, and they do not consider the consequences of their actions nor the needs of the next generation.
Furthermore, those Hippie Boomers expected more from the country, more from the government without considering who was going to pay for it. They didn't care at all, since they don't care about anyone else!
Hence the backlash, hence the polarization in the country. That couple was also hostile to religion. They clearly did not like the notion that there is a moral order which they have to answer to, one which they cannot ignore.
The selfish entitlement of the Hippie Boomers has caused nothing but trouble for this country, and why so many subsequent generations see nothing but struggle going forward.
