Tesla: More Than Just A Car Company

If you know anything about Tesla it’s probably the following two points:

  1. They make electric, semi-autonomous automobiles.
  2. The company is led by controversial billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk.

A deeper dive, however, reveals some additional information that many individuals may prove interesting, if not surprising, to many.

Humble, Yet Sporty Beginnings

While the South African born Musk (who also co-founded online payment processor PayPal and space technology firm SpaceX, the latter of which he still oversees) has served as the public face of Tesla since 2008, it was actually founded five years earlier by two American engineers – Martin Eberhard and Marc Terpenning.

Tesla’s first electric vehicle, the Tesla Roadster, debuted in 2008 and was far ahead of its time. A prototype of sorts in which Tesla only built 2,450 vehicles, the car achieved performance numbers once exclusively reserved for gasoline-powered sports cars.

0 to 60 in 3.7 seconds.

A top speed of 250 mph.

All with a range of 244 miles on a single charge – arguably the most impressive number.

new version of the Roadster, due in 2020, looks to raise the bar even further on the capabilities of an electric sports car.

Its second vehicle, the Model S sedan, launched in 2012.

Although their main focus is cars, Tesla does have a burgeoning business in solar energy with residential solar roof tiles and panels and their residential home battery the Powerwall.

The company also offers a commercial and utility version of its solar energy and storage solutions.

Although Tesla is first and foremost an automaker, the company, much like its namesake, is just as much an innovator.

To understand where the US’s only fully electric car company has been and their plans for the future, we must answer two initial questions for where the company is staking its biggest claim – what is an electric car and what is automotive autonomy.

What is an Electric Car?

Electric cars come in two varieties – hybrids and battery electric vehicles or EVs. Hybrid electric cars, to varying degrees, utilize both gasoline and electricity to power their engines. EVs are fully electric.

No gas. No combustion engine. Just an electric engine powered by fully rechargeable batteries.

The primary selling point to EVs is zero emissions. It’s an important distinction for the lithium-ion battery-powered Teslas.

Although the company may deal exclusively in high-end, fully electric vehicles, its founding was less as an automaker and more on the principle of creating something that did not consume gasoline.

According to Martin Eberhard:

“I didn’t start as an electric car enthusiast but as a non-fossil fuel enthusiast.” 

In order to realize this early goal, Tesla’s ultimate plan is to control every aspect of production and become a fully vertical electric car company. This includes making its batteries in-house.

What is Automotive (or Vehicle) Autonomy?

Apart from producing wholly electric vehicles, Tesla aims to produce automobiles that one day will be fully autonomous.

What exactly does that mean? Here’s a quick lesson in the six levels of vehicle autonomy:

  • Level 0 – No Automation: Driver controls every aspect of the driving experience.
  • Level 1 – Driver Assistance: Vehicle features one automated system (such as cruise control).
  • Level 2 – Partial Automation: Autonomy includes regulation of speed and lane awareness in optimal conditions (interstate driving, for example), but the driver still monitors and controls vehicle
  • Level 3 – Conditional Automation: Huge leap in technology from level 2 to level 3 with the vehicle able to self-drive in most circumstances, but driver influence is required.
  • Level 4 – High Automation: Vehicle is fully autonomous in most conditions; a driver can still override in certain situations or emergencies.
  • Level 5 – Full Automation: No gas or brake pedals, no steering wheel, no physical driving skills necessary.

Tesla vehicles currently achieve around Level 2 autonomy.

However, the company states that its Tesla Computer chip is already installed on all of their latest car models, and all those due to come after. Significant because, as Elon Musk states:

“All cars being produced all have the hardware necessary – computer and otherwise – for full self-driving. All you need to do is improve the software.”

Translation: The hardware is installed, and the Tesla cars are designed and built to one day drive themselves, but the software, and, really the whole idea of a fully autonomous vehicle remains a work in progress.

Tesla’s First Generation of Automobiles

What isn’t a work in progress are the actual cars that Tesla produces.

We’ve already noted the groundbreaking Roadster, which piqued the curiosity of car enthusiasts everywhere. But the car that grabbed everyone’s attention was the Model S.

After Tesla’s initial public offering in 2010, which generated almost $230 million in capital, the Model S sedan was released in 2012. Running between 235 and 300 miles on a single charge based on the battery options purchased, the Model S represented a leap forward in mass production of electric cars.

In the years following its release, the Model S received accolades from both professionals and car enthusiasts. It was named car of the year by both Motor Trend (2013) and Car and Driver (2015), has been on Consumer Reports Recommended List since 2016.

Produced at an assembly plant in Fremont, California, the car topped the electric car sales charts in both 2015 and 2016. It ranks second only to the Nissan Leaf in total sales (although it’s worth noting the Leaf has been in production longer and is considerably cheaper).

As of today, the Model S has sold over 250,000 units, over half of which are in the US. On its Long Range version, the S can achieve a range of 370 miles on a single charge – the highest level of performance of any current electric car.

In 2015, Tesla launched the Model X crossover SUV. It’s a bit of a misnomer as the X is built on a car chassis, but its styling and function lend itself comparison to SUVs as opposed to sedans.

While not nearly as celebrated as the Model S, Tesla’s crossover still represented a considerable breakthrough for electric vehicles as it was the first commercially available, fully electric SUV on the road.

However, as groundbreaking as they may, both the Model S and the Model X remain out of reach and impractical for most consumers. The Model S ranges in price from $75,000 to near $96,000 and the Model X runs from $81,000 to over $102,000 (not counting electric car incentives or gas savings).

Tesla, though, is looking to expand its customer base.

The Model 3 and Model Y

The entry-level Model 3, which is already in production, and the mid-range Model Y, set to start production in 2020 (although it is available for order), look to bring Tesla into a crowded and highly competitive market segment.

Starting at $35,000, the Model 3 will be in direct competition with the aforementioned Nissan Leaf, as well as the Chevy BoltHyundai Kona, and Kia Niro.

The Model Y will serve as Tesla’s company crossover – an increasingly popular segment within the car industry. The purchase price starts at $48,000.

Compared to the established line of Tesla autos, the Model 3 and Model Y, don’t offer anything remarkably new, except of course for the lower price points.

What they do signal though, is the beginning of a new business model for Tesla, and for the auto industry as a whole – online car purchasing. The move will pit Tesla against the more traditional dealership-driven car buying method, which has been protected by state laws for decades.

Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety president Rosemary Shahan elaborates on what the change would mean for future customers:

“What Tesla is proposing is actually consumer-friendly. It gives you more of an opportunity to take control of the action, and you’re not on the dealer’s turf.” 

Although it does mean lost jobs for some at Tesla, according to a memo Musk sent to employees, the ultimate goal is affordability:

“Unfortunately, this means that some jobs will be impacted or transitioned to other areas of the business. This is a hard decision, but it [store closings] is necessary to make our cars more affordable.”

Tesla’s Future

Much like the transition to online-only vehicle sales and bringing battery production in-house, there is only one word that aptly describes Tesla’s outlook for the future – ambitious.

For starters, Tesla has plans to increase its already expansive network of superchargers, the electric car equivalent of a gas station. In doubling its network, as well as releasing a next-gen version, the plans are to have superchargers close to 95% of the population in “active” markets – read: where a lot Tesla’s have been purchased.

Next up is the bold claim from Musk (which he has a habit of making) is that Tesla plans on having a full network of robotaxis available at some point in 2020. In Musk’s words:

“I feel very confident predicting that there will be autonomous robotaxis from Tesla next year — not in all jurisdictions because we won’t have regulatory approval everywhere. From our standpoint, if you fast forward a year, maybe a year and three months, but next year for sure, we’ll have over a million robotaxis on the road. The fleet wakes up with an over the air update; that’s all it takes.”

Finally, it’s worth noting that Tesla even has plans for its first truck, which would ultimately match its offerings with every other major manufacturer. Musk called the new vehicle a “cyberpunk truck” at a recent shareholders meetings.

From a sports car to a pick-up truck and all-electric points in between, Tesla has indeed made the transition from car maker to innovator.  Not too bad for a company that started merely as a means to save a few fossil fuels.

RELATED ARTICLE: PROMOTING DOMESTIC TERRORISM: The Antifa Bomber hated Elon Musk? Why?

EDITORS NOTE: This PartCatalog.com column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

PODCAST: ‘What Am I Doing?’ Gender Hysteria Takes Its Toll

“I was 17… I finally started on testosterone gel, later switching to injections. It was a huge thing when my voice broke, and my figure started changing — my hips narrowed, my shoulders broadened. It felt right. Passing as a man, I felt safer in public places, I was taken more seriously when I spoke, and I felt more confident. Then I had chest surgery. It was botched, and I was left with terrible scarring. I was traumatized. For the first time, I asked myself, ‘What am I doing?‘”

Moya Sarner is in her late 20s now. She fights the waves of regret over what she did to her body almost every day, especially when she thinks about having children. If only someone had counseled her, she says wistfully. “I might not have transitioned. I was so focused on trying to change my gender, I never stopped to think about what gender meant.” The people treating her should have. And now there are Moyas all around the world suffering because no one told them the truth — that there’s freedom from their pain without destroying how they were made.

In England, gender clinicians, nurses, and therapists are pleading with the country to stop putting children on this irreversible path. The medical staff at Tavistock, England’s only gender clinic, was horrified enough to go public, many of them resigning over the horrifying things they witnessed behind closed doors. Some doctors, they said, would openly lie to patients and parents, fast-tracking what turned out to be extremely painful and devastating surgeries for children, who were usually suffering from deeper issues. When staffers like Kirsty Entwistle tried to intervene in certain cases, she was considered intolerant.

“Since leaving…” she writes in an open letter, “I have continued to follow transgender issues online and one of the things that I have felt concerned about is seeing the bullying and intimidation for those people who raise valid concerns about children making a medical transition… I am also concerned that the attempts of Tavistock & Portman professionals, including former GIDS clinicians, to voice concerns about GIDS practice do not appear to have sunk in.” Several employees have gone to the press, something, Kirsty points out, “clinical psychologists are not known for.” And when they do, desperate to protect children’s well-being, “you have to take them seriously.”

Psychoanalyst Dr. Marcus Evans, who also quit, told the BBC he was worried the clinic was searching for “quick solutions” for young patients. “This is the opposite of what needs to be done,” he insisted. “There is a lot at stake here as these decisions have far-reaching consequences.” In a secret report sent to the U.K.’s Sunday Times, multiple staffers accused Tavistock of using puberty-blocking drugs or surgery as the cure-all for “multiple problems such as historic child abuse in the family, bereavement… and a very significant incidence of autism spectrum disorder.”

But if the medical staff ever suggested that these experiences might be tied to a child’s “wish to transition,” Entwistle said, they “ran the risk of being called transphobic.” There’s an “unspoken rule,” she explained. “Clinicians do not tell families: ‘Your child is not transgender.'” That’s especially disturbing now, since the clinic is overwhelmed with referrals for kids. More than 2,510 have asked for appointments this year — a 400 percent spike from the 97 in 2009!

Other doctors walked out because their objections were flat-out ignored. They thought their patients were being subjected to “long-term damage” because Tavistock refused to stand up to the pressure” from “highly politicized” transgender-activist groups. They are “making decisions that will have a major impact on children and young people’s bodies and lives … without a robust evidence base,” Kirstey fumed. One example, she points out, is that parents were routinely told that puberty blockers are “fully reversible,” when the effects, she argues, are impossible to know. Girls like Moya may never be able to have children because no one told them the risks. Risks like infertility, sexual dysfunction, memory loss, bone fractures and osteoporosis, strokes, testicular cancer, suicidal tendencies, and on and on, Dr. Michelle Cretella explained on “Washington Watch.” “So these are not benign drugs.”

“I mean, we have physicians and drug companies profiting off of the suffering of children… when some of these kids who are gender confused are suffering from an emotional disturbance — and others are being talked into it by the very people who are supposed to be helping them… [P]rior to the wholesale promotion of transgenderism, the vast majority of children who were confused about their sex, if they were supported through natural puberty, outgrew the confusion. That’s a fact [that’s] been documented in at least 11 studies. But again, that was before all the transgender propaganda.”

For the time being, the Tavistock headline seems to be generating a surprising amount of outrage. Conservative activists who’ve been waiting for the public to catch on to the nightmare that is gender ideology are relieved that these clinicians are brave enough to stand up and say, “Enough.” “I’ve always thought if the public really knew what ‘transition’ entailed,” one conservative activist said, holding gruesome photos of patients’ surgery scars, “they would object, and it would stop. I think the U.K. is collectively reaching a point of critical mass where too many of us know what is happening.”


Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.


RELATED ARTICLES:

America’s Futility at Fertility

The Stars Align at This Year’s Values Voter Summit!

EDITORS NOTE: This FRC column with podcast is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

VIDEO EXPOSE: The Secret History of Kinsey’s Pedophiles

EDITORS NOTE: There is a global movement to mainstream pedophilia. This effort has the goal of re-branding pedophiles as “minor attracted persons.” Pedophiles are attempting to join the LGBTQ movement.


The following videos are a Yorkshire Television production for Channel 4, produced and directed by Tim Tate, aired August 10, 1998. The show features interviews with Kinsey team members Paul Gebhard and Clarence Tripp, Kinsey Institute director John Bancroft and several of Kinsey’s biographers.

PART 1:

PART 2:

PART 3:

PART 4:

PART 5:

PART 6:

ABOUT YORKSHIRE TELEVISION

ITV Yorkshire, previously known as Yorkshire Television or YTV is the British television service provided by ITV Broadcasting Limited for the Yorkshire franchise area on the ITV network.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Canada’s Ball-Waxing Controversy Is an Omen for America

Democrats and Hollywood Mainstreaming Pedophilia

A Primary Goal of Leftists is to Lower the Age of Consent for Sex — Pedophilia in Mexico, the Middle East & the European Union

Latest on Scientist who Mainstreamed Pedophilia by Bob Unrah

Pedophiles Believe They Should Be A Part Of The LGBT Community

RELATED VIDEO: They’re mainstreaming pedophilia!

Highly Touted Study Tests Non-Existent Policies, Uses Deceptive Data

study published in the journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics this week generated considerable media attention that focused on the purported finding and not the underlying research design:

Gun control tied to fewer child deaths: Study

Who’d A Thunk It? Tougher Gun Laws Mean Fewer U.S. Kids Die, Study Shows

Tougher Gun Laws Do Mean Fewer American Kids Die

Fewer American Kids Die in States with Tougher Gun Laws, According to This New Study

New Study Shows Kids Are 35 Percent Less Likely to Die in States with Strict Gun Laws

Children in States with Strict Gun Laws are Less Likely to Die, According to a New Study

Those are some pretty strong headlines. The study behind these headlines is bogus; it relies on very loose variable definitions and interpretations, seemingly prioritizes convenience over substance, and was likely only published because it found that gun-control is good.

Only half of these articles note that “children” in this study actually includes adults. This is a well-tread deception frequently used by anti-gun organizations, and we are always surprised when respectable researchers indulge in this dishonesty. For several years, we thought researchers had finally acknowledged that 18- and 19-year-old people were not children but this study adds on everyone through the age of 21.

Twenty-one-year-old people are not children. Children cannot buy alcoholic drinks or gamble in a casino. These are adults. You won’t find children enrolled in a medical school but you may find a 21-year-old adult. We suspect that these students would prefer not to be referred to as children, given that they have agency over their decisions and almost certainly have for some time.

But this study includes these adults in their analysis of “pediatric” firearm deaths. In their (only) five-year study period – despite decades of previous data and more recent data all readily available – the researchers identified 21,241 total firearms-related fatalities. The vast majority of these fatalities (69%) were of adults aged 18 to 21. This does not specify by intent; 62% of all fatalities were homicides. More than 43% of all the included fatalities were homicides of 18 to 21-year-old adults. In other words, more than two in five cases included in this analysis were adults.

A better definition of “child” would limit the included ages to those aged 14 and under. These are middle schoolers, kids just about to enter adolescence, and younger.

They’re not adults.

Focusing on actual children would have decreased the number of cases in this study to under ten percent of the number of cases actually used.

The paper begins with the claim that “Of note, ~7 US children die of firearm-related injuries daily.” The citation for this stat is the CDC WISQARS database but the daily average doesn’t line up with the definition of children used in this study. The lowest number of firearms-related fatalities since 1999 when including legal adults through age 21 is much too high to produce that number. Limiting it to children through 18-year-old-adults is close in 2017 – the most recent year of data available, which wasn’t used in the study itself – but not in any other year since 1999. If you look at actual children aged 14 and under, the number is vastly lower than what the authors claim. This begs the question – what definition of child and what year of data did they use to come up with the 7 per day average? If they did use 2017 data for children through 18-year-old-adults, why change the definition for the analysis?

And – perhaps more importantly – why didn’t they use all of the available data in their analysis?

As we noted, the outcome variable for this study of pediatric firearms-related mortality included adults. The rest of the equation – the test and control variables – were just as perplexing. Let’s start with the simpler issue: the control variables.

Research on firearms policy often includes a control variable for violent crime and age cohorts, both of which have been found to be associated with murder rates. Given that 69% of the fatalities here were homicides and the primary exposure variable was a rating of gun laws (designed to reduce crime), incorporating these would make sense. The researchers did control for race, ethnicity, educational attainment, and poverty. They also included a control for gun ownership.

The gun ownership control is based on a 2013 YouGov survey that found Hawaii to have the 10th highest gun ownership rate in the country – higher than Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, and well, most other states. There’s a proxy for gun ownership that has been validated by researchers, and that puts the states in a vastly different order than the YouGov survey – which featured self-reported data on gun ownership in February 2013 survey. President Barack Obama and anti-gun politicians were seizing on the tragedy at Sandy Hook to push gun control. That’s the metric this “study” used.

Using the validated proxy based on 2011-2015 data, Hawaii’s gun ownership rate is more than cut in half. New Hampshire’s triples. Many states have double-digit differences between the two metrics. The pediatricians who authored this latest study split the variable in two – high and low gun ownership states. The metric used for the split is important; fourteen states fall on opposite sides of the binary categorization under each metric. This group includes low-crime, high gun ownership states like Vermont and South Dakota.

The primary test variable is the numeric grade assigned to each state by the Brady Campaign, which gave states scores between -39 to 81. The reviewers at the journal Pediatrics couldn’t be bothered to check citations, so the Giffords Law Center is cited even though the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence was the actual source of the grades. Supposedly, the Giffords Law Center (an amalgamation of the Legal Community Against Violence and Americans for Responsible Solutions) is now the sole provider of state gun law grades, but they use letter grades. The Brady Campaign issued numerical grades, and didn’t hesitate to give some states negative grades.

But the researchers here explain the Brady Campaign’s grading process as gathering “an expert panel to objectively assess and rate state firearm legislation on the basis of a series of 33 different gun policies.” If you can’t trust the organization borne out of a desire to ban all handguns to be objective about gun policy, who can you trust?

There are also more substantive methodological concerns about using a grade for a range of policies rather than focusing on a single policy. Using the grade does not allow for the identification of an effective policy. All policies are seemingly treated the same – the Brady Campaign did not make it clear if certain policies were more heavily weighted than others when determining the grades. Of course, with 31 states receiving negative grades in 2015(after nearly a decade of declining violent crime and murder rates nationwide) how serious can these grades be?

Of course, the outcome variables matter, too, so back to the children and adults being disguised as children for the purposes of gun control. The mortality data for ten states was not available, so the researchers used the mean annual mortality rate over the five-year period as these states’ mortality rates for sensitivity analysis. The data was not available because the number of fatalities fell below the reporting threshold, so the researchers assigned them the mean – the average – of the available data. That artificially inflates the number of fatalities because the mean is calculated without the lowest counts – which were suppressed for the very states for which the mean is substituting. That was just for the sensitivity analysis; in their first model, the researchers found that a 10-point increase in a state’s arbitrary “gun law” score the firearm-related mortality rate among children and teenagers and adults masquerading as children decreased by 8 points. When controlling for race, ethnicity, educational attainment, and the supposed gun ownership metric, they found that a ten-point increase in the anti-gun score is associated with a four-point decrease in the rate. We would wager that controlling for violent crime, age cohorts, alcohol consumption, and other variables commonly used in firearms policy research the effect would further decrease.

These findings are based on the more than twenty-one thousand child, teenage, and adult fatalities the authors studied. What would the result have been if they limited it to actual children?

Let’s take a look at the data for 2011-2015. There were 11,698 firearms-related homicide victims aged 15 to 21 in this limited period. The three counties with the most victims in this age range accounted for more than 13% of all such victims. These counties were Cook County, Illinois (graded 40.5 statewide in 2015 by the Brady Campaign); Los Angeles County, California (76); and Wayne County, Michigan (3, the 18th highest grade). These three counties accounted for just over 5% of the population aged 15-21 in this period. All this shows is that other factors – beyond the sheer number of gun control laws enacted – should be considered when analyzing policy.

Of course, it is also important to consider the specific policies themselves. This study only looks at three policies outside of the nonsensical grades: universal background checks for firearm purchases, universal background checks for ammunition purchases, and microstamping/ballistic fingerprinting. The pediatricians only found a statistically significant association between universal background checks and firearms-related fatalities among children, teenagers, and adults. This conflicts with another study led by well-known anti-gun researchers at UC Davis and the Bloomberg School of Public Health that found universal background checks had no effect. It also contradicts the acknowledgements of Bloomberg School professors that so-called universal background checks just aren’t effective.

But what about the other two policies – universal background checks on ammunition purchases and firearm identification (ballistic fingerprint – databases of shell casings – or microstamping). Well, the authors contend that three states had universal background checks on ammunition – Massachusetts, Illinois, and Connecticut. In each of these three states, you must have a firearms license or permit to purchase ammunition. No background check is done at the point of sale. New York and Maryland both abandoned their ballistic identification databases because they were extraordinarily expensive and predictably ineffective. California’s microstamping law is really a ban on new handguns, as the technology as required by the law does not actually exist.

Neither of these non-existent-in-practice policies was found to have a significant association with the firearms mortality rate of children, adolescents, teenagers, and fully-grown men and women through age twenty-one.

The authors acknowledge that their study did not establish causality, and that they had no metric to measure enforcement of any policy. This is a common weakness in firearms policy research, as measuring enforcement is difficult. However, the mere presence of a law absent of any enforcement is unlikely to have a chilling effect on criminals. We already know that criminals don’t get their guns legally. The Rand Corporation noted in their 2018 review of relevant research that background checks that private-seller background checks (the only sales that do not currently require a background check under federal law) have an uncertain effect on firearm homicides.

This study would not have met Rand’s criteria for inclusion in that review. The research design would not have met the qualifications as it was not designed to identify a causal effect and it utilized an aggregate state score instead of testing a specific policy. The test of so-called universal background checks, while not a test of an aggregate score, would still not have met the other requirements. We’re not sure how Rand would have handled the tests of non-existent policies, but we can make a pretty good guess.

Contrary to their claims, this study does not add anything to the body of research on firearms policy. The sloppy citation, seemingly absent peer review, intentionally limited data, and poor choice of variables should make readers wary of trusting “published” research, but the anti-gun media sees what the anti-gun media wants to see. Questions, critiques, and giant flashing neon signs calling a study unreliable at best are all ignored in the name of the cause.

No death – especially a child’s death – should be trivialized. But this study took too many liberties to be reliable and yet it is being held up as an indication that more gun control laws reduce deaths.

In the worst-case scenario, studies like this will be used to pass laws that will do nothing to stop criminals, help those facing their darkest hours, or prevent accidents. Instead, studies like this will be used to inch closer to what the Brady Campaign, Giffords, and other anti-gun organizations really want: overarching gun control.

RELATED ARTICLE: NYC Makes Second Bid to Shake Off Supreme Court Scrutiny

EDITORS NOTE: This NRA-ILA column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

Behind the chiffon curtain: Drag queen story hours and child endangerment

Drag queen story hours (DQSHs) have quickly become one of the most divisive controversies in the 21st century culture war. Recent research revealed that these events are part of a much larger, intentional effort by the American Library Association to promote LGBTQ activism. New evidence from their recent annual conference shows how deep this promotion runs and how libraries are protecting themselves instead of protecting children. Communities are demanding to know: What’s really behind the values DQSHs are said to promote? Do DQSHs actually provide children with positive role models or expose them to dangerous men.

The initial exposure

In June, Personhood Alliance Education brought to light an intentional movement within the American Library Association (ALA) to bring DQSHs and other LGBTQ-promoting events into libraries across the country, even helping “secret librarian advocate operative[s]” sneak LGBTQ books and materials into current programs and use outside sponsors to host DQSHs in resistant communities. Over 43,000 people responded by signing our petition with LifeSite News. A similar petition partnership between CitizenGo and the Activist Mommy brought an additional 56,000 signatures. Both petitions were delivered to the ALA’s office in Washington, DC, on July 11th.

If you have not yet signed the petition to the ALA, which is now moving to Congress, click here to add your name.

Georgia Kijesky, leader of Personhood Maryland, was instrumental in bringing this issue to the forefront, as her local library in Lexington Park, Maryland is an active example of how larger forces are working to promote corrupted sexuality and gender to children. She also helped organize a well-attended prayer vigil on June 23rd during the DQSH and Drag 101 events at the library, which were led by a drag queen whose name was purposefully withheld from the public by the event sponsor.

The response to the research, the petition, and the vigil is one that has become familiar to Christian communities across the country. It’s a response shared by the ALA, LGBTQ advocacy groups, DQSH organizers and supporters, and even some churches:

  1. DQSHs reflect good values like inclusivity, acceptance, and freedom of expression.
  2. DQSHs are harmless and offer children positive role models.

Let’s examine what’s behind these claims.

The values beneath the veneer

At the 2019 ALA annual conference and exhibition, held in Washington, DC in June, intellectual freedom and inclusivity were front and center. Supported by the structures within the ALA that were created to normalize and promote the LGBTQ lifestyle, these rhetorical concepts—core values, according to the ALA—were woven throughout the workshops and exhibition hall. These core values were also worn proudly by ALA executives and attendees, even ALA president Loida Garcia-Febo, as they celebrated World Pride Month and the 50thanniversary of The Stonewall Riots. The Stonewall Uprising, as it’s also known, is a key milestone in the gay rights movement—six days of violent demonstrations started by drag queen Marsha P. Johnson against police who had raided a gay club in New York City in 1969.

More than 100 ALA conference workshops boasted an equality, diversity, and inclusivity theme; a reported one-third of the total workshop offerings. Sessions included:

Other workshops included, “A Child’s Room to Choose: Encouraging Gender Identity and Expression in School and Public Libraries” and “Are You Going to Tell My Parents?: The Minor’s Right to Privacy in the Library.”

It is important to note here that, under the guise of right-to-privacy, 1st Amendment protections, and anti-censorship, the ALA fought vigorously against requiring pornography blocking software on library computers in the early 2000s. This software was mandated for public libraries and schools through the federal Children’s Internet Protection Act. The ALA opposed porn filters all the way to the Supreme Court, but lost United States v. American Library Association in 2003. Today, the ALA is bypassing this decision, giving children access to pornography and age-inappropriate events and materials offline, in the form of DQSHs, Drag 101 events, explicit sex education workshops, and pornographic book displays.

The role models beneath the makeup

The ALA’s promotion of DQSHs legitimizes the idea that a man dressed as an exaggerated caricature of a woman promotes acceptance, inclusion, and children’s literacy. The DQSH website itself says that these events “capture the imagination and play of the gender fluidity of childhood and give kids glamorous, positive, and unabashedly queer role models.”

So what is a drag queen?

According to the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLADD), “Drag queens are men, typically gay men, who dress like women for the purpose of entertainment.” Drag queens perform for gay audiences in adult nightclubs and at other homosexual- and transgender-themed events and venues. They are performers who live other lives outside of their drag characters and may or may not be transgender, notes the National Center for Transgender Equality.

What about the “other life” of a drag queen, and does it matter in terms of having access to children?

This drag queen, Dylan Pontiff (aka Santana Pilar Andrews) says he can filter himself for different audiences—the gay men who pay money to see him in sexually charged drag attire and the children who sit in front of him as he reads children’s books that introduce homosexuality and gender-fluid concepts. Yet, he makes a startling admission: “[The DQSH] is going to be the grooming of the next generation. We are trying to groom the next generation.”

And what of the drag queen whose identity was purposefully withheld from the public prior to the June 23rd events at the Lexington Park Library in Maryland?

According to Samantha McGuire, the spokesperson for the event sponsor Southern Maryland Area Secular Humanists (SMASH), her organization ran a background check on Stormy Vain before the DQSH occurred, yet chose to withhold his identity because drag queens “get viciously attacked by trolls”. Once Stormy Vain posted about the DQSH on Facebook a few days later, it took an activist about 10 minutes to discover who he is.

Meet Todd Musick (aka Stormy Vain), who runs a lurid sex business that features gay males called Stormy’s Angels of Entertainment, dba Eroticasy. Though Musick has now taken his website offline and made all of his social media accounts private, here are just a few screenshots of his work, which was captured in a 70-page exposé (credit: Mass Resistance, at the request of Personhood Maryland’s Georgia Kijesky).

During a July 9th St. Mary’s County Commissioners’ meeting, SMASH’s Samantha McGuire presented an indirect defense of Stormy Vain, without addressing the issue of the background check, by accusing Personhood Maryland’s Georgia Kijesky of “doxxing.” She also thanked the commissioners for “listening over and over again to the same bigoted comments by a misinformed public.” McGuire went on to address Kijesky again: “Some of the people in this room expose themselves to be those very bigots.” You can watch her 4-minute response here.

Here’s what Kijesky had presented to the commissioners earlier in the meeting, regarding what had been uncovered about Stormy Vain.

The Lexington Park Library’s meeting room policy absolves the St. Mary’s County Library Board of Trustees from the responsibility of vetting who has access to children, because to avoid the controversy of sponsoring a DQSH, it allows third parties to reserve a room to do so. This has left a gray area as to who does background checks and whether they are even required. The Board of Trustees had even addressed the DQSH controversy beforehand, during its June 12th board meeting, saying that “talking points will be developed for Board members…We will not be putting out a press release since we do not want to draw attention to the event.” Here again, there was no mention of a background check on the men who would have access to children.

Kijesky explains:

“This is just another loophole library officials have created to circumvent community objections to such events at the library. They’re passing the buck onto the event organizers who are not obliged to provide proof that the background check was even done!”

Who is responsible then?

Who is responsible for protecting children at public libraries? The libraries? The ALA? The groups that sponsor the events? The parents? The police? The community?

The answer is all of the above.

Yet, evidence is mounting across the country, regarding the “other lives” of drag queens and how they are blurring the lines between adult sexual entertainment and children’s entertainment:

Drag queen culture is also pulling children into its world in other ways, like this video showing drag kid Nemis Quinn Mélançon-Golden (aka Queen Lactatia) getting his start on stage (caution, language warning). Nemis also recently posed with nude adult drag queen Violet Chachki. In another video, drag kid Desmond Napoles (aka Desmond is Amazing) is shown dancing provocatively at a gay nightclub in New York City. The mainstream media has been championing the drag kid phenomenon for some time, as shown in this recent clip of Good Morning America, where Desmond was praised for being a “trailblazer.”

Despite increasing evidence, supporters continue to claim that DQSHs and similar events, in general and as a concept, are harmless.

Are DQSHs harmless?

According to Jon K. Uhler, MS, LPC, who has worked for over 11 years with thousands of incarcerated sex offenders, DQSHs are not harmless. He took to Twitter to note that gay men who dress in drag give sufficient indication of being sexually deviant outside of DQSHs. Twitter has since screened and censored all of Uhler’s posts that suggest predators exist within the homosexual and transgender communities.

“Concerns about these men, who seem very interested in spending time up close and personal with other people’s kids, are not phobic. The issue is child safety…Keeping kids from sexual predators must become a priority. No longer is it acceptable for people to place children at risk to pacify or placate men who want to play dress-up and/or act sexualized in front of kids…Events such as [DQSHs] are the perfect invitation for predators to attend and access kids for ‘hands on’ interactions.”

Are communities singling out DQSHs in particular, and are those who oppose DQSHs “bigots,” as Samantha McGuire and many others charge? Uhler says, “Of course not!” and references recent pedophile scandals in the Boy Scouts and in Catholic and Southern Baptist churches as other venues where predators have gained access to children.

“The concern is to ensure that wherever men would want to access kids, there be close scrutiny, instead of ‘an open door’ policy. Protecting [kids] must take priority over men who desire access to them.”

American College of Pediatrics president, Dr. Michelle Cretella, recently spoke about the psychological dangers of DQSHs. Her organization has taken a bold stand against puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and surgeries for children diagnosed with gender dsyphoria.

“The idea of the permanence of biological sex doesn’t form in a child’s cognitive development until age 7… It takes up until age 7 for many children to think ‘I was born a boy, I am a boy. If I put on a dress that doesn’t make me a girl, it just makes me a boy in a dress.’ What is dangerous is that these young children are just developing the awareness of the fact that they are a boy or a girl… It’s dangerous because when you give young children fantasy picture books like this it indoctrinates them into thinking that their sex is all external. A preschool boy, for example, may think ‘The boy teddy bear became a girl when he turned his bow tie into a barrette. I can do that, too.’ Children will come to believe that their sex is whatever they think they want it to be. This is dangerous from a psychological point of view. It’s disrupting the natural process of gender identity formation.”

But that is precisely the point.

What about the parents?

Parents who bring their children to DQSHs genuinely believe they are teaching their children to love and accept everyone. Joelle Retener, author of Free to Be Incredible Mea book on the ALA’s 2019 Rainbow List, wrote this in an Instagram post:

“Some people might wonder why we celebrate pride with our kids. To us it’s pretty simple. Because teaching them to not just accept but to love and embrace people that are different from them means actually exposing them to those very people… Because here amidst all these beautifully diverse people from all walks of life, sexual orientations, gender identities, races and religions, my son is no longer a boy in a dress. He is just, a kid.” [emphasis added]

Retener is shown below with Stormy Vain at the June 23rd DQSH in Lexington Park, Maryland, where Stormy read her book.

Parents who bring their children to DQSHs are adamant that the events do not promote homosexuality or transgenderism. But the question must be raised:

Why allow children to be exposed to books that do just that?

Airlie Andersen, the author of Neither, another ALA-promoted book read by Stormy Vain at the Maryland DQSH, said this on the website LGBTQ Reads:

“I try to make books for everyone, but particularly for very young readers, children who need a jumping-off place to start talking about being different, feeling awkward, finding a special spot in the world. Someday my son may experience exclusion or pressure to make a choice one way or the other, when it’s his in-betweenness that should be celebrated.”

What can be done?

Personhood Alliance Education’s initial research listed several things local communities can do to detect, prevent, and where necessary, protest “cancel-proof” DQSHs in their libraries (scroll to the end of the article for the list). But can there be a larger effort to stop children from being put in harm’s way?

The Personhood Alliance is working with other groups on model legislation at the state level to protect children from DQSHs and to prohibit public resources from being used for the promotion and delivery of pornography and other age-inappropriate materials and events at libraries. This model legislation will be based on existing child endangerment and child welfare laws, which vary widely across the country. According to Personhood Alliance president, Gualberto Garcia Jones, a plan to go after the taxpayer funding the ALA receives at the federal level is also in the works, as well as legislation that applies the federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act to the DQSH phenomenon. “We will no longer sit by and allow this to be pushed onto children who are at a vulnerable place in their development and cannot consent to being exposed,” says Jones.

The Personhood Alliance currently has 22 state affiliates, with seven more states in the application process. “We will be working through our affiliates in different ways to put an end to the exploitation of children and the corruption of God-designed sexuality and gender by the American Library Association and activist library boards throughout the country.”

For more information on how to get involved in your state, find a Personhood Alliance affiliate or contact info@personhood.org.

RELATED ARTICLE: Democrats’ Equality Act Could See Repeat Of Canada’s Transgender Genital Waxing Dispute

EDITORS NOTE: This Personhood Alliance column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

Planned Parenthood Just Admitted It Doesn’t Care About Women’s Health

Planned Parenthood is America’s largest abortion company. It kills hundreds of thousands of babies each year, scarring women, damaging fathers and destroying families.

It also just fired its first physician CEO in a half-century and replaced her with a political activist. Its famed former CEO Cecile Richards, who stepped down last year, was a political activist, not a health care professional.

If Planned Parenthood is more about politics and abortion than women’s health, then why do corporations and non-profits give hundreds of millions of dollars to Planned Parenthood each year? Why did Bank of America feel funding Planned Parenthood was more important than being honest with shareholders?

It’s because corporations fear the abortion industry more than 2ndVote Americans. It’s time to change that – here’s how:

1. Most importantly, continue to elect pro-life politicians in Washington, in your state government, and locally. Your work to elect pro-life politicians has brought great results in our nation’s capital and in certain states where elected officials are defending life!

  1. Use your 2ndVote power. Refuse to buy from, or donate to, any organization which backs Planned Parenthood. Then spend your money at competitors of companies which fund Planned Parenthood. For example, Coldwell Banker (3 – Neutral) is neutral on abortion, and its parent company donates to the Salvation Army (5 – Conservative).

A 2ndVote score of 3 or greater is the goal of 2ndVote for all corporations and non-profits.

The irony is that ending unborn life is just one of Planned Parenthood’s horrific policies. The company also covers up sex abuse of underage girls. It used to illegally sell baby body parts, and it is a necessary service for prostitution and sex trafficking. It defrauds taxpayers. It is ripe for losing all governmental and corporate support – so let’s dig deep and make it happen.

It won’t be easy, but the most important things never are. The children are worth it.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Amazon Attacks Religious Liberty and First Amendment by Banning Therapy Books

From Starbucks to Home Depot: The Left can’t help but eat their own

This Week’s Scores At-A-Glance, 7/12/19

Remember Wen? Meet Planned Parenthood’s More Extreme Boss

Get used to the name Alexis McGill Johnson. The new interim president of Planned Parenthood is already making her media rounds, and one thing’s clear: she doesn’t suffer from the same anxieties as Leana Wen. She’s quite content making abortion a political issue — and a religious one.

The Christian Post met Johnson back in 2014 during a revealing interview about the intersection of faith and life. “We all recognize that abortion and terminating a pregnancy is a very complicated decision, but that issue needs to be left to a woman, her doctor, and her God — not a politician,” she insisted then. And as far as God is concerned, women have nothing to worry about, she argued. Planned Parenthood, she promised, has plenty of support from “female ministers” and other “members of faith.”

The Radiance Foundation’s Ryan Bomberger is equally troubled by Johnson’s criticism of the pro-life agenda. “I feel like it’s an assault on black women’s ability to make a decision,” she argued. But Johnson, Bomberger pushed back, as a multiracial woman, ought to know that her organization has aborted hundreds of thousands of future black women in its intentional targeting of minorities. But she claims that pro-lifers, who’ve done everything they can to expose the eugenics movement behind Planned Parenthood, are the “racist” ones.

Meanwhile, the editors at the Wall Street Journal are just as stunned. “Progressives are hurtling to the Left so fast that even liberals in good standing are casualties of the tornado. Witness the coup this week at Planned Parenthood, which is a tacit reminder that the group is less a health-care outfit than a political lobby.” Dr. Wen, they shake their head, was pushed out of the group because she wasn’t radical enough on abortion. But, they remind everyone, “Dr. Wen wasn’t moderate or timid about abortion.”

“The coup reveals the dishonesty of Planned Parenthood’s requests for public funding. The outfit demands taxpayer money in the name of health services for women but then sacks its doctor president because she wasn’t political enough. The group claims abortion is only part of its portfolio even as it acts like it is Planned Parenthood’s singular purpose.

Planned Parenthood ought to drop the pretense and rely on private funding like other lobbies. There is no shortage of rich liberals. Facebook‘s Sheryl Sandberg told the Huffington Post last month that she was donating $1 million to Planned Parenthood’s advocacy arm, not her first large donation. American taxpayers who disagree with Planned Parenthood’s message should not have to underwrite a political shop that lobbies for abortion up to the last minute before birth.”

To that I say, Amen!


Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.


RELATED ARTICLES:

Like Gold Tested in Fire

In the Hate of the Moment

FRC in the Spotlight…

EDITORS NOTE: This FRC column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

VIDEO: Planned Parenthood’s Nuremberg

Planned Parenthood has exterminated 10 times more people than the Nazis. Justice demands that they be tried in the same manner.

These Are The Cities And States Helping Women Obtain Abortions

  • As more states pass restrictive abortion legislation, other cities and states push back with pro-abortion legislation.
  •  New York, Illinois, Maine, Vermont, and Nevada have each taken steps to protect abortion access.
  • New York City and Illinois have made it clear that women can travel to those areas from other states to obtain abortions.

Several cities and states have passed legislation or taken steps to help women obtain abortions despite a variety of restrictive abortion legislation passed in 2019.

Kentucky, Mississippi, Ohio, Georgia, and Louisiana have all passed bills banning abortions after a heartbeat can be detected. Republican Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey signed a bill into law in May criminalizing abortion procedures for doctors. Meanwhile, Missouri’s last abortion clinic may close due to failure to comply with the Missouri Department of Health and Human Services requirements.

In response to this restrictive abortion legislation, both New York City and Illinois have taken steps to make abortion more accessible for women traveling from other states. Maine, Vermont and Nevada have also passed laws that enable abortion access on a smaller scale, NBC News reported.

New York City

The New York City Council allocated $250,000 to the New York Abortion Access Fund (NYAAF) in June to help women travel to New York City and obtain abortions.

Pro-abortion activists claim this allocation was the first time that a city allocated money specifically designated for abortions, The New York Times reported.

Officials said that the allocated money would enable about 500 women to obtain abortions, the Times reported.

NYAAF board member Janna Oberdorf told NBC that the funds can be used by any women in or traveling to New York City and is intended to cover the abortion procedure rather than travel or lodging costs.

Democratic New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo also signed the Reproductive Health Act in January, allowing non-doctors to perform abortions according to the Times. The bill also allows women to obtain late-term abortions — after 24 weeks — if their health is in danger or if the fetus is not viable.

Cuomo did not respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.

Illinois

Democratic Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker signed the Reproductive Health Actinto law in June, a law that makes abortion “a fundamental right” in the state of Illinois.

The law is designed to alert women in surrounding states that they can travel to Illinois to receive abortions if they cannot receive them at home, according to NBC.

The Reproductive Health Act allows non-doctors to perform abortions, abolishes Illinois’ parental notification law, forces religious and private health care organizations to provide abortions, and eliminates required investigations into deaths of mothers.

The law also eliminates requirements to publicly report abortion data, including “the number of abortions performed on out-of-state women or underage girls” according to a press release from the Susan B. Anthony List. (RELATED: Lawmakers Repeal Abortion Safeguards To Build ‘A Firewall Around Illinois To Protect Access’ To Abortion)

“Should you live in a state that has restricted your right to a safe and legal abortion, we want to make sure you know that Illinois is a place where it is safe and legal,” Democratic state Sen. Melinda Bush said to NBC News. The publication reports that Bush sponsored the bill.

“We want it to be clear that Illinois is a beacon for women’s reproductive rights,” Bush added.

Guttmacher Institute state policy analyst Elizabeth Nash told NBC that protecting abortion access in Illinois “means you’re protecting access not just in Illinois” but also in the surrounding conservative states.

Pritzker did not respond to a request for comment from the DCNF.

Maine

Democratic Maine Gov. Janet Mills signed “An Act To Authorize Certain Health Care Professionals To Perform Abortions” into law in June, a law that permits non-doctors to perform abortions in Maine.

The law will allow physician assistants and advanced practice registered nurses to perform abortions, according to a press release from Mills’ office, and is set to go into effect in September. (RELATED: Maine Will Allow Non-Doctors To Perform Abortions)

“Allowing qualified and licensed medical professionals to perform abortions will ensure that Maine women, especially those in rural areas, are able to access critical reproductive health care services when and where they need them from qualified providers they know and trust,” Mills said in a statement.

“Expanding who is allowed to perform an abortion does not expand the safety of the procedure,” Republican state Sen. Stacey Guerin of Maine said in June, according to the New York Post.

Mills did not respond to a request for comment from the DCNF.

Vermont

Republican Vermont Gov. Phil Scott intends to allow bill H.57 to become law, his communications director told CNN.

The bill would “recognize as a fundamental right the freedom of reproductive choice” and “prohibit public entities from interfering with or restricting the right of an individual to terminate the individual’s pregnancy,” according to CNN.

The bill also would protect women’s “rights to choose or refuse contraception or sterilization or to choose to carry a pregnancy to term, to give birth to a child, or to obtain an abortion.”

“The Governor is and has been pro-choice and believes in a woman’s right to choose, so he has ruled out vetoing the bill — it will become law,” Scott’s communication director, Rebecca Kelley, wrote in an email to CNN.

Kelley also told CNN the governor has not received the bill and has not received notice of when he will be given it.

Scott did not yet respond to a request for comment from the DCNF, and his office did not respond to questions as to the bill’s status.

Nevada

The Nevada Assembly passed a bill in May that would no longer require doctors to inform women about the “emotional implications” involved in abortions according to CNN. Democratic Nevada Gov. Steve Sisolak signed the bill into law on May 31.

The bill, SB179, “removes the requirement that a physician certify a pregnant woman’s marital status and age before performing an abortion” and “also removes the requirement that a physician certify in writing that a woman gave her informed written consent.”

Democratic Nevada Rep. Dina Titus praised the bill in May, calling restrictive abortion legislation “dangerous anti-choice agenda.”

Sisolak did not yet respond to a request for comment from the DCNF.

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Two Videos on the Global Warming/Climate Change Hoaxes

1. ET sent in a link to a video about a Nobel prize laureate smashing the global warming hoax for what it is. The video, unsurprisingly, is unavailable already on YouTube. While searching for it, I did find this one of Freeman Dyson on the subject. Look in to who Dr. Dyson is. I think as credentials go, he meets the toughest standard.

M. May have found the video featuring Nobel Laureate Ivar Giaever in question here:

Can You Keep a Secret? So Can Your Daughter’s School.

Imagine sending your daughter off to school only to find out that she was headed for an abortion appointment instead. Then imagine this: her teachers knew and never told you. In California, parents don’t have to imagine it. Thanks to a new undercover video, they know — it’s already happening.

It’s unreal footage, even by the ACLU’s standards. When the meeting between state teachers and the far-Left group was leaked, most people had a hard time believing it. And that, the team at Our Watch said, was the point. “[We] know what it’s like to say, ‘Okay, well, I heard somebody said this is happening, but I want to see it for myself.'” So the organization sent someone into a training session and pushed “record.” What they caught was a coordinated effort to keep parents in the dark about one of the most dangerous decisions a teenager could ever make.

“Regardless of how old the student is,” ACLU attorney Ruth Dawson starts off (at 21:08 of this video), “they can walk into a doctor’s office and consent to services without their parental consent. Those services are pregnancy and prenatal care, contraception and emergency contraception, abortion — and for these there is no parental notification.” As school officials, Dawson goes on, “I think a good way to think about this is that these are services that California has decided are so important that… students really need to be able to access them.” So no matter what, she said, “Young people have the right to leave school and seek confidential medical services without the consent or notification of their parents and guardians.”

But Dawson didn’t stop there. Every school, she argued, has a responsibility to keep these secrets — at all costs. “The key thing to remember here is about Confidential Medical Release. The right belongs to the young person. It doesn’t belong to the parent. It doesn’t belong to the school. The right lies with the young person. The most important piece of this is that schools cannot share this information with parents or guardians. Also no parent calls. So a teacher or attendance office can’t call home and say, ‘So-and-so was out at the doctor’s office receiving [whatever procedure]. Did you know about this?’ You cannot do that.” In fact, Dawson goes on, California schools should be in the habit of covering up these appointments on the district record.

Teacher: “So are they considered absent?”

ACLU: “I think it qualifies as, like, an excused absence.”

Teacher: “But once they’re absent, the school calls automatically.”

ACLU: “Right, so I think what has to happen is that the school must develop a policy so that doesn’t happen. When it comes to online attendance tracking, it gets a little trickier, because schools — as everyone in this room knows — have to report attendance.”

Administrator: “Because attendance is financial…”

ACLU: “Right. But if you say [it’s] medical, that’s actually a violation of the student’s privacy rights. If you say ‘unexcused absence’ and penalize them, that’s a violation of state law. So what the heck are you supposed to do? Some districts do things, like, they’ll say the student was with an administrator… and they won’t answer further questions. It’s a little tricky though, which is why it’s more of an art than a science… But saying it was an ‘excused absence’ does not, like, directly violate the law.”

Since when has falsifying state records not violated the law? What if there’s a medical emergency while a girl is off getting her excused-absence abortion? Can you imagine the liability issues if a parent found out the school not only knew about the appointment but covered it up? “No, it turns out, she wasn’t ‘with an administrator.’ She was taking the life of your future grandchild.” This is a world where giving a teenager a Tylenol without asking could launch a thousand lawsuits. Yet somehow, it’s okay to send them on a deadly field trip that destroys one life and forever alters the other without ever calling home?

Amazingly, the video doesn’t stop there. Dawson’s encore for the free lesson in abortion deception is a dose of radical sex ed. She goes through the state’s controversial new guidelines, taking great pains to remind teachers that even when it comes to the most extreme material (which one parent insists is so graphic, he could be brought up on charges for showing it to a child), it’s illegal for parents to opt students out. “In grades K-12, no matter where you teach sex ed… no matter whether you’re teaching fifth graders or twelfth graders, all of that has to be inclusive of LGBTQ…” Schools, she insists, “may not facilitate a selective opt-out just of the queer stuff. We’ve heard, unfortunately, from a lot of parents who say, ‘I want my kid to learn sex ed — it’s important. However, none of the gay stuff. They can’t do that. Practically, it should be impossible.”

By now, you shouldn’t need convincing that your involvement in the local school district matters. If you do, this video is more than enough proof that the Left is targeting your children. But if there’s one thing the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, and every other liberal is afraid of, it’s engaged parents. There’s a reason they’re hosting these hush-hush trainings and passing laws to keep moms and dads in the dark. They understand that the more you know, the harder you’ll fight. And in a world where the other side will do anything to get to our children, that’s exactly what we need — fighters.


Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.


RELATED ARTICLES:

Planned Parenthood Lives Up to Its Bloodthirsty and Racist Reputation

Hollywood Tries to Mainstream Abortion. 21 TV and Movie Characters Have Aborted Babies This Year

California Public Schools Promote Polyamory for Preteens

Trump Admin: No Greater Friend than Israel

Numbering You Won’t Stop the Opioid Crisis

Preview:  

  • Rep. Bill Foster (D-Ill.) introduced a proposal that he claims would “go a long way to fight the practice of doctor shopping for more prescription pain pills amid a deadly opioid crisis.” Doctor shopping “involves visiting multiple doctors.” Hardly new, this proposal, now passed by the House of Representatives as an amendment to a $99.4 billion Health and Human Services appropriations bill, lifts the ban on funding a Unique Patient Identifier (UPI).
  • If Rep. Foster’s amendment is not removed, you might have to have a UPI to get legitimate medical care—“no card, no care”—but the drug cartel won’t mind. You can shop drug dealers as much as you like. There is a flood of fentanyl, mostly from Mexico or China, coming across our borders. 
  • The UPI is ideally suited for government tracking and control of all citizens. People like J. Edgar Hoover or Lois Lerner might find it very useful. But it would be the end of privacy, and the foundation for a national health data system.

People are dying all over the country from opioid overdoses. There’s a movement to have the antidote naloxone available in all ambulances and even over the counter. This temporarily reverses the fatal effect of opioids, which stop the patient’s breathing. First responders themselves may need a dose because of contact with a tiny amount of fentanyl, an extremely potent narcotic, while attending a patient.

No, the fentanyl does not come from the patient’s bottle of legal prescription drugs.

Rep. Bill Foster (D-Ill.) introduced a proposal that he claims would “go a long way to fight the practice of doctor shopping for more prescription pain pills amid a deadly opioid crisis.” Doctor shopping “involves visiting multiple doctors.” Hardly new, this proposal, now passed by the House of Representatives as an amendment to a $99.4 billion Health and Human Services appropriations bill, lifts the ban on funding a Unique Patient Identifier (UPI).

The UPI is part of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996. You don’t have one yet because former congressman Ron Paul, M.D., (R-Tex,) sponsored a prohibition on funding it as part of a 1999 appropriations bill. Rep. Foster’s amendment repeals Dr. Paul’s prohibition.

So how is this 1996 idea supposed to work? And why would it be better than the Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs (PDMPs) now in effect in nearly every state? Every prescription for a controlled substance must be reported to the PDMP, and the doctor must check it before writing a prescription, to be sure the patient is not lying about having prescriptions from other doctors. This costly program that creates time-consuming hassles for doctors has not prevented opioid deaths.

PDMPs are ineffective because doctor shopping is not the cause of the problem. Only 2.5 percent of misused prescription pain medicine was obtained by doctor shopping. And this small percentage apparently increased after PDMPs. More than 97% of misused medications are obtained from a single physician—or from an illicit source. The spike in opioid deaths after 2013 was caused by illicit fentanyl, as Dr. John Lilly concludes from painstaking analysis of official data.

If Rep. Foster’s amendment is not removed, you might have to have a UPI to get legitimate medical care—“no card, no care”—but the drug cartel won’t mind. You can shop drug dealers as much as you like. There is a flood of fentanyl, mostly from Mexico or China, coming across our borders. Rep. Foster is apparently unaware of the armed lookouts protecting the smuggling routes in the Tucson sector. And once here, the drugs go to distributors—such as illegal aliens protected in sanctuary cities.

So, what about the other touted benefits of the UPI? “Specifically, assigning a unique number to a patient would give doctors a way to immediately identify a patient’s medical history,” said Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pa.). He says it “would lower the cost of medical mix-ups due to misidentification.” His elderly father was nearly given the wrong medication.

To prevent medical errors, you need to alert nurses and doctors—and the UPI is not going to fix the hazards of the electronic health record. The EHR, touted as the solution that will bring efficient, quality care, has created its own type of errors.

There is no guarantee that a UPI will improve access to the record, and critical information will still be buried in voluminous, repetitious data of dubious reliability, some of which may have been cut-and-pasted from another patient’s record. There may be critical gaps as patients withhold information they don’t want in a federal database. The new problem that brings the patient to the hospital won’t be in the old record—but may be the result of an old misdiagnosis that should be corrected instead of copied.

Patients need to be able to shop for doctors, especially if the one they have has not solved their problems. Some of them desperately need opioids, which are increasingly difficult to obtain. They do not need a UPI, and neither does their doctor.

The UPI is ideally suited for government tracking and control of all citizens. People like J. Edgar Hoover or Lois Lerner might find it very useful. But it would be the end of privacy, and the foundation for a national health data system.

Adding ‘P’ for Pedophile to LGBT

EDITORS NOTE: In an April 1977 report, co-authored by Ruth Bader Ginsberg, professor at the Columbia Law School and Brenda Feigen-Fasteau, former director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s women’s rights project, titled “SEX BIAS IN THE U.S. CODE A Report of the United States Commission on Civil Rights” recommended 18 U.S.C. §2032 be changed as follows:

Eliminate the phrase “carnal knowledge of any female, not his wife who has not attained the age of sixteen years” and substitute a Federal, sex-neutral definition of the offense patterned after S. 1400 §1633: A person is guilty of an offense if he engages in a sexual act with another person, not his spouse, and (1) compels the other person to participate: (A) by force or (B) by threatening or placing the other person in fear that any person will imminently be subjected to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping; (2) has substantially impaired the other person’s power to appraise or control the conduct by administering or employing a drug or intoxicant without the knowledge or against the will of such other person, or by other means; or (3) the other person is, in fact, less than 12 years old. 


Matthew Hanley: If brazen attempts succeed in normalizing pedophilia, many people may finally come to reject the sexual revolution outright.


I don’t want to write about pedophilia. You don’t want to read about it.  But the threat of pedophilia becoming acceptable isn’t going away. The sudden embrace of transgenderism didn’t come from nowhere. And it isn’t going to stop there, as I argued in this space not long ago.

Targeting children comes in two general phases. The first involves bombarding them with LGBT messaging in schools. Or now, on public television (PBS) cartoons in which an 8-year-old Aardvark named Arthur and his peers are portrayed as pleased that his male teacher is “marrying” another male.

Other offenses in this category include Drag Queen Story Time at public libraries, which now seem to be cropping up all over the country. Scary to say, but chances are your local librarian may also be a monster-enabler – or at least too feeble a frog to jump out of water that is now well past the boiling point.

Drag Queen Story Time typically gives a platform to gay males (some are even convicted sex offenders) to abuse children by encouraging them to flout reality and to explore gender “fluidity.” Who thinks that is a good idea? Relatively few, in all likelihood.  But that doesn’t tell us how many otherwise decent people are unwilling to draw a line in the sand.

Appeals to “tolerance” show their true colors when they are enlisted to support the blatant grooming of children – grooming being a term we used to be happily unacquainted in this abusive context.  Such grooming also presents some commonality with certain elements in Islam; I refer to authorities in the UK willfully ignoring the systematic rape of local girls by Muslim “grooming” gangs for decades.

In short, a great many people in positions of authority are so keen on protecting both Islam and homosexuality that even the grotesque abuse of youngsters must be swept under the rug.

Sure, one could say that not all LGBT folks are on board with pedophilia.  But a larger point is in play: when the goal is rationalizing LGBT behavior, the very innocence of children must be targeted. Concepts of normality, morality, and virtue must be radically inverted because they stand as a rebuke to the depravity we must now esteem with “pride” – or else!

The second phase involves attempts to accommodate or actually espouse pedophilia. This can take the form of classifying it as a clinical condition, which amounts to a plea for exculpation; after all, no blame is attached to the person who comes down with Parkinson’s or pneumonia.  But it can also be couched in terms of advancing “rights,” breaking down barriers, and allowing “love” to win out.

Indeed, influential medical bodies seem to be biding their time to classify pedophilia not as a disease but as just another sexual orientation.  One that is unchangeable, you understand – because according to current dogma, anything that goes against human nature and common decency is unchangeable.

This would essentially amount to adding a P to LGBT.  Another P, I should specify; not Pansexual, which is already included in the ever expanding LGBTQIAP+ acronym. (Look it up – and ask: what does the “+” exclude?)  We all know what that would mean: “hate” would be the only thing standing in the way of legitimizing pedophilia.

So which is it: a disease one haplessly contracts, or a legitimate orientation that is unjustly oppressed? Who cares; doesn’t matter; whatever “argument” will do. Innocence will be targeted.

Pedophilia-friendly messaging can be found on TV and on stage; a recent play appearing in Chicago and London portrays pedophilia in a sympathetic light.  It can be found on social media and even in academic journals; one such journal published in 2018 a convicted pedophile’s contention that “child-adult sexual relations” should be seen as virtuous.

Benedict XVI recently asserted that, “Part of the physiognomy of the Revolution of ‘68 was that pedophilia was then also diagnosed as allowed and appropriate.” He sheds a bright light on the disturbing developments during this past half-century. But this matter goes all the way back to the confrontation between Christianity and the paganism of antiquity, which was fine with treating children as sexual objects.

Christianity reversed the prevailing approval of such practices, which makes our current crisis even more troubling because it entails the paganization of the Church and not just the de-Christianization of Western society.

So we now contend with bishops (in the UK) actively endorsing curricula developed by gay activists, while dodge ball is derided by some educational authorities on the grounds that it inappropriately treats kids as “human targets.” As if kids throwing balls at each other on the playground is of more concern than insidiously targeting them via perverted indoctrination.

It’s curious that, even on the heels of revelations that some of the Catholic hierarchy are in the business of perpetuating homosexual predation, there are nonetheless actors out there saying that maybe such targeting, grooming, and abusing of youngsters is not really such a bad thing after all.  

Apparently the task for those in the driver’s seat of our post-decency culture is to strike the right balance: condemn Christianity for its views on sexuality, and also for the violation against those norms by its pastors, while promoting such transgressions in the wider world – in just the right doses as the timing of our ongoing collapse permits.

We are not just dealing with a simple or abstract disagreement here.  We are dealing with dangerous people and disastrous ideas.  Perhaps the ever more brazen attempts to target children will lead people to see how one transgression logically leads to the next, and reject the sexual revolution outright.

But our degradation runs so deep, our divide is so unbridgeable, that talk of some sort of pending civil war is not rash. Nobody wants that, but if we can’t push back against the ongoing – indeed accelerating – targeting of children, we’ll have lost without firing a shot.

COLUMN BY

Matthew Hanley

Matthew Hanley is senior fellow with the National Catholic Bioethics Center. With Jokin de Irala, M.D., he is the author of Affirming Love, Avoiding AIDS: What Africa Can Teach the West, which recently won a best-book award from the Catholic Press Association. The opinions expressed here are Mr. Hanley’s and not those of the NCBC.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Normalization of Pedophilia Goes Mainstream, Child Molesters Rebranded as ‘Minor Attracted Persons’

Fears Grow Over Academic Efforts to Normalize Pedophilia

REPORT: Homosexual Behavior & Pedophilia

Embattled Crookston diocese reaches $5m abuse settlements, will release depositions and files

EDITORS NOTE: This Catholic Thing column is republished with permission. © 2019 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info@frinstitute.org. The Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.

Trump Judges Hit a Home Run in the Ninth

There’s a reason Planned Parenthood likes to challenge pro-life laws on the West Coast. They know the cases will eventually bubble up to the most liberal bench in the country — the Ninth Circuit. There’s just one problem. After almost three years of President Trump, their favorite appeals court isn’t exactly liberal anymore. And that’s throwing a major wrench into the abortion industry’s plans.

Elections have consequences, and they’ve been big ones for the make-up of America’s courts. Just this week, President Trump added another originalist to the Ninth Circuit bench, Daniel Bress — bringing the administration’s total for the much-maligned court to seven. For the first time in decades, the Ninth Circuit, which Trump has accused of being “out of control” with “a horrible reputation,” is on the verge of ideological balance. And for liberals, who rely on the courts to do what legislatures will not, the prospect of losing their grip is daunting.

On Thursday, abortion extremists started to feel the effects of the president’s court-leveling when the Ninth Circuit refused to stop the administration’s family planning rules from taking effect. In a shocking blow to Planned Parenthood’s ego, the judges ruled 7-4 that HHS’s rule stopping Title X grantees from promoting abortion could go into effect. Making the decision even more upsetting for liberals, two of the judges in the majority were Trump appointees.

If the rule goes into effect, groups like Leana Wen’s Planned Parenthood could stand to lose millions of dollars. Wen, who’s obviously unaccustomed to bad news from the Ninth, called the decision “devastating.” And not just for her bottom line, which could suffer a $60-million loss — but for the Left’s whole court-shopping strategy.


Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.


RELATED ARTICLES:

Troop Bill Off Base for Trump, GOP

Will Religious Freedom Survive In Syria?

How Democrats and Gays have Gone Too Far and Lost Their Claim to a Protected Status

“In the past, when gays were very flamboyant as drag queens or as leather queens or whatever, that just amused people. And most of the people that come and watch the gay Halloween parade, where all those excesses are on display, those are straight families, and they think it’s funny. But what people don’t think is so funny is when two middle-aged lawyers who are married to each other move in next door to you and your wife and they have adopted a Korean girl and they want to send her to school with your children and they want to socialize with you and share a drink over the backyard fence. That creeps people out, especially Christians. So, I don’t think gay marriage is a conservative issue. I think it’s a radical issue.” ― Edmund White


There are a small number of those in America who consider themselves members of the LGBT community. Gallup in a May 22, 2018 report titled “In U.S., Estimate of LGBT Population Rises to 4.5%” stated:

  • Rise in LGBT identification mostly among millennials
  • LGBT identification is lower among older generations
  • 5.1% of women identify as LGBT, compared with 3.9% of men

Gallup’s Bottom Line:

This 2017 update on LGBT identification underscores two significant conclusions. First, the percentage of adults in the U.S. who identify as LGBT has been increasing and is now at its highest point across the six years of Gallup’s tracking of this measure. Second, the increase has been driven almost totally by millennials, whose self-reports of being LGBT have risen from 5.2% six years ago to 8.1% today. Baby boomers and traditionalists have actually become slightly less likely to identify as LGBT since 2012, while the LGBT percentage among Gen Xers has risen only marginally.

QUESTION: Why the rise in LGBT identification among millennials and women?

ANSWER: The media, the Democratic Party and public schools.

THE MEDIA

The media includes LGBT themed Hollywood films, newspapers, major main stream media reports, TV programs (including those for children), TV and internet ads, and social media companies like Google’s search engine that provides 2,000,000,000 links when you type in the word “Gay.”

In a July 1, 2019 PJ Media column titled “Thanks, HGTV: Americans VASTLY Overestimate the Gay Population in U.S., Gallup FindsPaula Bolyard reported:

In 1989, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen penned a book called After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear & Hatred of Gays in the 90’s wherein the authors outlined a strategy for transforming how Americans viewed homosexuality. They proposed to harness the power of the ad industry and media to depict gays “in the least offensive fashion possible” while stigmatizing those who disagreed with the gay lifestyle. Kirk and Madsen were honest about their cynical scheme to manipulate the American public: “We’re talking about propaganda.”

They proposed “A continuous flood of gay-related advertising” while making “homo-hating beliefs and actions look so nasty that average Americans will want to dissociate themselves from them.” [Emphasis added]

The term “homophobia”, first used by in print in an article written for the May 23, 1969, edition of the American pornographic magazine Screw by George Weinberg, an American clinical psychologist, has become a tool to silence those who disagree with the LGBT lifestyle.

The media companies literally began mainstreaming the LGBT agenda in High Definition programs like Netflix’s Sex Education, Everything Sucks and Sense8. Gallup explained that “representation of LGBT people as television series regulars on broadcast primetime scripted programming reached an all-time high of 8.8% in the 2018-2019 television season, which is nearly twice Gallup’s estimate of the actual population.”

DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND “GAY RIGHTS”

In a May 14, 2019 Pew Research Center report titled “Attitudes on Same-Sex Marriage” found:

Three-quarters of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents (75%) and fewer than half of Republicans and Republican leaners (44%) favor same-sex marriage.

More independents who lean toward the Democratic Party (81%) favor gay marriage than Democrats (71%). Similarly, Republican leaners are more supportive (56%) than Republicans (37%).

Support for same-sex marriage now stands at 88% among self-described liberal Democrats and Democratic leaners and 64% among conservative and moderate Democrats. Fewer conservative Republicans and Republican leaners (36%) support same-sex marriage than moderate and liberal Republicans (59%). [Emphasis added]

The Democratic Party has become literally the gay flag bearer for the LGBT community. 2020 Democratic Party presidential candidate Senator Elizabeth Warren has called for gay reparations. Another presidential Democratic Party candidate and the Mayor of South Bend, Indiana, Pete Buttigieg is openly gay.

Eagle Forum in a July 9, 2019 email noted:

This week the House of Representatives votes on H.R. 2500 or the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 (NDAA) and the Speier Amendment. Although, the NDAA is necessary to fund our nation’s defense Democrats have insisted on using the legislation to advance their anti-Trump and gender redefining agenda.

[ … ]

Additionally, the NDAA Reauthorization includes many anti-family provisions. Among these are access to emergency contraception, or abortifacients, for sexual assault survivors and SOGI (sexual orientation and gender identity) language, which attempts to use the military as a tool to redefine gender. Congresswoman Jackie Speier’s amendment makes broad steps to force acceptance of the LGBTQ agenda. Not only does the Speier amendment completely undermine the Trump/Mattis Policy provision allowing a mentally-stable person with gender dysphoria to serve in the military only under their biological sex, but it also affirms that Congress believes gender is something that can be chosen on personal whim, not through DNA.

‘‘(c) GENDER IDENTITY DEFINED.  — In this section, the term ‘gender identity’ means the gender-related identity, appearance, mannerisms, or other gender-related characteristics of an individual, regardless of the individual’s designated sex at birth.’’

This is happening at a time when the LGBT agenda has become more radicalized and support for gays is dwindling, increasingly among millennials. Democrats now face a LGBT community that wants to silence any and all voices that believe there are only two genders, that marriage is between one male and one female and that a business can decide, based upon their religious beliefs, to not bake a cake for a gay wedding.

With the scandals unfolding in the Catholic Church involving gay priests and bishops molesting little boys and seminarians. With the Boy Scouts facing bankruptcy after allowing gay scout leaders, who then abused young boys leading to multiple law suits.

PUBLIC SCHOOLS

It is now clear that in predominantly Democratic Party controlled cities and states that the public schools are being used to raise a new generation of gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgenders. Public schools are now breeding grounds for LGBT “propaganda.”

In a July 9, 2019 a column titled “California Implements Extreme New Sex Ed CurriculumMary Margaret Olohan  writes:

The California Board of Education implemented progressive sex and gender education curriculum in public schools across the state, regardless, in some cases, of parental knowledge or consent.

Progressive groups, including Planned Parenthood, collaborated on AB-329 in 2016 and the recently introduced Health Education Framework in May as highlighted by a video created by the conservative group Our Watch.

Both these pieces of education legislation mandate that school districts require sex ed and encourage students to question their parents on sexual topics—topics explored in the kindergarten through 12th grade sex education curricula implemented in California schools. [Emphasis added]

Read more.

New York City is following suit to push homosexuality in its public schools. In a column titled “The Empire State’s New Clothes” the Family Research Council notes:

In New York City public schools, students can choose their classes, their sports, and their genders! Starting this fall, Schools Chancellor Richard Carranza is making the Big Apple an even bigger news story by radically changing the city’s policy on registered names, dress codes, bathrooms, locker rooms, and athletics. He says this is his way of celebrating Pride month. But “proud” is the last word most parents would use to describe the news.

In this new Wild West of gender identity, Carranza is giving the green light to everything from unofficial name changes to unisex school uniforms. “Schools are safe havens for students to develop their passions and discover their true identities, and these new guidelines celebrate and affirm all students,” Carranza insisted in a statement. For the first time, kids in the 2019-2020 school year will be able to “self-report names and genders” when enrolling in the city’s public schools. [Emphasis added]

Read more.

Watch this video on Comprehensive Sexuality Education:

It is clear that the media, the Democratic Party and now public schools are all rapidly and repeatedly pushing homosexuality as  the new normal. The goal is to “radicalize and sexualize children.” They use words like “homophobic”, “civil right”, “inclusive” and “tolerance” to silence any and all opposition.

Parents, American families and especially those who are religious (e.g. Muslims, Jews, Christians)  have no say in the matter.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Amazon Just Banned My Dad’s Therapy Books, Caving to LGBT Activists

Epstein, Bean, and Buck: The Democratic Donors’ Sex-Creep Club

U.K. Bans Ads That Promote “Gender Stereotypes”

Acceptance of gay sex in decline in UK for first time since Aids crisis

Ann Coulter: How a Democrat Pedophile Became a ‘Trump Scandal’

Dem platform hailed as ‘most LGBTQ-inclusive’ in history

GLAAD Harris Poll Study Shows Decline in LGBTQ Acceptance Among Millennials

Democrats and Hollywood Mainstreaming Pedophilia

Johns Hopkins Research: No Evidence People Are Born Gay or Transgender

RELATED VIDEO: Antifa Drag Queen Clan Harass and Threaten Conservative Reporter.