Posts

Offending Certain People is OK

When it comes to offending, only certain people matter.

The list of offended people is seemingly approaching a mile in length. Whether it is feminists, black lives matter grumps, homosexuals, trans-genderites, animal lovers, lesbians, socialists, bisexuals, communists, Muslims, atheists, pro-abortion advocates, pro agenda 21 zealots, open border and illegal immigrant supporters, etc., etc. of course there are numerous other special interest and dangerous groups and individuals who are overly sensitive. Yet they are the first ones to verbally and sometime physically rip into those who do not agree with their destructive motives and missions.

Recently, president Obama stated “Congress will still be gridlocked. State houses will continue to roll back voting rights and write discrimination into the law.” The sensitive president also said, “we see it right here in Mississippi, just two weeks ago, how swiftly progress can hurdle backward, how easily it is to single out a small group and marginalize them because of who they are, or who they love.” The president has made a career out of promoting his warped view of offending certain people or progressive oriented groups.

I have also noticed a consistent theme among the variety of easily offended people promoters. They go out of their hypocritical way to offend Christians, American Patriots, Black Americans who don’t want to be hyphenated or African Americans, pro-lifers, those who appreciate the successful traditional family, capitalism, or even men or women who just want to use a plain old fashion rest room. Those same offenders are of course themselves offended by everything that is good for America, the traditional family, the free market economy and free speech for all sovereign citizens are the biggest hypocrites throughout humanity. To be perfectly honest, progressive hypocrisy is one of the most dangerous of all aspects of American society today.

Not only to certain groups like Christians, or people who simply want bathrooms for either women or men, but to our beloved republic as a whole. Hypocritical progressive hypocrisy is one of the most destructive aspects of today’s American society. The progressives have for decades bemoaned the racist history of America. Yet they ignore and are not offended by the current ongoing racist traditions of Muslims who actually believe that black people do not have souls. To add insult to their evil societal injury, the progressives (including president Obama) seek to flood America with Muslims who make KKK members look like Boy Scouts. Oops! Remember how the hypocritical easily offended progressives were offended by the Boy Scouts because of their one-time practice of traditional Biblically based values?

When good education is replaced with immoral, politicized, progressive indoctrination that includes an exaggeration of the problem of racism in America. The end result is the multi-generational decline in the quality of life, for the very sovereign citizens the progressives like to say they are trying to help. An even bigger insult is the fact that the progressives actually know that their so-called solutions will not work. For me, that is very offensive.

Progressives are often offended by what is good because, their goal is to fundamentally change America into the total evil opposite of the great republic she was meant to be. When president Obama assumed office, he openly told the American people that he would “unite the country.” However, behind closed doors he plotted the opposite and through numerous deeds of his, our republic is more divided now than during almost any time since the civil war.

But at least during the civil war era, the lines of division were clearly defined. Both sides were ready and willing to fight for their position. The major issues were states rights, slavery and a little economics thrown in for good measure. People were offended by clearly defined issues or practices. Not stupid stuff like bathroom use identification, the denial of Christian prayers in school while allowing or teaching Muslim prayers. Or even, whether students can sing the national anthem in public. Just recently, aa group of middle school students from North Carolina visiting the 911 memorial in New York City. They were inspired to honor those who paid the ultimate sacrifice serving others dealing with the aftermath of the Muslim attacks. As a result, the students began singing the national anthem. But because of political correctness and certain people being easily offended, they were ordered to stop. Of course, after being embarrassed on FOX News, the students were allowed to return to the 911 memorial and sing.

I am willing to bet that those hypocrites who didn’t want to hear the national anthem performance would not lift a finger or a decibel of verbal protest if a mob of black lives matter grumps were to show up and block roads while shouting their hateful garbage. It is sad we have society where people are more offended by a patriotic song by students than many foul occurrences in our nations streets. Such as thousands of Muslims blocking streets in Brooklyn, NY on a recent Friday morning, as they tried to intimidate Americans while they bumped their heads on the pavement while calling out to their little god. Yes, my fellow American, our republic is divided like never before.

But despite the hypocrisy of our easily offended sensibilities today, I remain optimistic that through it all “We the People” will band together and through the wisdom of God, wrestle America away from those who are hell bent on destroying her through offenses and hypocrisy.

The Illogical Transgender Argument

What would you think if famed Hall of Fame NBA player Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, who stands 7’2, claimed to be five foot tall? What would you think if South African president, Jacob Zuma claimed to be president of the U.S.? What would you think if I told you the Washington Wizards of the NBA was currently playing in the playoffs even though they are not?

Let’s take this a step further. What would you think if Abdul-Jabbar wanted to have all of his legal documents (driver’s license, passport, medical records) made to reflect his contention that he was five foot tall despite all evidence that he is seven two? What would you think if Zuma wanted the United Nations (U.N.) to recognize him as the duly elected president of the U.S.? What would you think if the Wizards went to the commissioner of the NBA and demanded an opponent to play even though they are not eligible to participate in the playoffs?

This type of behavior is the clinical definition of psychosis. According to the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM), psychosis is “a severe mental disorder in which a person loses the ability to recognize reality…having false ideas about what is taking place or who one is, and seeing, hearing or feeling things that are not there.”

So, the point is, no matter what Abdul-Jabbar says he is; there is nothing that can change the fact that he is seven two. Even if the U.N. wanted to recognize Zuma as the U.S. president, there is nothing they can do to make that a reality. The Wizards claiming they “deserve” to be in the playoff won’t change the reality that they are not in the playoffs.

Abdul-Jabbar can insist he is five foot tall until he is blue in the face; but the U.S. government will never “officially” recognize him as such. The American people will never recognize Zuma as our elected president regardless of how vigorously he claims to be. The Wizards can organize protests all across the country, but there is nothing they can do to be included in the NBA playoffs. I am sure most of us would consider it very strange to try to change each of these three situations in the face of established facts to the contrary.

Most of us would consider a person who refused to accept the absolute facts of these situations as having some type of mental issue or psychosis as defined above.

Unfortunately, too many people today are refusing to accept reality; thus an alarming rate of psychosis being revealed not only in the U.S.; but throughout the world.

I recently had a discussion with my doctor about Bruce Jenner, who was born with a penis, and yet “claims” to be a girl. My doctor indicated that even if Jenner were to have a surgical vagina created; biologically and genetically, he would still be a male.

If Jenner’s body was discovered a thousand years from now, my doctor continued, and a DNA test was run; Jenner would be labeled as a male.

So, this whole foolishness about men born with a penis or women born with a vagina being able to “self-identify” as a woman or a man, respectively is the very definition of psychosis.

As in my opening three examples, there is absolutely nothing that can be done or said to change the reality of if you were born with a penis, you are a male; and if you are born with a vagina, you are a female.

You can have all the relevant body parts changed, but biologically and genetically, you still are who you were at birth—male or female.

So if Abdul-Jabbar can’t legally place on his documents that he is five foot tall; Zuma can’t legally be recognized as the U.S. president; and the Wizards can’t be in the NBA playoff simply by saying they are; then simply saying something is true does not make it true. A male who has a penis cannot and should not be allowed to go to the girl’s bathroom simply because they “claim” they are a girl. A female who has a vagina cannot and should not be allowed to go to the boy’s bathroom simply because they “claim” they are a boy.

What would be the legal basis for codifying such an act?

In order to accept the transgender argument; then you must allow Abdul-Jabbar to be listed as five foot tall, Zuma to be recognized as president of the U.S.; and the Wizards to play in the playoffs. Both sets of examples are based strictly on each person’s distorted view of reality in opposition to all the available facts. Both are simply based on a person’s verbally claiming something is reality; even though the verbal statements are without fact or merit.

In the immortal words of Michael McDonald of the Doobie Brothers, “what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away; because what seems to be is always better than nothing at all.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

Big Business Helps Squash Voters on Religious Liberty Debate

VIDEO: Turning Target’s Bathrooms into Porn Studios – opening Pandora’s Box

“Gender-neutral” Bathrooms, the Mixed-up Kid and Homosexual Dad

The big news out of San Francisco last week was that it would register another first: a city elementary school is going to switch to all “gender-neutral” bathrooms. The idea is, as the Daily Mail put it, to “accommodate young students who don’t fit into gender norms.” Of course, this apparently means that normal students who might like those supposedly antiquated single-sex bathrooms can just go to Hell (I mean, the Hell that isn’t San Francisco).

The scene of this enlightened step into the brave new world is Miraloma Elementary. Now, you might think a San Fran school would have a couple of hundred sexually confused kids, but, actually, the change is in deference to six to eight children (and to liberal dementia) who “range from tomboys to transgender,” reports SFGate.com. Hey, don’t you know? The whims of the few outweigh the good of the many.

But what really caught my attention was this passage from the Mail:

‘I think most people don’t think about how difficult it can be, going to the bathroom for someone like my son,’ said a woman named Jae, who refused to give her last name to protect her son.

Her son, a first-grader, is a boy who identifies as a boy but prefers to dress and style his hair like a girl.

‘He was just struggling with it quietly,’ the mom added. ‘[Now] he can just use the restroom without thinking about it.’

Ari Braverman, 6, says he too is happy about the bathroom change since he likes to dress like a girl and doesn’t discriminate between boys’ and girls’ toys.

‘I think it’s nice because then people don’t have to be separated just to go into bathrooms,’ Ari said. ‘It’s just easier to go to the bathroom if there’s just a bathroom.’

Ari’s dad, Gedalia Braverman, agreed, saying, ‘As parents, you eventually realize it’s not your job to change your child’s personality. It’s not my job to identify and pigeonhole my children’s genders, and certainly it’s not the school’s.’

There’s a lot here to take issue with. For instance, one could also imagine the following: “Ari Braverman, 6, says he too is happy about ice cream for dinner since he likes ice cream and doesn’t care for meat and vegetables.” Then there’s, “Ari Braverman, 6, says he too is happy about replacing math with video-game time since he likes video games and doesn’t discriminate between education and fooling around.” What a six-year-old thinks about social norms is only taken seriously by someone (such as, let’s say, Jimmy Carter) who would cite in a debate his little daughter’s views on nuclear-weapons policy, or a president who’d say his flip-flop on marriage was influenced by his kids. (Of course, Barack Obama was for faux marriage in 1996, so it’s more likely dad influenced Sasha and Malia.)

Speaking of influence, restroom Luddite that I am I got the feeling from the Mail piece that parents who are new-age bathroom reformers probably didn’t give their kids a normal start to life. So I did some sleuthing. Finding information on the secretive “Jae” was unlikely, but there couldn’t be more than one Gedalia Braverman in the U.S. And lo and behold, while this isn’t mentioned by the Mail, I learned that Braverman is actually a single homosexual father. Moreover, read the following, from a blog describing “Gedalia’s Journey”:

His twins were born thanks to the modern technology of assisted reproduction, and with the help of his friends.

In last June’s newsletter for Pacific Fertility Center, the clinic that helped Braverman become a parent, he describes the story of his journey.

“They say it takes a village to raise a child. In my case it took a village to create a child. Thanks to a loving gestational surrogate, and longtime friends as both egg and sperm donors, my dream of parenting has come true,” he writes.

Question: Does it take a village idiot to raise a really mixed up child?

Of course, I’m sure Ari’s Little Journey is just an anomaly. We know that homosexuals aren’t any more likely to raise homosexual or maladjusted children than are average parents. We know this because the Left has told us so, again and again, citing “studies” all the way through. And it’s bigotry to think otherwise (or even to think. Emote now, will ya’?).

Except for one thing. We also know that little children model the behavior of those around them; they could not do otherwise. While Braverman says it isn’t his “job” to change his child’s “personality” or pigeonhole his “gender,” the reality is that he’s shaping his children’s personalities whether he realizes it or not. You influence your child by what you choose to be (which determines the example you set), by what you say, how you act, and by what you don’t say. In fact, “values are caught more than they’re taught”; it’s what’s assumed that is learned best.

Moreover, this Rousseau-esque notion of just letting your child be what he is “naturally” is pure and utter nonsense. Naturally, a baby is a barbarian, illiterate, bereft of morals and manners, and quite likely a sociopath. Just as how children have to be taught math or biology, they have to taught (trained in, actually) morals and civility. That’s how they become civil-ized.

This gets at the contradiction inherent in the “I’m not going to put my child in a gender straitjacket” fad. (Note: “gender” once only referred to words, and it shouldn’t be used with people.) Why stop at “gender”? Psychobabblers diagnose “gender dysphoria,” the sense that you’re stuck in the body of the wrong sex. But there’s also “species dysphoria,” the sense that you’re stuck in the body of the wrong species. As to this, a young Texas woman going by the name “Wolfie Blackheart” insisted in 2010 that she was a canine.

So why suppress your child’s “true personality” by putting him in a species straitjacket? Yet we do. We teach children language, manners, our human society’s norms (mostly), how to use human-birthed technology and a whole host of other things beyond the average mammal’s capacities. We do this because the child is human; we thus assume that a human-specific upbringing is a better idea than raising him like a ferret.

But just as this is indicated by biologically determined species, so does his biologically determined sex indicate the wisdom of a sex-specific upbringing. This gets at a once universally recognized truth:

Contrary to modern myth, sex stereotyping is actually a good and necessary thing.

It’s not the application of a “straitjacket” any more than is providing musical instruction to a music prodigy. Rather, in the same vein, it is the process of recognizing the characteristic strengths and roles of each sex and providing teaching that will augment those strengths in preparation for those roles. Just as targeted training can help turn that musical rough diamond into a maestro, it can turn girls and boys into women and men.

On the other hand, we could just continue down the “gender identity” road and turn the whole nation into San Francisco.

RELATED ARTICLES:

At What Point Does the Homosexual Agenda Become a National Religion?

California Teachers Unions Force Nonmembers to Pay for LGBT, Other Political Goals

New Chicago Schools Bathroom Policy Proves Liberals’ Extreme Agenda

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of First grade twins Ari Braverman (left), and Ella Braverman (right), both 6 years old, show first grade gender neutral bathrooms at Miraloma Elementary school in San Francisco, Calif., on Wednesday, September 2, 2015. Photo: Liz Hafalia, The Chronicle. To contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com