Follow Us on Social Media!

Tuesday, August 15, 2017

What Doctors Tell Kids Behind Closed Doors

What Doctors Tell Kids Behind Closed Doors
Linda Harvey, WND.com
Friends of ours related a chilling incident that happened to their teen son. 

Visiting a family physician for a school sports’ physical, the boy was asked by the doctor, ”So, are you attracted to girls, to boys, or both?”

Stunned, the boy replied, “To girls,” and later recounted this exchange to his parents.

It’s becoming standard medical practice to approach homosexuality and bisexuality as normal.

And it’s common for adolescent patients to be counseled separately from parents during an office visit so a private conversation can occur about sexual practices, contraception, condoms and other “needs.”

Why this elitist social engineering of other people’s children? Parental control can be a child’s enemy, so the thinking goes, sometimes motivated by ignorance, fear and repression. Child emancipation/separation tactics are being pushed everywhere in medicine, as they are in public education.

“They” know what’s best for your kids.

Highly-educated professionals in a healing occupation who should know better sometimes discourage children from staying close to the people who care the most about them in the whole world. They often have contempt for traditional family values that may motivate a teen to remain responsibly abstinent until marriage. 

Why keep the parents in the dark about medical advice? Friends of ours related a chilling incident that happened to their teen son.
Visiting a family physician for a school sports physical, the boy was asked by the doctor, “So, are you attracted to girls, to boys, or both?”
Stunned, the boy replied, “To girls,” and later recounted this exchange to his parents.
It’s becoming standard medical practice to approach homosexuality and bisexuality as normal.
And it’s common for adolescent patients to be counseled separately from parents during an office visit so a private conversation can occur about sexual practices, contraception, condoms and other “needs.”
Why this elitist social engineering of other people’s children? Parental control can be a child’s enemy, so the thinking goes, sometimes motivated by ignorance, fear and repression. Child emancipation/separation tactics are being pushed everywhere in medicine, as they are in public education.
“They” know what’s best for your kids.
Highly educated professionals in a healing occupation who should know better sometimes discourage children from staying close to the people who care the most about them. They often have contempt for traditional family values that may motivate a teen to remain responsibly abstinent until marriage.
Why keep the parents in the dark about medical advice?
Because some believe exaggerated tales of child abuse or conflict over the adolescent’s budding sexuality and parental boundaries. Schools behave this way as well, with numerous incidents recounted of children directed to abortion clinics and pro-homosexual counselors and groups without parental knowledge.
It’s a busybody mentality wedded to the ethic of individual freedom, even for younger children before they reach the natural balance provided by maturity. That maturity also corresponds – or did until recent years – to legal restrictions as well.
Leftists are willing, even eager to smash boundaries, including age-of-consent laws. They believe they are entitled to advise your children on intimate and life-changing matters without your input.
When I was a young teacher and a committed social liberal volunteering at Planned Parenthood, I told several eighth-grade girl students who asked me how to obtain contraception without a parent’s knowledge.
I am terribly ashamed of this chapter in my past and confess right now to the Lord how sorry I am.
I never learned the results of my irresponsible guidance, but the reality is, such educational or medical advice can be terribly destructive.
I recently interviewed Dr. Michelle Cretella, president of the American College of Pediatricians, on my Ohio radio show. When questioned about gender dysphoria in children, she made a very chilling point – that current medical protocols have raced beyond any science to back them up.
In other words, children and teens are guinea pigs, being administered potent, life-changing drugs and steered down Mengelian paths by physicians at some of the top children’s medical centers in the nation who cater to radical sexual politics, not to empirical evidence that supports such treatment.
Dr. Cretella’s courageous claim that aiding a child in gender “transition” is “child abuse” is being disputed by an Australian study, but tellingly, the researchers fail to make a scientific case for their challenge.
One organization famous for ignoring scientific truth is Planned Parenthood, whose new guidelines for parents of preschoolers got a lot of publicity recently. We should teach children that their genitals do not determine their gender, they claim. The abortion giant is now also in the hormone-treatment business.
One commentator, S.E. Cupp, said this about the PP advice: “Of all the things it is – absurd, irresponsible, pretentious – one thing it definitely is not is scientific.”
The medically accepted age at which minors can give consent is decreasing rapidly. In some states, the law is explicit. Others, not so much.
The Guttmacher Institute, established as a research arm of Planned Parenthood, summarizes the liberalization of consent, which they view positively:
“The legal ability of minors to consent to a range of sensitive health care services – including sexual and reproductive health care, mental health services and alcohol and drug abuse treatment – has expanded dramatically over the past 30 years. This trend reflects the recognition that, while parental involvement in minors’ health care decisions is desirable, many minors will not avail themselves of important services if they are forced to involve their parents. … In most cases, state consent laws apply to all minors age 12 and older. In some cases, however, states allow only certain groups of minors – such as those who are married, pregnant or already parents – to consent. ”
Yes, the excuse that “teens won’t report problems” is used everywhere to legitimize the left’s sexual agenda. The results speak for themselves.
Some states remain silent on whether a minor can receive contraception without parental consent – Ohio, for instance. So what happens? Clinics and physicians probably do whatever they want. And Title X clinics – like Planned Parenthood – will keep a teen’s visit “confidential.”
But the trend toward medical lawlessness and mythology is understandable once you look at people in key leadership posts. Take, for instance, Dr. Rachel Levine in Pennsylvania, the state’s physician general. “She” was actually born a “he.” And he is not alone.
In Virginia, Dr. Marissa Levine is the state’s commissioner of health. It’s unclear if these two are related. But what is clear is “Marissa” is a guy named Mark who identifies now as a woman.
With leadership so foundationally compromised, why are we surprised when sodomy is sold in private exam rooms to teen boys and grade school children are given puberty blockers by pediatric “experts”?
Katherine Kersten in The Weekly Standard said it this way: “In short: The use of sex-reassignment treatments in children amounts to a massive, uncontrolled experiment.”
I would submit that the same description applies to the normalization of homosexuality and promiscuity in adolescents.
And educators, doctors and public health professionals should worry about angry parents at the door today, confronting the flagrant abuse of their children.
They also should worry about facing a much more daunting Authority sometime in the future. And He will not be smiling.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2017/08/what-doctors-tell-kids-behind-closed-doors/#rm25Mq31Q30x2Ykr.99

Sunday, August 13, 2017

Robert Lopez's report on meeting in Austin

Concerned Parents of Austin, which includes some Mass Resistance members, held a meeting at a public library in Austin on August 12, to discuss what is being introduced in Austin schools. Caryl Ayala, Jen Delgado, and Debbie Simons gave excellent Powerpoint presentations on the harmful things going on in Austin schools. The slides are available and full of pertinent information. A group of people attended who claimed they were affiliated with the LGBT community. I was there and witnessed first hand the way these "pro-LGBT" people conducted themselves in the setting of a public education discussion.

I've spent decades surrounded by gay & lesbian people. Obviously not all gays act like jerks. Many of them are nice and wonderful friends & family. These folks who attended represent the worst of them-but they also represent the slice of LGBT culture that will be forced on kids through programs like Welcoming Schools. They demonstrate why the mental health profession classified homosexuality as a mental illness for so many decades prior to the 1970s. Social stigma and prejudice aside, there are many behaviors rooted in dysfunction, mental illness, and emotional abuse, which are so predominant in the LGBT culture that people engaging in such conduct think it's normal and think people who find it abnormal have something wrong with them.

You can see very clearly how the abusive, mentally ill behaviors rampant in gay life worked their way into programs like Welcoming Schools, which seem to coach children to find grooming, ritual shaming, aggression, ganging up, peer pressure, hypersexualization, gossip, sarcasm, and emotional cruelty as normal. 

I was actually mortified by the way they acted yesterday. Their conduct showed exactly why these people & their allies have no place in school whatsoever. They engaged in aggressive bullying and mental abuse in front of us, mocking people's experiences, ganging up on people, forcing false narratives, shutting down learning, sexualizing people unfairly. They mocked people's credentials, couldn't understand or evaluate sources of information, couldn't focus on one subject, and violated the basic norms of academic behavior. They interrupted people and appealed to social ostracism. Plus many of them were threatening to dox people and record them saying things they didn't like.


They can't deal with their own history or intellectual origins. They erupted in rage at passages from Alfred Kinsey's 1948 book.


At the mention of HIV infections for kids they erupted in laughter. How is that funny? At the mention of grooming they had contemptuous outbursts. Three of the most vocal women told me in a ridiculous discussion afterwards that they believed nobody is pressured to come out as gay, which is a denial of outing and grooming & the history of both forms of abuse in the gay community. It shows either willful ignorance or outright deception about the vicious treatment and legal harassment currently conducted against people who come out as gay and then later go back on that and live out a straight or celibate lifestyle. The LGBT objectors at the meeting showed no concern for kids being pressured to have sex or shamed for being virgins, which flies in the face of an enormous controversy currently raging about Title IX. One woman said, "consent is a very easy topic," which is in fact not what we see with the massive numbers of schools embroiled in Title IX lawsuits. When I mentioned molestation they actually said, "look, if you can't deal with who you are." I responded, "That's bullying-you're bullying me." Her friend turned and said, "don't yell at my friend," when her friend had been raising her voice at me.


They claimed repeatedly that children can be homosexual at ages as young as four, yet they claimed that this wasn't "about sex." The logical fallacy that you can discuss "being gay" without alluding to sex is utterly dangerous. It's the style of predators. It's basically saying that you can get vulnerable people comfortable with the identity of homosexuality without them actually realizing that you intend to accustom them to having their anus traumatized and decades of their life spent in a community with precisely this kind of behavior. The two lesbians with whom I spoke also demonstrated that they were seasoned at predatory behavior. When I discussed concerns that statistics on bullying used to include "insinuating or starting rumors that someone is gay" but I don't see that anymore, they said, "if they're told there's nothing wrong with being gay, then there wouldn't be anything wrong with insinuating that someone's gay." I responded, "if that activity does not make them happy, it's harmful to tell the child they're gay." They said, "literally nobody is forcing people to have gay sex." They either have no clue about the high percentage of boys who are molested by men, or they think this isn't molestation.

This is terrifying.


The ones who feigned concern and tried to appear civil were the worst because they were engaging in the kind of emotional aggression that's rampant in the gay community. Abusers try to draw someone close and then humiliate them publicly when it will cause the most harm. The film Mean Girls captured it most iconically.


On the scholarly side, their behavior shows the death of academic inquiry. One woman said she had four daughters in the Austin school system and she wanted all her girls to be taught about vulvas and penises at young ages. She demanded proof that sex ed led to "society's downfall." I stepped in and answered her that cause and effect are difficult to establish when there are so many factors like pornography and we're talking about a massive human population reacting to complex sexualities. After saying she didn't care about "feelings" she responded by saying "I went to Catholic school in the 1980s and if you don't think these problems existed then" to which I answered "but there's data. These are statistics." They then proceeded to interrupt and claim that the data came from an illegitimate source, then had nothing to say when the data came from US federal agencies under Obama.


I was mortified by the whole event because I spent decades immersed in that community, surrounded by abusers and molesters who function precisely this way. They draw you into manipulative arguments and constantly misrepresent what you say. One woman kept saying, "we just want to show kids that gays exist and it's okay," when:


1) Schools don't exist for therapy sessions
2) Little kids aren't gay
3) Gay is a sexual behavior and it's not as simple as saying it's "okay"
4) We're not trying to force people not to talk about gayness in their homes, but they're trying to force everyone to talk about gayness in kindergarten.

They say they want to talk about gayness but then they punish anyone whose information (never mind viewpoint) does not exalt their specific and wildly misinformed bias about sexuality. I suspect one reason they want to bring up gayness all the time, especially around children, is that they experience sadistic pleasure in making people uncomfortable and intimidating people into saying things that they do not believe. It is a wonderful form of control to keep the focus set on an area where others are subject to their powers of veto, retaliation, and discipline.

Tragically, some of the people engaging in anti-academic misbehavior identified themselves as educators. One woman came claiming she was a librarian who loudly interrupted presenters. Despite being told repeatedly that questions would come at the end she kept blurting out loud irrelevant questions, one being "what is the source for that?" referring to a book with over 1,000 footnotes. This is a librarian? She doesn't understand how to remain quiet and she doesn't understand that a scholarly monograph has many sources, not just one? Later she came up to me to ask, "where are you a professor and what do you teach?" I told her. She scowled, "that explains a lot," and rudely walked away. I had done nothing to treat her rudely whatsoever. But this is the kind of woman who's running a library for little kids and dealing with their parents? The woman should not be allowed to run a library if she will encourage bullying, social shame, and stupidity in the realm she oversees-research! She also insisted that having pornographic books in a library accessible to kindergartners was harmless because "we are not censors." So taxpayers should pay her salary and give her a fund to buy dirty books and nobody should expect that she dispense of the books responsibly.

AISD has a lot of problems.

They are completely dishonest about the kinds of bullying that accompany homosexual subculture. The outing, the pressure, the grooming, the false claims that if you're uncomfortable with it you're "not able to accept yourself," the victim-blaming (they mocked someone who said he'd been molested), the constant use of peer pressure and embarrassment (two women in the back said "a majority of people in this room think you are wrong") -- these are all behaviors that are as damaging as the worst kinds of social abuse and make kids nervous, insecure, and likely to make poor sexual decisions. These are all behaviors that will not be diminished through Welcoming Schools or any other kind of pro-LGBT curriculum in existence. These are all behaviors we saw coming from people who champion and implement the policy.

All of them totally avoided the evidence Caryl Ayala provided of racism in the Welcoming Schools program, which was caught in an email requested through FOIA saying there was a problem with schools that have "too high of a Hispanic population."


These are bad for schools.


Stop these people. Texas must stop these people!

Tuesday, July 25, 2017

These are the people who want to talk to your kids, Part 1

You know the old saying: "Burn me once, shame on you; burn me twice, shame on me."

In the case of the LGBT lobby and children, we have to add: "burn me fifty times, shame on me and everyone who ever left me alone with you."

Currently in Texas the debate rages about what to do with SB3, something proposed that deals with transgender bathroom access. It's also much bigger than just the "bathroom bill," because school districts all over Texas are grappling with stealth efforts by LGBT activists to transform what students actually learn. The Human Rights Campaign is pushing "Welcoming Schools" on children as young as four or five, and they are not the only ones attempting to replace standard arithmetic, reading, writing, and science, with shamelessly inappropriate curriculum about homosexuality, transgenderism, and political issues such as same-sex marriage or gay parenting.

Needless to say, children at these impressionable and vulnerable stages are not equipped to receive this instruction. The instruction itself is improper since much of what these activists claim is false (for instance, male-male intercourse is not benign and is linked to a plethora of deadly diseases.) The motives are even falser. The LGBT lobby is convinced, largely based on their own memories of their particular childhoods, that children are hardwired and destined to become LGBT at very young ages. All the science we have available to us flies in the face of this, but for some reason LGBT activists find the "born this way" claim their most crucial. Because they think four-year-olds are already programmed naturally to be LGBT one day, the activists think it's perfectly logical and helpful to overwhelm them with information about homosexuality and transgenderism when they're toddlers, as a way of making the inevitable transition easier and less painful for those who are going to be "coming out" in a few years anyway. 

Cultural history and science both reflect a reality horrendously at odds with the LGBT worldview. Regardless of the vehemence with which many gay activists swear they "knew for sure" they were gay from early childhood, studies show that sexuality is fluid and fluctuating, existing on a spectrum. The hormonal turbulence of adolescence and slow development of the frontal lobe of the brain are linked to the consistent discovery that children's sexual orientation is not clear or predictable, with many children who claim gayness at an early age saying, by their late twenties, that their homosexual feelings receded and gave way to heterosexual impulses. 

Even if we were to accept the false claim that children are hardwired from early on for LGBT or non-LGBT destinies, there remains the stubborn reality that health outcomes are poor for children who rush into LGBT identity and activity in their teens or earlier. Sexual activity is emotionally turbulent for anyone when they are young, unprepared for the consequences of intercourse, and unable to survive on their own. When you are dependent on your parents, your parents have a right and duty to intervene if you are rushing down a dangerous path or consorting with bad influences, whether you appreciate that intervention during adolescence or not. So rushing into sex prior to financial independence is a surefire way to increase the risks of a standoff with parents. When you add to this problem the heavy-duty complications of LGBT lifestyle, you venture into a danger zone. While it is copiously depicted in pornography, anal sex is a complex undertaking with a massive margin of error. Because LGBT "youth" exist as a small minority among their peers, they are often going to drift into sexual relations with older members of the LGBT community, leaving them open to predatory behavior and exposing them to the perilous social interactions of the adult LGBT world, where high rates of addiction, alcoholism, eating disorders, domestic violence, assault, and other problems do not mix well with the instability of adolescence.

To teach children about LGBT life is, in most cases, to introduce and suggest it to them at a time when they shouldn't be encouraged to jump into it. But let's say we want to teach kids about this sexual content at a young age to prepare them for the topsy-turvy world out there. The curriculum put forward by Welcoming Schools and other gay-affirming educational groups is not the right way to bring this topic to kids. It is blatantly false, presenting LGBT life as untroubled and joyful. It equates all kinds of intercourse, glossing over the hygienic and epidemiological problems that afflict anal sex in particular. It romanticizes homes, relationships, friendships, and social circles tied to LGBT activities, all but coaxing the children to rush into those milieus expecting happiness and sunshine.

One problem is that this material should never be taught to minors in school at all. But a bigger problem is who is pushing this material right now.

These are the same people who've burned us a thousand times before, as I will elaborate in a series of posts on "These are the people who want to talk to your kids." The movement behind these curricular changes found success almost entirely by threatening, embarrassing, and insulting people who stood in their way. They have never improved the lives of the people they claim to champion. Nor have they ever behaved in a dignified way to people who had reservations or objections to their work.

The impetus for the folly of teaching kids about strange sexualities comes from a group of people who were wrong about every measure they promoted to society at large; they are largely responsible for millions of people in America dying of AIDS not to mention the new drug-resistant forms of syphilis and gonorrhea; they have contributed to mental health disasters among millions of gay Americans caught in a subculture of unstable relationships and unhealthy beauty standards; they are responsible for a spike in same-sex rapes in the military and partly to blame for the rise in military suicides; they have complained about bullying and teen suicide for decades and have only aggravated these problems with every youth program they've tested; they undermined the adoption system and contributed to the growth of new forms of human trafficking and eugenics to meet their demand for designer babies; they have been the single greatest force in destroying free speech at schools and universities with their gross distortions of Title IX and anti-harassment laws... but worst of all, they are horrible, vicious people who have made the gay subculture, once a place of blossoming creativity, a place of acrimony and nastiness.

In coming posts, I will present a cast of characters and tell you about what they've done in the past, the many lies they've told and people they've ruined, the spite and bile and slander they've fueled across the globe. 

Because we've been here before. They've come to the public many times with sob stories and platitudes about love and tolerance. And they've never been truthful or right about what they've presented to the public. 

If you let them burn you in Texas schools, you can't claim you didn't see it coming.

Our colleague Michelle Cretella appeared on Tucker Carlson!

Beware the Square of Death


Saturday, July 22, 2017

Dr. Michele Cretella's Testimony to Texas State Senate on SB3 / SB91



David Pickup, LMFT's Testimony to Texas Senate Committee on SB-3

Statement to Senate Committee, 07-21-2017, SB3 “Bathroom” Bill

My name is David Pickup. I am a licensed psychotherapist who holds private practices in Dallas and Los Angeles. I work primarily with men who experience gender dysphoria, gender inferiority issues, and emotional abandonment from childhood. I am writing in favor of SB3.

Do you know what it is to feel deeply confused from a young age that your body is one sex but you feel like another? Do you know what it feels like to be depressed, suicidal, discouraged and detached from your own body and from the people who were supposed to love and affirm you? My clients do. Therapy can resolve these issues.

I mean no disrespect at all when I say that allowing biological males in women’s restrooms is tantamount to abuse. It’s abuse to those people who are many times not aware of their own deep emotional issues and to those for whom this is an issue of safety. Not passing this bill would be unconsciously participating in dysfunction. Statistically, most dysphorics resolve their gender dysphoria diagnosis by their 20s. Why do LGBT activists not offer funds for therapy that works to resolve these issues rather than fight for a political agenda that has no basis in fact? Denial of truth is never therapeutic. Perpetuating a fundamental untruth is never compassionate or politically mandated.

I can assure you that safety in bathrooms is indeed a real issue. It’s an issue of emotional and physical safety for all concerned, even for those who don’t know it. There are men, (not usually transgenders), who would take advantage of girls and women in locker rooms and bathrooms if given opportunity to do so. Take the road of compassion and health. Pass the “Bathroom” bill.



David Pickup, LMFT

Friday, July 21, 2017

Robert Oscar Lopez's Testimony to Texas State Senate on SB-3

Dear Lawmakers,

Thank you for giving me the chance to share this testimony. My name’s Robert Lopez, professor of Humanities at Southwestern Baptist, and I support SB-3.

I have been immersed in the gay community since the early 1970s. I grew up with a gay mom and worked in the mental health clinic she ran from my early teens. I was initiated into sodomy at age 13 by older teens and didn’t get out of the gay community until I was 28. I was hounded, harassed, defamed, threatened, and blacklisted by many gay groups, including the Human Rights Campaign, with the result that in 2016 I was forced out of a tenured faculty position and came to Texas with my wife & children, hoping to find refuge from the gay juggernaut. My crime? I told the ugly truth about what I’d seen in the gay community from the 1970s to the 2010s.

Please consider the context of the efforts to support transgender minors who transition. You are being told that an urgent need exists to help a community that suffered injustice and might resort to suicide or self-harm if their demands are not granted. You are being told that the suffering community is completely innocent, targeted because of irrational bigotry.

This continues a pattern of lies.

In the 70s, these groups promised that once their sexuality was not a crime or stigmatized, they would flourish. Several years later an AIDS epidemic broke out. The activists who wrongly predicted no medical problems with rampant homosexuality proceeded to blame Ronald Reagan and homophobia for a disease that they spread through indiscriminate sodomy.

By the early 90s attention shifted to the military. First with Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, then with its repeal, gay activists promised that open gayness would pose no problems. But after the repeal in 2010, sexual assaults increased, especially same-sex assaults, as did the suicide rate. Without addressing this harm, the activists moved to push for transgender service and integrated showering and billets, even amid the crisis of sexual assault.

By the late 90s, we saw alarming eating disorders caused by gay men’s unhealthy fixation on beauty standards, suicide, drug addiction, domestic violence, steroid abuse, depression, and anxiety. They claimed this wasn’t the fault of gays but of Christian bigotry. They said all could be solved with civil unions, which soon morphed into gay marriage, which then morphed into gay adoption, which then morphed into compulsory changes to school curriculum, elimination of Father’s Day, gender-neutral birth certificates, a boom in paid surrogacy, and fines and penalties on people who expressed opposition to gay marriage on the job or off. Most visible effects of gay marriage have been punitive-life is not better for gays but harder for those considered anti-gay.

In the late 90s, activists said they just wanted to be left alone and allowed to visit each other in the hospital. Soon they declared war on ex-gays and closeted gays, launching a movement to abolish any counseling to people to resist homosexual impulses, even if impulses resulted from abuse. I just returned from York, England, where at gay groups succeeded in getting the Anglican synod to ban prayers for Christians trying to overcome gay impulses. They now have a transgender liturgy.

We can’t take any claims about transgender students at face value. You have to pass this bill because the gay movement is pushing transgender policies in schools and municipalities and will advance quickly absent resistance. Not passing a statewide law preserving normal bathroom policy is the same as a green light for them to force transgenderism onto millions of Texans who don’t want their daughters’ private spaces invaded by this—not because they are bigots, but because they have common sense.

When they say that nobody will be harmed or inconvenienced by transgender policy, they are lying as they lied about every other pro-gay initiative in the past. We will see no benefits for transgenders, abuses we can’t fully foresee, and punishments against those who voice dissent.
  
Learn from the past. Please, please, pass this bill.

Respectfully,


Robert Oscar Lopez, PhD
President, Mass Resistance Texas
Professor of Humanities



Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary

Saturday, July 15, 2017

Dr. Voddie Baucham speaks to the issue of homosexuality and transgenderism as well as the Christian's attitude and action toward it.

Press in Texas Rallies to Shield LGBT Child Abusers -- Again

[please rally in defense of Scott Sanford. Contact his office and tell him that you support him--tell him he should NOT back down, because he is RIGHT!

http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/member-page/email/?district=70&session=85]

In Texas, currently there is a great deal of controversy about LGBT issues. This is for several reasons. First, Texas is a large state that has a greater number of confident and bold Christians than any other state. Because of the clout wielded by many such people, there have been recent political victories against the LGBT lobby in Texas, which could not have realistically happened anywhere else:

--a bill allowing adoption & foster care agencies to restrict placement homes to those with a mother and father, excluding same-sex couples if such is the policy of the agency
--a bill protecting the conscience of public officials, allowing them to refuse to sign certificates for same-sex couples
--a high profile court decision that upholds the position that Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 Supreme Court decision nationalizing legal gay marriage, does not compel Texas to give gay married couples equal benefits or standing relative to heterosexual couples. (This is because Texas's constitution still bans gay marriage and, according to this logic, is not forced by Obergefell to override its own constitution.)

You can imagine how many meetings gay groups must be having right now, discussing how to fundraise and organize to beat back these developments. They will likely rummage through their bag of usual tricks and see which ripostes will work best. Should they play the victim and play reruns of Matthew Shepard and Tyler Clementi until people pity them so much they back away? (This may not work since the late Obama years saw the LGBT lobby behaving more like egotistical powermongers than like victims!) Should they keep a low profile and just gather secret files on judges, politicians, and famous people--blackmailing principals at the top to stop this tidal wave? (This is not working as well as it has in the past, because people are harder to embarrass in Trump's America and they seem to have used up all their blackmail cards already.)

Inevitably they will stumble upon one of their tried and true devices: twisting around quotes and making people sound like monsters. Hence in response to a perfectly reasonable comment by Texas lawmaker Scott Sanford, I see this Houston headline: "Texas Lawmaker Says Allowing Trans Kids to Be Themselves Is Child Abuse!"

The Orwellian psychological operations behind such deceitful headlines are no mere knee-jerk responses. Consider that in the headline's twelve words a number of lies have to be disguised as simply strong reactions to what Rep. Sanford said. Yes, Sanford did mention child abuse, but note:

1. "Allowing" is a misleading word. The debate in which Sanford said that "promoting gender confusion to children is child abuse" took place in context. A law (SB6) has been proposed statewide in response to a law that Houston passed (HERO) which forced businesses in the city to admit biological males into female spaces like restrooms against the wishes of people who wanted not to have women vulnerable to men. Houston's HERO law played out alongside countless school district policies that force similar bathroom access on large numbers of people who don't believe in the Trans experiment and who just want girls to be safe from predators and children to be safe from perverted gender bending. "Allowing" is not the same thing as forcing people to deal with the opposite sex hovering around them while they are naked and defenseless.

2. "Trans Kids" is illogical. No child is trans. Nobody is trans. This is a phony, made-up fad that grew as an extensive byproduct of the long tradition of drag queens and cross-dressing, which never implied that a special class of people would be identified as "trans" and given all the benefits and privileges of both their birth sex and their transitional sex. If any such class of people existed biologically, children would be impossible to identify as "trans" since their bodies have not developed the sexual differentiations of puberty yet. There'd be no way to separate normal children's play from this bizarre scientific category that is roughly fifteen years old.

3. "To Be Themselves" is utterly preposterous. They aren't trans. Trans is not who they are. See #2. This identity is being forced on them by irresponsible parents, exploitative activists, corrupt administrators, and bad teachers. The trans identity is an external imposition, not something inside the child begging to be let out.

But while this title looks like it was thrown together by a bunch of brainless idiots, don't be fooled. Like all things LGBT it was carefully workshopped and crafted to carry out a seamless fraud on the reader.

It took lots of planning. Why? Because they knew Rep. Sanford is right--this entire LGBT movement aimed at children is child abuse. And they are involved in a concerted racket to protect the abusers to whom the LGBT movement is allied. This is orchestrated child abuse because the LGBT community needs to ensure its long-term survival by duping whole generations of innocent kids into their phony identity and harmful activities. The LGBT lobby is involved in a massive effort to ban "conversion therapy" because they want kids thrown into the pipeline and then locked into LGBT identity with no way to get out. For the whole system to work, the abusive machination at the heart of their long-term strategy must evade scrutiny and buck preventive and protective measures.

If you know anything about the LGBT lobby you know they plan, plot, strategize, and scheme. Much of this has to do with the sexual acts on which the community first built its identity. Since the act of sodomy is unpleasant and harmful, their entire social network is based on complicated layers of psychological contortion.

Whereas a man and woman can jump into the sack and make love for the passions they feel in the moment, "sex expert" Woody Miller, author of How to Bottom Like a Porn Star, explains in this series of essays (warning: NSFW), in order to engage in homosexual intercourse at least one of the men in the couple has to devote all of his waking hours to keeping his body ready for the trauma and sepsis caused by a male partner sodomizing him. To "bottom like a porn star," which really means, "to make the painful and unsanitary act of sodomy tolerable enough that someone can enjoy it," the homosexual male must acquaint himself with enemas, douching, fasting, dietary restriction, special exercises and mind control techniques. One guide to this sex act tells gay men that if they can't find an enema they can just buy bottles of spring water, stick them inside themselves and squeeze to flood their insides with fluid in the hope of cleansing themselves. Imagine how your day's schedule would differ if your waking thoughts were tied up in tracking where the nearest supply of appropriately sized bottles of spring water was.

The entire allure and promise of homosexuality is based, really, on the unrealistic depiction of muscular handsome men partaking in magically clean, rhythmic, and unproblematic acts of penetration--as seen in porn. Woody Miller's book is a necessary "guide" for men who jump into this lifestyle thinking that what they see in porn will be their own experience, which it won't, of course. To produce a pornographic scene of sodomy the male actor has to engage in hours of douching, fasting, self-lubrication, and careful dieting--and even with all these measures, often the actor has to sniff amyl nitrates or use some other muscle relaxant, and the scene will take hours to film because all of the pain, awkwardness, and filth that will still ensue must be erased in the process of film editing.

Premeditation plays a role in homosexual life, therefore, that it does not play in the life of others. While heterosexual porn is also unrealistic, it is nonetheless still realistic for a man and woman to jump into sex without this much painstaking preparation. The female body lubricates naturally and the sexes' anatomies complement each other and make intercourse feasible and enjoyable without a lot of gymnastics. It won't look like porn, but it will still be a fun time between a man and woman. For homosexuals the only intercourse they have is an intercourse that takes over their entire life, as described in Woody Miller's column, dictating when and how much and what to eat, requiring a host of accessories that heterosexuals don't have to worry about, and even then, a strenuous transformation of mental attitude to convince someone whose body is being abused and damaged that this is a pleasurable act of love. Drugs are often necessary simply to coax the male body to overcome its own protective reflexives, which will make intercourse hard or painful.

Witness, if you will, the massive outrage expressed by the public over Teen Vogue's sickening column advising young teenage girls about how to engage in "anal sex"--many of the reactions are compiled here by Matt Walsh. Perhaps the worst part of the column is that Teen Vogue tells girls they are simply being closed-minded if they think "poop" during sex is something wrong and unenjoyable. I couldn't help but point out on Twitter that people who find the Teen Vogue ode to anal sex disgusting should be equally horrified by what is being marketed to boys through "gay-affirming" school curriculum.

To understand, then, the ruses and deceptions of the LGBT movement you must understand three elements discussed above:

1. Orwellian language games (nothing is straightforward)
2. Concerted protection of abusers (nothing is haphazard)
3. Premeditation (nothing is spontaneous)

When you try to protect people from the vicious harms posed by LGBT activists, you have to remember, at all times, that everything is more complex than it looks at first glance. They are always several steps ahead of you because their whole life is consumed in delusional identities based on sex acts they have to go to convoluted lengths to convince themselves they enjoy.

In the meantime, please rally in defense of Scott Sanford. Contact his office and tell him that you support him--tell him he should NOT back down, because he is RIGHT!

http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/member-page/email/?district=70&session=85

Tuesday, July 4, 2017

RADICAL AGENDA: NEA BUSINESS ITEMS FOR 2017

See the following link for a list of NEA's 159 business items for 2017. I've compiled these into one document and bookmarked the one's pertinent to MR-T's main interests for your convenience. There are lots of other troubling items in the list but you'll have to hunt for those. Here's the link to the compilation: (You will have to manually make the bookmarks visible at the top right hand corner of the document window.)

https://historeo.sharepoint.com/_layouts/15/guestaccess.aspx?docid=0e8a582939cc3404f8ad572bdf7ae980f&authkey=AaNuTRfAK-c3uhK0_Yhz_Sw

Saturday, July 1, 2017

Houston stands up to Sex Ed Curriculum


Are we en route to overturn Obergefell?

The TX Supreme Court ruled that Obergefell does not require same-sex couples who are "married" to get state benefits en par with male female couples. See below, excerpts from CRTX NEWS:

In 2013, Houston attorney Jared Woodfill filed a lawsuit in Harris County state court against liberal Houston Mayor Annise Parker, arguing that she had broken state law by using tax payer dollars to pay for same-sex benefits to city of Houston employees.  Woodfill’s clients, Pastor Jack Pidgeon and Republican activist Larry Hicks, had the courage to serve as Woodfill’s clients.  A fabulous Harris County Family Court Judge, Lisa Millard, followed the law and agreed with Woodfill’s argument, ruling that Mayor Parker’s conduct broke the law.  The liberal left then appealed the decision and the Republican base Houston Fourteenth Court of Appeals joined in on their agenda, overturning Judge Millard’s decision.  Woodfill was not deterred and took the case to the Texas Supreme Court.  Originally, the Texas Supreme Court refused to hear the case; however, a strong pro-family, pro-Tenth Amendment dissenting opinion was issued by Justice John Devine.  Woodfill then filed a Motion for Rehearing, asking the Texas Supreme Court to reconsider refusal to hear the case.  Governor Greg Abbott, Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, and Attorney General Ken Paxton agreed with Woodfill’s request and filed an amicus brief (fiend of the court brief) supporting Woodfill’s Motion for Rehearing.  I worked with other conservative leaders to gather the support of numerous state senators and state representative to also write an amicus brief in support of the motion for rehearing, requesting the Texas Supreme Court should take the case.   TheTexas Supreme Court was listening and on September 2, 2016 agreed to hear the case.
The case was then argued in front of the entire Texas Supreme Court.  Jared was joined by two fabulous lawyers and cultural warriors, Jonathan Mitchell and Jonathan Saenz.  Today, the Court issued its opinion, sending shock waves around the country and setting the stage for Obergefell  v. Hodges, the United States Supreme Court decision that redefined traditional biblical marriage between a man and a woman to include homosexual marriage, to be over turned so that the  states can define marriage.  Specifically, the Texas Supreme Court concluded, “In Obergefell, the Supreme Court acknowledged that our historical view of
marriage has long been “based on the understanding that marriage is a union between two persons of the opposite sex.” 135 S. Ct. at 2594. It concluded, however, that this ‘history is the beginning of these cases,’ and it rejected the idea that it “should be the end as well.” Id. But Obergefell is not the end either. Already, the Supreme Court has taken one opportunity to address Obergefell’s impact on an issue it did not address in Obergefell, and there will undoubtedly be others. See Pavan, ___U.S. at ___, 2017 WL 2722472, at *2.21 Pidgeon and the Mayor, like many other litigants throughout the country, must now assist the courts in fully exploring Obergefell’s reach and ramifications, and are entitled to the opportunity to do so.
Today, however, we are dealing only with an interlocutory appeal from trial court’s orders denying a plea to the jurisdiction and granting a temporary injunction. For the reasons explained, we hold that the Fifth Circuit’s decision in De Leon does not bind the trial court on remand, and the trial court is not required to conduct its proceedings “consistent with” that case. We hold that the court of appeals’ judgment does not bar Pidgeon from seeking all appropriate relief on remand or bar the Mayor from opposing that relief….And we decline to instruct the trial court how to construe Obergefell on remand. We reverse the court of appeals’ judgment, vacate the trial court’s temporary injunction order, and remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with our judgment and this opinion.”