California Parents Horrified At New Sex-Ed Agenda

Liberty Nation 

The debate over whether schools should teach sex education to minors has been going on for decades. But now, perhaps more than ever, many parents are horrified by what their children are being taught – especially when parents, despite their religious beliefs, have no say about the teaching materials.

In a small California community, parents and clergy were so appalled at the explicit and LGBTQ-inspired lessons, they went undercover to investigate deeper. What they discovered at a Riverside County Comprehensive Health Education meeting so horrified them, they determined to stop the curriculum.

Our Watch President Pastor Tim Thompson said:

“We don’t want our children exposed to some of these things they are showing, th(is) pornographic, sexually explicit material. It has no place in the classroom. It’s not right, and it won’t be tolerated.”

Thompson was referring to Positive Prevention Plus, the text for sex ed classes. John Andrews, parent of a student in the Murrieta School District, was sick over the explicit material depicted in the “educational” materials. He said:

“They talk about mutual masturbation. They discuss gender roles, the gender spectrum, and in the support materials … they take it even further. They discuss everything, topics like roleplaying for different genders, blood play, dental dams … fisting is mentioned. I mean, they mention it all.
“If I were to show that material to a child, I would be brought up on charges. But somehow our public schools are allowed to teach this to junior high and high school kids.”

The graphics in the instructional guides use cartoon images so detailed that many parents found them inappropriate. Wanting to discover more about what children would be learning, Thompson’s group attended meetings held by the school boards. At one particular meeting in Riverside, a woman went “undercover” and recorded the event. Thompson said he was shocked to discover some of the biggest contributors to the new sex ed curriculum included Planned Parenthood and Cardea Services, which he said is a huge advocate for the LGBT community. Another shocker was that the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) was on hand to explain how to excuse children from class to get abortions without parents finding out.

“We knew parents had to see for themselves or else they weren’t going to believe it,” Thompson said, referring to the video he posted.

Read more

Taylor Swift just proved feminism's harm on millennials

Suzanne Venker
Washington Examiner

Taylor Swift just proved my point. My last post was about feminism's harmful influence on millennials; and less than 24 hours later, a friend sent me this USA Today article that highlights an interview Taylor Swift gave on a promotional tour in which a German reporter asks Swift if she has children or family on her mind since she turns 30 this year.

A quick caveat: I feel compelled to write that this question shouldn't be asked of any woman, as it's no one's business but hers. However, such probing questions by the media are inevitable at that level of fame. Swift is entitled to dodge the question, which she did. But her reason for not answering it speaks volumes: "I really do not think men are asked that question when they turn 30, so I'm not going to answer that now."

Here's a newsflash for Swift and other young women who didn't get the memo: No one asks men that same question because men don't have a biological clock. Women do.

I know you've grown up believing since the day you were born that men and women are, or should be, sexual equals and should thus be treated as identical beings. But sexual equality is a bogus mission (which you will see in time if you ever do have children, for it is then that sex differences become glaringly obvious) because it's inextricably tethered to a progressive political movement that has no basis in reality.

After my last post, I got an lot of email. One was was from a man who chastised me for suggesting millennial women have been bamboozled by feminism. I can't think of any greater proof that women have, in fact, been bamboozled by feminism than this latest comment by Swift.

Women of her generation - and mine, quite frankly (I'm a Generation Xer) - were taught that America is an oppressive patriarchy and that men and marriage (and children) hold women back from being their true selves. But a technological revolution, along with social media, upped the ante for millennials, who were raised to be entitled and self-involved. (The title of Swift's new single, "Me!", makes this abundantly clear.) They were also told that uncommitted sex can be harmless fun, that marriage is optional even if you want kids, and that divorce is inevitable for many women because men are Neanderthals.

To wit, over Memorial Day weekend, my husband loved the guacamole someone brought to the party and suggested I get the recipe and make it - at which point his 34-year-old niece (whom I love dearly) said, "You can make it yourself, you know, Bill." That's exactly what I mean when I said we've underestimated feminism's influence on young women. Such knee-jerk assumptions about marital roles loom large. They see sexual inequality everywhere, even where none exists. 

Read more

No to Christchurch Call: Put aside your hate of Trump for a day – he may have just saved free speech

RT

Even adversaries of the US president should admit that he is the only one who has stood up to the disturbing anti-free speech proposal concocted by illiberal globalist world leaders and compliant tech companies. 

 

Ironically, by becoming the sole leader of a major Western power to reject the ‘Christchurch Call’ – the cross-border plan to restrict “terrorist and extremist” content online – Donald Trump has consolidated support for the document, sparing it deserved scrutiny.

After all, who doesn’t want to stop violence being spread through social media, particularly in the wake of the double mosque shooting in New Zealand in March? Well – judging by the commentary in mainstream media outlets – only that exceptionalist US president, and that band of white supremacists on whom he is relying to win in 2020.

But I would urge those of all political persuasions to study the text of the document, presented by New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and Emmanuel Macron in Paris this week, and endorsed by every major US online giant – Google, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft and Twitter.

Are these really the powers you want to give away to officials and Silicon Valley execs? Or should we at least ask some clarifying questions first?

Orwell’s bingo

 

Here are some notable and representative excerpts:

We, the governments commit to counter the drivers of terrorism and violent extremism by strengthening the resilience and inclusiveness of our societies to enable them to resist terrorist and violent extremist ideologies, including through education, building media literacy to help counter distorted terrorist and violent extremist narratives, and the fight against inequality.

This is the first bullet point, and we are already onto loaded political terminology rife with assumptions. Why must societies become more “inclusive” – a byword for multiculturalism – to stop terrorism? Why is the “fight against inequality” – a predominantly leftist agenda – a pre-condition for preventing it? Osama bin Laden wasn’t a pauper, and neither was gym trainer Brenton Tarrant for that matter.

More important are the treacherously vague definitions that almost invite abuse. Who decides what is a “distorted narrative”? How do you “build media literacy” – is it, as always, by using NewsGuard to tell people not to click on RT.com instead of the New York Times? What is even “violent extremist ideology”? Support for mass murder in mosques is. But what about those who want mosques shut down because they believe Islam is a scourge on Western society? Or those who ride out in militias to protect the US-Mexican border from illegal migrants? Are they advocating a “violent extremist ideology”? How about Black Lives Matter – they often engage in violence, and demand radical social change? Antifa? The Venezuelan opposition, who plan to overthrow their elected president and want the army to defect? 

Read more

A Teen Vogue Video Says: “This Idea That the Body Is Either Male or Female is Totally Wrong”

Vigilant Citizen

Teen Vogue, a magazine marketed directly to young people, posted a video on YouTube where various speakers dismiss the science that differentiates the male and female sexes. It is yet another blatant example of the agenda to blur genders.

Teen Vogue recently posted a video on YouTube entitled 5 Common Misconceptions About Sex and Gender and it is … quite surreal. The YouTube description says: “7 Activists and LGBTQIA+ people debunk common misconceptions about sex and gender”. In the video, various speakers (none of them in the field of science) dismiss scientific facts about the human body to replace them with artificial constructs.

To be honest, this was difficult to watch. Because it is NOT about the right of people to live their lives in whatever way they feel happy and comfortable. It goes way beyond, into a strange territory of delusion and social engineering. It is about superseding science and replacing it with a radical and extreme agenda that denies the existence of two sexes. And this is posted by a magazine that caters to young people.

Here’s the video.

Read more

Thought crime science: Case studies in becoming an enemy of liberal orthodoxy

RT

 

The Western world considers itself a bastion of free thought – a marketplace of ideas. But some scholars who questioned prevailing liberal groupthink have quickly discovered that academic inquiry has tightly-controlled limits. 

 

There are more Democrat than Republican supporters among scientists of almost every academic field in the US, voter registration studies have shown. In fields such as social studies and sociology, conservatives can be outnumbered a dozen or more to one. With such an overwhelming advantage in numbers, one might think that dissenting viewpoints in these fields would not pose a meaningful threat to prevailing orthodoxies. Unfortunately, a number of high-profile cases reveal that scholars and thinkers – some who do not even identify as conservative – risk their careers when they challenge the liberal majority.

Lisa Littman and 'rapid onset gender dysphoria'

Lisa Littman, assistant professor at the Brown University School of Public Health, found herself the target of liberal rage after her research challenged a sacred tenant of LGBTQ dogma. She published a paper which supported the thesis that some young adults who identify as transgender but previously showed no symptoms of gender dysphoria may have been influenced to "transition" by social media, friends and their environment.

Read more

United Airlines Implements Policy Allowing Customers To Identify As ‘Non-Binary’

dailycaller.com

 

United Airlines announced in a Friday press release that it will be the first U.S. airline to allow customers to identify themselves with a non-binary gender.

“United Airlines today announced it has become the first U.S. airline to offer non-binary gender options throughout all booking channels in addition to providing the option to select the title ‘Mx.’ during booking and in a MileagePlus customer profile,” the release began. “Customers now have the ability to identify themselves as M(male), F(female), U(undisclosed) or X(unspecified), corresponding with what is indicated on their passports or identification.” 

(RELATED: Catholic Journalist Gets Visit From Police After ‘Misgendering’ A Trans Person)

The company tweeted out the announcement with the slogan “Fly how you identify.”

Fly how you identify. Our new non-binary gender options are now available.

— United Airlines (@united) March 22, 2019

The statement goes on to explain that United Airlines teamed up with Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and The Trevor Project to compile initiatives by which employees will be trained about “preferred pronouns and the persistence of gender norms, LGBT competency in the workplace and other steps to make United an inclusive space for both customers and employees.”

Read More

Houston Public Library admits registered child sex offender read to kids in Drag Queen Storytime

Comment: "Drag Queen Storytime." Really?! 

-------------------

Khou.com

 

A registered child sex offender has been reading to children at Houston Public Library as part of its Drag Queen Storytime.

A group called Mass Resistance, which has been trying to put an end to the program, contacted KHOU about the child sex offender.

Mass Resistance claims it had been asking the City of Houston for months to disclose information about the drag queens, and when requests went unanswered, they did their own digging and made the shocking link.

A media spokesperson for the library confirmed one of the program’s drag queens, Tatiana Mala Nina, is Alberto Garza, a 32-year-old child sex offender. In 2008, he was convicted of assaulting an 8-year-old boy.

“Most parents would not allow that individual to sit in this library and be held up as a role model to our children. Shame on you, Mayor (Sylvester) Turner!” said Tracy Shannon with Mass Resistance.

In a statement, the Houston Public Library admits they didn’t do a background check on Garza and said Garza will not be involved in any future library programs.

Read More

BBC staffing guidelines say one in six on-screen roles 'must be gay, lesbian, trans, or disabled' by 2020

Comment: This report is from 2016. 

As we approach 2020 any cursory glance at drama from Les Miserables to Silent Witness and every other drama has come under the jackboot of the diversity police - regardless of historical realism and intrinsic merit. 

---------------------------

Daily Mail
via Sott.net 

One in six of all on-screen BBC roles must go to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender or disabled people by 2020, the corporation's new diversity targets state.

In a bid to deter criticism that it has been failing to reflect its audience, the BBC has pledged that LGBT and disabled people will each make up eight per cent of all on-air and on-screen roles.

The new targets follow a heated debate in the House of Commons led by David Lammy MP on the issue of the broadcaster's diversity.

Fifty per cent of all on-screen and broadcasting roles will go to women, who already make up 48.5 per cent of the BBC's total workforce.

However, the BBC will still be able to commission shows where the main roles are more likely to be male-dominated.

Radio 2, which has a particularly male-dominated line-up of broadcasters, including DJs and presenters Chris Evans, Simon Mayo, Jeremy Vine and Bob Harris, faces an overhaul.

Last year, a review by the BBC Trust, the corporation's watchdog, found that six stations - including Radio 2 - raised concerns that they were failing ethnic minority audiences.

Radio 2 was highlighted as having particular difficulties in attracting non-white listeners.

It was said to reach an average of only 12 percent of BAME (black, Asian and minority ethnic) adults each week, compared to 35 percent for all adults.

Read more

How Binary Works

Sye Ten

Comment: Wonderful explanation of the pathology of non-binary adherents. 

Feminist scholars defend female professor accused of sexual misconduct because victims should only believed if they are women

Tom Ciccotta
Breitbart

Feminist scholars are defending a female professor who is facing a Title IX investigation over alleged sexual misconduct in a reversal of their normal approach of believing victims.

Avital Ronell, a professor of German and comparative literature at New York University, is currently facing a Title IX investigation over alleged sexual misconduct. Astonishingly, feminist professors around the country are arguing that the investigation is unfair.

In a letter addressed to New York University's president that was signed by influential feminists Judith Butler and Slavoj Žižek, the investigation into Ronell's alleged misconduct is essentially referred to as a witch hunt. They claim that the accuser has waged a "malicious campaign" against Ronell.

We have all seen her relationship with students, and some of us know the individual who has waged this malicious campaign against her. We wish to communicate first in the clearest terms our profound an enduring admiration for Professor Ronell whose mentorship of students has been no less than remarkable over many years. We deplore the damage that this legal proceeding causes her, and seek to register in clear terms our objection to any judgment against her. We hold that the allegations against her do not constitute actual evidence, but rather support the view that malicious intention has animated and sustained this legal nightmare.

The group of academics who signed the letter doesn't claim to have any reason to dispute the facts behind the allegation against Ronell. However, they claim that terminating Ronell would be an "injustice."

If she were to be terminated or relieved of her duties, the injustice would be widely recognized and opposed. The ensuing loss for the humanities, for New York University, and for intellectual life during these times would be no less than enormous and would rightly invite widespread and intense public scrutiny. We ask that you approach this material with a clear understanding of the long history of her thoughtful and successive mentorship, the singular brilliance of this intellectual, the international reputation she has rightly earned as a stellar scholar in her field, her enduring commitments to the university, and the illuminated world she has brought to your campus where colleagues and students thrive in her company and under her guidance.

It's important to note that these scholars are the architects behind most of the major women's movements in America today. These are the same movements that advocate for "always believing victims" of sexual assault. It seems, however, that they can not consistently apply the principles they espouse when the person on the receiving end is a colleague that they feel has been wrongfully accused of misconduct.