It looks as though I am not going
to benefit from the House of Representative’s Health Care provision, because it
leaves the door open to allow states to opt out, leaving the possibility of the
elimination of preexisting conditions. Apparently, Rape, as the liberal media
is trying to fabricate and contort, is the latest needle being thread to
demonize any tweak to Obamacare. Now, my preexisting condition is more of a
“mental rape”, due to the media mind melding that my family and I receive every
evening from the top 3 Television networks...at the very least.
There’s truly nothing like turning
on the TV, watching the Hollywood Left push LGBT lifestyles at every
opportunity, and then have to explain it to my 5 year old as we eat dinner. Now
before I go any further, please keep in mind that I’m not directing this rant
at specifically towards same sex relationships. I’m using it as one of MANY
examples of leftist bullet point wish list that is shoved into entertainment
that we use to decompress from everyday life. But it gets thrust into our home.
I guess that means we’re “having the conversation”. You know what? I want to
have the conversation when I decide
the conversation is necessary. When I DEEM it necessary. When real life
provides me with an example to which I can teach my children. But even the
conversation isn’t allowable through our free will, on my terms, by the
leftists. The Tolerant, benevolent Progressive Left must DEMAND we have the
conversation when THEY DECIDE. The Crux of their mission – control. Again, let
me have the conversation when a real world experience provides me with the
opportunity to do so. Maybe we encounter a person who is in the process of
“transitioning” out in public. We can have the conversation then. Maybe we are
out at a restaurant for dinner, and the server that greets us at the table is
extra flamboyant. I’ll have the conversation then. But ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox…It’s
not your responsibility to force
the conversation after we finish watching Wheel of Fortune and Jeopardy at 8pm
on a Sunday afternoon, if we accidentally forget to change the channel. Most of
those shows beat you in the head with it out of the gate. It’s not just a cold
opening to a television show that starts with a risqué bedroom scene. It’s one
that encompasses some sort of LGBT bedroom scene agenda that causes us to rush
to catch the remote like a fumble at the one yard line in the final seconds of
the Super Bowl. And not because it’s a same sex couple hooking up on TV. It’s
because there’s sexually explicit encounters on television AND it’s with a same
sex couple. If it were a heterosexual couple engaging in the activity, we would
STILL have to scramble for the remote like a nuclear isotope. Hollywood spends
a fair amount of energy trying to inject whatever will get a rise out of people
that just want to have solid values. Whatever strikes a nerve is what Hollywood
is more than happy to write into the script.
Now, I have many friends,
coworkers, even a boss who was homosexual. That’s your deal. I couldn’t care
less about what you do on your own time and in your bedroom. But, the agenda of
magnifying the population size of these groups is in full steam on every show.
The character is ALWAYS written into the script somewhere. And that’s because
of the old saying “perception is reality”. The “All in the Family” sitcom
formula. Only this time, it’s not to change hearts and minds of a viewpoint
towards race of people who were not accepted as equal in the eyes of others.
This time, it’s to normalize the mindset towards those who choose to follow a
particular lifestyle. And it must be flashed continually, and flaunt it in
every possible method one every type and style of Television show. And when
inundated with it, we then hear the questions from our children. They are
genially inquisitive and curious as to why they are doing what they are doing.
Why they look and act the way they do. And it’s not because of cultural norms,
it’s because if you take measures to force yourself to look completely opposite
of how you were born, then curiosities arise. They’re trying to make sense of
the world. And then, “the conversation” begins. And the conversation always
MUST be had on their viewpoints. There is no conversation encouraged about
inherit, God-given rights, freedom, and liberty. The conversation must be about
progressive agendas and special interest platforms.
Think about the last time America
was united, arguably at its greatest. September 12, 2001. American Flags on
every car and a muted, special interest. There were no arguments about a
multitude of sub genders. There wasn’t any outrage over whether or not we
should change the name of college administration leadership from Master to
Magister, because of some crazy linkage to slavery. We weren’t offended over
every single thing, but if we were, we didn’t care to complain about it. But at
a certain point encroachment occurs, on a level which forces itself into the
makeup of your values, is framed as a “conversation about tolerance”. After
9/11/2001, all of that took a pause. And really, we shouldn’t need a 9/11 event
to push us to the core of what our principles and values SHOULD be, regarding
liberty and freedom.
It’s not simply homosexuality and
transgenderism that we have to have “The Conversation” about. It’s all of the
leftist talking points: “
The problem is the conversation
you’re wanting to have is like that annoying person at the kiosk in the mall
who chases you with the forehead massager or perfume. It’s as annoying as the
Timeshare phone call you never want to answer. They box you into a corner and
start spewing their BS, while you’re expected to sit there and take it, comply,
and accept their demands. A conversation requires a back and forth, a sharing
of discussion points. Or, as it’s defined: The informal exchange of ideas by spoken
words.
We’re not getting an “exchange”. We’re
getting a lecture. We are supposed to tolerantly sit there and take it. See,
when people hear Conservatives argue against these wins by saying, “This is a
slippery slope” it’s because conservatives understand the natural reactions
that come from push certain boundary’s over. Without any self-awareness, they
find themselves actually putting the WD40 on the freaking slide and sliding
down the slope. Because the conversation doesn’t just stop there…it gets forced
down a rabbit hole of insanity, like what was displayed at the MTV Movie and TV
Awards.
(This
from the Daily Wire)
“This year has been full of firsts
for me.
I am the first, openly, non-binary actor to play a non-binary character on a
major, television show and now it’s so cool to be here presenting the first,
acting award ever that celebrates performance, free of any gender
distinctions,” gushed Dillon.
“Tonight, we celebrate portrayals of the human experience because the only
distinction we should be making when it comes to awards is between each
outstanding performance. I am honored to give this golden popcorn trophy to one
of these talented nominees.” Watson gave the most SJW-appeasing speech of
all time.
“The
first acting award in history that doesn’t separate nominees based on their sex
says something about how we perceive the human experience. MTV’s move to create
a genderless award for acting will mean something different to
everyone, but, to me, it indicates that acting is about the ability to put
yourself in someone else’s shoes and that doesn’t need to be separated into
two, different categories,” said Watson. “Empathy and the ability to use your
imagination should have no limits.”
Then
the Beauty and the Beast actress
stopped mid-sentence to hug and thank Dillon "for educating me in
such an inclusive, patient and loving way.
"I'm
so proud to be a part of a film that celebrates diversity, literacy, inclusion,
joy and love the way that this one does," continued Watson.
The
Left, of course, had a full-blown orgasm
over the spectacle. After all, rich Hollywood elites solved female
oppression! Yeah, not even close. First of all, there are many more male
than female lead actors. This will put women at a disadvantage if this
"genderless" award trend continues. Also, men and women tend to play
much different roles. For example, judging Hugh Jackman in Logan and Emma Watson for her role in
a fairy tale in the same category seems ridiculous. This is why we
have categories in the first place. If the genderless theme applies to an award
show like the Oscars, women will start winning awards for purely politically
correct reasons as a way to fill some SJW quota in Hollywood elites' minds, or
men will likely dominate many more categories than they already do. So
the Left should enjoy their "equality" now, before females don't come
out on the winning end of the genderless awards and we get a socially conscious
#OscarsSoMale hashtag.
They probably created the genderless Award because they
didn’t want to face the upcoming consequences for the bizarre world they’ve
built – the one with 63 freaking genders. Eventually it would’ve come down to
“The Award for Best Cisgendered Actor in a Supporting Role is…”, “Best Lead by
a Two-Spirit in a romantic comedy…”, or
“Best Gender Nonconforming support in a dramatic role goes to…” So they
make it across the board, genderless. Then, they cheer their achievement and
while giving themselves awards to prop up their egos, while they simultaneously
pat themselves on the back on the great work they’ve done. Nothing like taking
the achievements of the Women’s Suffrage Movement, where we find unique ways to
empower women at every opportunity
And AGAIN, they didn’t stop pumping
another award show with crap-tons of politics, 10 pounds of special interest
progressive leftist crap in a 5 pound bag, as they always do. They even lauded
a 70 year old women on a youth focused demographically based network, who’s
also a lifelong career politician, was cheered as if she was this hip cultural
icon. She was the most outspoken against President Trump, so she’ll be the one
to be lifted up as “Cool” in MTV’s eyes. And she was giving out the award. She
didn’t receive one of those ambiguous, androgynous, genderless Spacepersons
Trophy for her latest track, “I didn’t call for impeachment
(Impeach 45)” – the Contradictory Remix.
The continual progressive stealth
assault on the unassuming masses with their indoctrination continues. Similar
in the way that the left has destroyed American Pride by rewriting History,
lending many to hate the nation and the founding, they have targeted other
fundamental foundations in order to destroy the culture of the United States.
They were able to convince the youth that American settlers stole The Native
American’s land, when Native Americans sold the land to them thinking they had
just pulled one over on them because they didn’t believe in property ownership.
They focused on the internment of the Japanese in America during World War II,
even though it was a progressive liberal president who enacted the policy from
the get go. And they vilified the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as some
unwarranted, imperialist terrorist strike by America, when it was to thwart the
unimaginable resolve of the Japanese who fought till the death. They’ll say
that we didn’t need to bomb them because they were going to surrender, which
couldn’t be further from the truth. Even after BOTH areas were strategically
targeted, not for maximum civilian deaths but because of the military
concentrations that resided in those areas, the Japanese was STILL persevering.
But we’ve destroyed historical truth and fact to cultivate anti-Americanism in
favor of global citizenship.
So, after rewriting history, we’re
now trying to rewriting science. And Bill Nye is the one spearheading this
mission.
From the Washington Free Beacon:
‘Bill Nye’ Episode on Netflix Omits Segment Saying Chromosomes Determine Gender
A segment saying that chromosomes determine one's gender on an episode
of the educational children's show "Bill Nye the Science guy," is cut
out on the Netflix version.
Netflix did not edit Bill Nye
the Science Guy. The series was delivered that way by Buena Vista TV,
according to a Netflix spokesperson.
In
the original episode, titled "Probability," a young woman told
viewers, here is the portion of the show that was edited out: "I'm a girl. Could have just as easily
been a boy, though, because the probability of becoming a girl is always 1 in
2." "See, inside each of our cells are these things called
chromosomes, and they control whether we become a boy or a girl,” the young woman
continued. "See, there are only two possibilities: XX, a girl, or XY, a
boy."
But in the version of the episode uploaded to Netflix, the segment
has been cut entirely. While noncontroversial at the time, the 1996 segment
appears to contradict Netflix's new series "Bill Nye Saves the
World."
The new
show endorses a socially liberal understanding of gender, under which gender
is defined by self-identification rather than genetics and there are more than
just the two traditional genders.
Update May 5, 2017 9:28
a.m.: This post has been
updated to reflect comment from Netflix, which says it did not have a role in
cutting the segment from the episode.
My apologizes for linking to that
talentless, tuneless drivel that amounts to televised poop on a stick. We just
needed you to get a healthy dosage of the sickness that they’re spewing, much
like a vaccine, so you can recognize the disease and attack it before it
strikes while you’re not looking. But this is their version of “Science”. Much
like this speaker at the March for Science event, which had nothing to do with
science, displays in her words alone.
But again, Science is not something
that can’t be changed without some intense questioning, leading to the
construction of a hypothesis. Through multiple testing attempts, they can
establish a definitive result to prove or disprove the hypothesis from every
angle possible. But they avoid this on their Pet Agendas. They omit the results
in order to bolster their narrative and continue the “Conversation”, as they
lecture you and your family into submission. Even when glimmers of scientific
research emerge to debunk their talking points and overall agenda of control.
(From the Daily Wire) - TRANSGENDER
AGENDA FAIL: Scientists Say There Are More Than 6,500 Genes That Express
Differently in Men and Women
"Weizmann Institute of Science researchers recently
uncovered thousands of human genes that are expressed — copied out to make
proteins — differently in the two sexes, “notes the Weizmann Institute.
The study focuses on how "harmful mutations in these particular genes tend
to accumulate in the population in relatively high frequencies."
Professor Shmuel Pietrokovski and Dr. Moran Gershoni,
both researches from the Weizmann Institute’s Molecular Genetics
Department, "looked closely at around 20,000 protein-coding genes, sorting
them by sex and searching for differences in expression in each tissue. They
eventually identified around 6,500 genes with activity that was biased toward
one sex or the other in at least one tissue. For example, they found genes that
were highly expressed in the skin of men relative to that in women’s skin, and
they realized that these were related to the growth of body hair. Gene
expression for muscle building was higher in men; that for fat storage was
higher in women," reports Weizmann Institute.
And the differences continue: mutations expressed in men
were less likely to be weeded out via natural selection than in women. “The
more a gene was specific to one sex, the less selection we saw on the gene. And
one more difference: This selection was even weaker with men,” said Gershoni.
The researches highlighted sexual evolution theory
from the 1930's to account for such a difference: “In many species,
females can produce only a limited number of offspring while males can,
theoretically, father many more; so the species’ survival will depend on more
viable females in the population than males,” said Pietrokovski. “Thus natural
selection can be more ‘lax’ with the genes that are only harmful to males.”
There were also discoveries of sex-linked genes in the
mammary glands:
Aside
from the sexual organs, the researchers discovered quite a few sex-linked genes
in the mammary glands — not so surprising, except that about half of these
genes were expressed in men. Because men have fully fitted but basically
nonfunctional mammary equipment, the scientists made an educated guess that
some of these genes might suppress lactation.
While such a difference might be obvious in the mammary glands,
the researchers also found genes "to be expressed only in the left
ventricle of the heart in women. One of these genes, which is also related to
calcium uptake, showed very high expression levels in younger women that
sharply decreased with age; the scientists think that they are active in women
up to menopause, protecting their hearts, but leading to heart disease and
osteoporosis in later years when the gene expression is shut down."
Additionally, they found "another gene that was
mainly expressed in women was active in the brain, and though its exact
function is unknown, the scientists think it may protect the neurons from
Parkinson’s — a disease that has a higher prevalence and earlier onset in
men. The researchers also identified gene expression in the liver in women that
regulates drug metabolism, providing molecular evidence for the known
difference in drug processing between women and men."
“The basic genome is nearly the same in all of us, but it is
utilized differently across the body and among individuals,” said Gershoni.
“Thus, when it comes to the differences between the sexes, we see that
evolution often works on the level of gene expression.”
“Paradoxically, sex-linked genes are those in which harmful
mutations are more likely to be passed down, including those that impair
fertility. From this vantage point, men and women undergo different selection
pressures and, at least to some extent, human evolution should be viewed as
co-evolution. But the study also emphasizes the need for a better understanding
of the differences between men and women in the genes that cause disease or
respond to treatments," added Pietrokovski.
Still, the many intricate biological differences
between men and women, such as the ones expressed by Weizmann Institute
researchers, will be said by progressives to be simply overridden by one's
feelings.
So, it
looks as though Mr. Nye’s (not Professor Nye, or even Dr. Nye mind you) attempt
to shroud scientific truth by removing it from older shows to attempt to
recreate consistency with his new platform is thwarted yet again. But that’s
his M.O. Listen to this exchange on his Pet Political Agenda Item, Climate
Change.
William Happer, a physicist at Princeton
University,” caused Bill Nye to become ‘heated’ after Happer said the climate
change that Nye talks about is a “myth.”
“There’s this myth that’s developed around carbon dioxide that
it’s a pollutant, but you and I both exhale carbon dioxide with every breath.
Each of us emits about two pounds of carbon dioxide a day, so are we polluting
the planet?” Happer, who has advised President Donald Trump on climate issues,
said.
He
wants to silence opposition. He wants to remove dissenting opinions. And that
hasn’t stopped him from taking on other UN Agenda21/2030 sustainable talking
points, like population control or this issue with you having what he says is “extra
Children”.
The 13th and final
installment of “Bill Nye Saves the World.” is titled “Earth’s People Problem,”
and with a name like that, you know we could be in for some ideas that border
on eugenics.
The 26-minute episode
starts off in fairly inoffensive fashion. Following an intro that demonstrates
how human consumption is like sponges soaking up water, Nye explains how women
who have access to educational and professional opportunities tend to have
fewer children. This is true, and he illustrates his point by telling the story
of his mother, who developed technology for the United States during World War
II and went on to earn her master’s degree and doctorate. (Inspiring!)
Nye says when women are in
power, they have fewer children, and more resources can be devoted to those
children. “It’s not rocket surgery. It’s science!” he coyly explains. Sure,
it’s not science in the same way that a Punnett square is science, but there is
certainly a correlation there and the overall goal of providing equal
opportunity to women is noble enough. So let’s just indulge him and call his
observation “science.” Close enough.
Noting that the population
density is highest in India, Nye’s correspondent Emily Calandrelli went off to
India to deliver a report on population growth in the country. It is followed
by a brief chat between Nye and Calandrelli that quickly devolves into a
lecture on how America’s maternity leave policy is an example of our
patriarchal society (or whatever).
She says women in India get
16 weeks of paid maternity leave, which is “unheard of in the United States.”
Never mind that in California (home to roughly 20 percent of Americans), they
have 16 weeks of guaranteed maternity leave as well. Also disregard the fact that
the absence of a federal requirement for maternity leave does not mean
maternity leave is nonexistent in the United States. Instructively, she
approvingly lists China when she rattles off some of the countries that do have
required paid maternity leave policies.
Then we get to the rancid
meat and soggy potatoes of this whole spectacle: the panel segment. On the
panel are: Dr. Rachel Snow, chief of population development at the United
Nations Population Fund, Dr. Travis Rieder, ethicist at the Berman Institute
at Johns Hopkins University, and finally Dr. Nerys Benfield, director of
Family Planning Montefiore Medical Center. Benfield is an abortionist, (so you
may know where we are headed here).
Nye starts off the panel by
asking “What should we be doing?” Benfield immediately jumps in and says that
as a physician, she feels access to health care and family planning is
important. She avoids the A-word. Repeating the observation that women’s
education levels and fertility rates are inversely related, Benfield says the
reason is either women are having less sex (Nye, redblooded horndog that he is,
howls “I hope that’s not true!” with a quasi-sheepish grin), or that women are
using contraception.
The panel notes the
importance of contraceptive access. Snow jumps in and says “We need justice and
we need education.” What “justice” means in this context is anybody’s guess? My
personal guess is that she is referring to abortion. But, again, the panel
dances around the word.
How do we create and export
this justice? Nye asks. Snow responds with vague concepts like “excellent
education systems” (You heard her, everyone! Make them excellent!) and “family
planning,” as she nods in the direction of the abortion doctor two seats to her
left. Family planning, meaning abortion, a word that is again avoided.
The fight against climate
change, Nye’s most passionate cause, is brought up by Rieder, who notes that
children in developed countries use 160 times more resources than children in
the developing world. This is where the creepy totalitarianism of the
environmental movement starts to show itself. Nye asks, bluntly, “Should we
have policies that penalize people for having extra kids in the developed
world?”
Extra kids. These d-mn people and
their existence, am I right? Nye (who, again, decided we all needed to see that
abomination from Bloom) is wise enough to set limits on humanity. This whole
concept and the ease with which he discusses it is so frightening and evil that
I am genuinely appalled at Netflix’s decision to air it.
Rieder says we should “at
least consider” a form of punishment for people who have these Extra Kids I.
Nye impatiently responds that “consider means do it.” Snow, to her credit,
jumps in and takes issue with the idea that “we do anything to incentivize
fewer children or more children.” Benfield notes the history of compulsory
sterilization in America, a practice that was in place as recently as the
1970s. The issue was not come at from a position of justice in the past, she
adds. But this time will be different, I guess?
So, if you’re scoring at
home, that leaves China’s maternity laws and their recently ended one-child
policy as the key points from this half hour of science televangelism. As
Calandrelli says, it’s time for America to “catch up.” With China.
Yeesh. The program
had eight minutes left that I couldn’t watch even if I tried.
So why is this all happening? Transgendered bathroom arguments, the
entertainment community injecting alternative lifestyles into every bit of
programming, recognizing the ridiculous premise of the existence of about 63
different genders, implementing ridiculous federal education curriculum to
encourage data mining in the name of Common Core, changing energy policy to
undeveloped, unproven energy resources in the name of saving the planet,
aligning our healthcare system as a government controlled system that is
compatible with other nation’s systems, population control with the idea that
family planning must consider the limitations to having “Extra children”? There
are two things at work here. Much like the economic policies over the last 8
years to stunt and stifle economic growth, leaving GDP under 1% for 8 long
years, you cannot coax the ceding of sovereignty by the globes freest nation in
the world’s history without diminishing them to a level that would allow them
to willingly hand over freedom in favor of security, stability, and
“Sustainable Development” – the global community engineering of the United
Nations. Read through the proposals of Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030. It lays out
the “non-binding agreement” to set the stage for utopia.
We’ve covered how the UN
A shocking
statement was made by a United Nations official Christiana Figueres at
a news conference in Brussels. She admitted that the Global Warming
conspiracy set by the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, of which
she is the executive secretary, has a goal
not of environmental activism and not to save the world from ecological
calamity, but to destroy capitalism. She
said very casually:
“This
is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the
task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic
development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the
Industrial Revolution.”
She
even restated that goal ensuring it was not a mistake:
“This is probably the most
difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally
transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”
Is that why there’s a timeline with regards to an Agenda?
Agenda 21/Agenda
2030?
Now, how does all of this explain
the insanity the associates itself with this agenda, like arguments on
Transgendered bathrooms, and the LGBTQ injection into entertainment media (with
every sitcom having a token LGBTQ character forced into the script and every
episode breaking out into a Musical with a plethora of Jazz hands)? It’s the
method that the Soviet Union employed to crumble America from within, as
explained by Former KGB Agent, Yuri Bezmenov, in this video
from the 1980’s. Listen to the methodology, and before you shrug it off,
ask yourself – “Is any of this actually happening?”
Is this why
we are adopting all of these European cultural positions? Is this why we are
currently even removing our civil war monuments in order to set the stage for
the new global community? Is all of this setting the table for what’s to come?
In my opinion, the model for the new global governance will be the
Chinese model: a state run Faux-Capitalism. They will tout China's economic
prosperity as the key mixture of State Socialism & Capitalism. But they
will be completely mistaken. Because where they opened up their economy to
allow some form of capitalism to go it will be like a controlled burn, when it could've
been a wildfire. The United
Nations Agenda is even using Communist Methods to implement a Chinese/Soviet
crafted Global Authoritarianism.
You may think this is all insane,
but follow the money, power, and search for an endgame goal to all of the
insanity in the world and all paths lead back to these points.
How do you fight this back? How do
you overcome this encroachment? The way you combat this with your family is by
building a strong foundation. No matter what they do in defiance for a time, or
if they are inundated with values that don’t agree with your families, that
foundation will be something that they’ll return to. We can’t allow the
Government’s education system provide this foundation in a form of “Creative
Outsourcing”. Giving this responsibility over to them because of a sense of
Faux-Expertise. We can’t give the foundation of values and principles over to
cultural groupthink by tastemakers and celebrities. It must be within your
family and you must measure every bit of influence and teaching (School
Coursework, etc.) through the lens of your values and principles, to be certain
that you can identify indoctrination and be able to use them as teachable
moments via real world examples to your family.
