Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘California’

Barbies, Tonkas, and transgender transitioning


Reported by Denise Shick – Guest Columnist | Tuesday,

October 2, 2018

Shick

A new law in California that’s aimed specifically at foster children ostensibly seeks to protect vulnerable children. But allowing 12-year-olds to choose their gender – which that law permits – isn’t protection: it’s abuse.


Caution: This article contains descriptions that some may find offensive.

Most 12-year-olds are just beginning to move past the stage of playing with dolls or Tonka trucks. They are entering – gradually and sometimes grudgingly – a new phase of life: adolescence. Typically they’re are on the cusp of some dramatic physical, mental, and sociological changes. They are just beginning to comprehend that they can be individuals, apart from their parents. But don’t throw away those dolls or Tonka trucks just yet – the transition can be long and complex.

However, if you are a 12-year-old foster child in California, forget the Barbies and the Tonkas, because you are about to enter the world of adult decision-making. Thanks to AB 2119 – a bill recently passed into law by California’s majority Democratic policymakers – children as young as 12 will now be able to “privately seek and consent to outpatient mental health counseling and treatment” that includes treatment for gender transitioning.

In other words, little 12-year-old Billie, who was playing with her dollies yesterday, now has the unencumbered authority to choose for herself to begin the process of becoming “William.” The state of California has granted Billie – and all other 12-year-old kids within its jurisdiction – nearly utter autonomy in their gender choices. Any adolescent need only convince a licensed medical practitioner that he or she is she or he, so to speak.

In broader terms, the new law – aimed specifically at foster children – ostensibly seeks to protect vulnerable children. It states, in part, “It is the policy of the state that all minors and non-minors in foster care shall have the following rights:

(1) To live in a safe, healthy, and comfortable home where he or she is treated with respect.

(2) To be free from physical, sexual, emotional, or other abuse, or corporal punishment.”

Who would argue against the rights of foster children to be safe and free from abuse? The problem is not in the law’s fundamental provisions: to keep foster kids safe. The problem is in the sub-provisions. Liberals assume that a key element in keeping these kids safe is allowing them to choose their own gender. But is an adolescent who still keeps his Teddy bear named Jimmy in his closet because he’s still transitioning from child to adult ready to make an irreversible, life-changing decision about transitioning from his birth gender?

Yes, these decisions are often irreversible. As stated in Protect Children: Vote NOon AB 2119, by the American College of Pediatricians: “The vast majority of gender dysphoric children affirmed as the opposite sex go on puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones are permanently sterilized as a result.”

Should a 12-year-old be allowed to make a decision that might cause him or her to be permanently sterilized?

Granted, some foster homes are less than ideal, and kids living in them need to be protected. But allowing those kids to choose for themselves – apart from the counsel of a legal guardian – goes beyond protection. And remember: this autonomy for adolescents is in a state where the public-school sex-education curricula offers lessons on “Improving Female Satisfaction”and “Postponing Male Ejaculation,”includes specifics on which lubricants to use for intercourse, and recommends the transgender-promoting book called I Am Jazz.

Coupling graphic lessons on “safe-sex” and transgenderism with laws allowing children to choose their gender – an often irreversible procedure – is not protection: it’s abuse.Children who are still transitioning from childhood to the adult world are not ready to discuss transitioning from their God-chosen birth gender to the opposite sex.

It’s high time that we – responsible adult voters – transition from office the “progressive” lawmakers who authored this bill and made it law.


ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Denise Shick is the founder and executive director of Help 4 Families, a Christian ministry that compassionately reaches out to family members and brings understanding of the emotional and spiritual issues that families face when a loved one is gender-confused.  She is the author of several books, including “My Daddy’s Secret,” “When Hope Seems Lost,” and “Understanding Gender Confusion – A Faith Based Perspective.”

Ford Polygraph Results Released. Did They Just Blow a Huge Hole in Her Story?



Reported By Benjamin Arie | September 26, 2018 at

3:37pm

The narrative that liberals have hung their hopes on to stop Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh is falling apart. There are now so many holes in the story, it’s incredible Democrats are still running with it.

Christine Blasey Ford is the woman who accused Kavanaugh of drunkenly groping her at a party way back when he was 17 years old, but she has been largely unable to produce solid evidence or witnesses to back up her serious claims.

One of the only points in her favor was that she took a “lie detector” polygraph test, which was widely reported by the media as supporting her story by showing that she wasn’t lying.

That is, until now. On Wednesday, the actual details from that polygraph were released to the public — and they make her already-flimsy story seem downright unbelievable.

The biggest problem with the so-called “lie detector” results are that the examiner never actually asked questions about Kavanaugh during the polygraph test.

Bizarrely, the person conducting the polygraph — who was a third-party examiner and not a law enforcement official — had Ford scribble down her nearly 40-year-old memory of the drunken party, and then asked her two vague questions.

Those two questions were: “Is any part of your statement false?” and “Did you make up any part of your statement?”

This is absolutely important to understand: Again, the polygraph test didn’t actually ask the main accuser any questions about Kavanaugh. His name was never brought up by the interviewer. Instead, Ford was simply asked if she believed her own hand-written statement.

It gets even more strange, as nowhere in that written statement does the name “Kavanaugh” appear, either.

And, to make matters worse, the statement from Ford that she was then asked about by the polygraph examiner directly contradicts different versions of the alleged event that the accuser has also given.

“Ford’s polygraph letter contradicts letter she sent to Feinstein,” pointed out Charles C. W. Cooke, the editor of The National Review.

“Polygraph letter says ‘4 boys and a couple of girls’ were at party. Letter to Feinstein says ‘me and four others,’” he continued. “No way to reconcile the two — irrespective of whether she’s counting herself in polygraph letter.”

It’s important to remember that fundamental facts such as how many people witnessed the alleged incident and what their genders were have been up in the air already. Even journalists from the left-leaning Washington Post are seemingly unable to keep the details straight.

“July 30 (to Dianne Feinstein): It was me and four other people. August 7 (to polygraph examiner): There were four boys and a couple of girls. September 16 (to Washington Post reporter): There were three boys and one girl,” The Federalist co-founder Sean Davis posted to Twitter, summarizing the inconsistencies.

Here’s another huge point: The fact that Ford “passed” the polygraph based on a statement that she later herself contradicted while telling the story to other people shows how unreliable this “evidence” truly is.

Contrary to how it’s shown in the movies, a polygraph can’t actually determine if a person is lying or not. All it can do is indicate how calm or stressed somebody is compared to a baseline. It can be used to indicate deception, but a completely delusional person can also “pass” a polygraph.

In other words, Ford may believe that something happened at a party four decades ago, and she may be confident that some version of her story is true, but the vagueness and unscientific nature of this process proves absolutely nothing. The problems with this accuser’s story don’t stop there. Buried in the release of the weak polygraph results was the fact that Ford was in Maryland — on the other side of the country from her home in California — to take that test.

But the supposed reason she couldn’t appear to testify in front of the Senate and answer questions about her accusations was that she’s afraid of confined spaces, which means she won’t travel by plane.

“The GOP has been told that Ford does not want to fly from her California home to Washington … which means she may need to drive across the country,” reported Politico just five days ago. “Ford has reportedly told friends she is uncomfortable in confined spaces, indicating a physical difficulty in making the trip by plane.”

Yet the letter from Ford to Senator Feinstein made no mention of this difficulty, and casually mentioned that she planned to be back in California from the East Coast in less than three day’s time. It takes at least 42 hours of nonstop driving to go from Maryland, where the polygraph was administered, to Palo Alto, California, where Ford lives and teaches at a university.

This borders on being humanly impossible: Anybody who has done long road trips knows that a realistic daily limit is about ten hours of driving a day before exhaustion sets in. USA Today has recommended that people set aside between four and six days to do this arduous drive.

When none of the details add up or pass even the most basic sniff test, something is wrong.

This entire ordeal looks increasingly like a slimy and desperate effort to delay Kavanaugh’s confirmation at any cost. But the truth always has a way of coming out, and it doesn’t even need a polygraph.

HERE IS THE POLYGRAPH REPORT:

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Benjamin Arie has been a political junkie since the hotly contested 2000 election. Ben settled on journalism after realizing he could get paid to rant. He cut his teeth on car accidents and house fires as a small-town reporter in Michigan before becoming a full-time political writer.


From My Email INBox


California ruling cuts against barbers, hair stylists 

 The Las Vegas Review-Journal

Government continues to find ways to make it harder for people to work for themselves — for their own good, of course.

The latest example comes from California.  Its Supreme Court has saved its residents from the scourge of permitting barbers, hairstylists, tattoo artists and taxi drivers to work for themselves.

Consider a barbershop.  Traditionally, barbers aren’t employees of the establishment.  They rent a chair and then set their own hours, working as independent contractors.  They are entrepreneurs.  This gives them the flexibility to work as much or as little as they want.  It’s easier for the barbershop owner too.  The owner receives an income stream without having to increase overhead or manage employees.

No more.  The California Supreme Court ruled this year that the work of an independent contractor must “fall outside the usual course” of the business’ activities.  So hiring someone as an independent contractor to clean a barbershop is OK.  It is now illegal, however, for a barbershop owner to hire a barber in the same way.

Last week, all seven barbers at Bottle & Barlow, a combination barbershop and bar, quit rather than be forced to work as traditional employees.

“They have really gutted us,” Anthony Giannotti, Bottle & Barlow’s owner, told the Sacramento Bee.  “You can’t hire and structure things the way (barbershops) have for decades.  They’ve just destroyed the pay structure for the barber and cosmetology industry.”

This is just one example of the far-reaching implications of this decision.  Another is that labor lawyers will start circling companies like sharks, trying to find businesses to sue for not following California’s numerous mandates on employees. Ironically, large employers that can afford large compliance departments are best suited to adjust to this.  It’s small employers that will have the hardest time surviving.

California law requires that companies provide overtime pay and meal and rest breaks.  You may think those things are desirable for all workers.  But they come with trade-offs. If you’re an employee, the company sets your schedule and tells you how to do your job.  Overtime pay is great, but many companies cap employee hours to avoid paying it. Some independent contractors can work as many hours as they want.  They also have the freedom not to show up when don’t feel like working.

“Conspicuously absent from the test (determining who can be classified as an independent contractor) is worker preference,” noted Amy Lessa and Megan Walker with the Fisher Phillips law firm.

That’s the significant problem with the nanny state.  Some people prefer a 9-to-5 job with set breaks.  Some people prefer the freedom that comes with being their own boss as an independent contractor.  Individuals, not government, should decide which category they join.

Getting Caught Up with A.F. Branco Politically INCORRECT Cartoons


Abracadabra

Obama mocked Trump’s promise to bring jobs back and raise the GDP up to 3.0 by asking does he have some kind of magic Wand? Yes, he does.

Trump’s Magic WandPolitical Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2018.

Passing Wind

Some say that the Democrats and the media are exaggerating the Kavanaugh storm in Washington D.C.

Kavanaugh Sexual AssaultPolitical Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2018.

California Dreamin’

California is broke and in a horrible mess due to years of Democrats in power. Maybe it’s time to try John Cox Republican to clean up their mess.

California Governor Election 2018Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2018.

That’s Show Biz

At times it appears Ms. Ford is purposely dragging her feet to testify against Brett Kavanaugh in order to sabotage his confirmation.

Christine Blasey Ford Dragging FeetPolitical Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2018.

Russian To Judgment

Democrats are so desperate they are willing to accept any accusation as fact from anywhere and anyone.

Evidence Against KavanaughPolitical cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2018.
More A.F. Branco Cartoons at The Daily Torch.

A.F.Branco Coffee Table Book <—- Order Here

Donations/Tips accepted and appreciated –  $1.00 – $5.00 – $10 – $100 –  it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. – THANK YOU!

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into the cartoons that have been seen all over the country, in various news outlets including “Fox News” and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, and even the great El Rushbo.

Government for Hire? Emails Show ‘Climate Industry’ Funds Jobs in Offices of Governors, Attorneys General


California Gov. Jerry Brown is welcoming climate activists to a global summit in San Francisco this week. Pictured: Brown delivers his final state of the state address Jan. 25 in Sacramento. (Photo: Fred Greaves/Reuters/ Newscom)

California Gov. Jerry Brown is host of a three-day “Global Climate Action Summit” in San Francisco organized by an “activist donor network” that has burrowed into state government agencies, a climate change skeptic says in a new report.

Chris Horner, a senior fellow with the Competitive Enterprise Institute, is the author of two reports detailing how a well-endowed “climate industry” steers donor money through nonprofit organizations into the offices of state governors and attorneys general.

The relationship between governors and environmental activists who are using governors’ offices to advance the climate change agenda of certain donors is the subject of a report by Horner released Tuesday by CEI, a libertarian think tank in Washington.

“A particular theme slated for the San Francisco event is that President Trump’s promise to withdraw from the Paris climate treaty is isolating the United States from what is otherwise and elsewhere a doable, successful, and economically beneficial adoption of this agenda,” Horner writes.

The new report highlighting Brown, a Democrat, builds on Horner’s report last month describing how these same special interests work with compliant state attorneys general.

It views the actions of Brown in California as a case study, examining how elected officials and other political figures allow their offices to be used to pursue climate change policies that conform with the international accord known as the Paris Agreement.

Government officials around the world negotiated the agreement in Paris as part of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in 2015. The agreement calls on countries to combat the perceived threat of climate change by working to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

In June 2017, President Donald Trump announced that the U.S. would withdraw from the Paris Agreement, which he said “disadvantages the United States to the exclusive benefit of other countries.”

Brown’s San Francisco summit, set for Wednesday through Friday, places a strong emphasis on opposition to Trump’s policies, Horner writes:

Trump vowed to withdraw from the Paris Agreement because it is in reality a costly and ineffectual solution to the alleged climate crisis, it mostly directs resources to politically favored industries, and it harms disfavored ones. For similar reasons, the climate industry is dedicated to reversing Trump’s not yet consummated decision.

A major component of its campaign is claiming momentum toward Paris’s goals and rebutting the history of economic and social costs involved in implementing the policies that Paris demands. Implementation of the Paris agenda requires domestic policies, and implementing those policies is the principal objective of the campaign detailed in this paper.

The Daily Signal sought comment from Brown’s office on the new report, but had not received a response at publication time.

The California governor’s three-day summit comes with a budget of $10 million made possible through the support of individuals, foundations, governments and business, according to Horner’s report.

The nonprofits involved “take a handsome percentage for serving as middlemen,” it says.

Emails obtained from open-records requests indicate that politicians are making use of nonprofits and consultants as “pass-throughs for donors to support politicians with resources that the relevant legislatures will not provide and that donors cannot legally provide directly,” Horner’s report says.

The email records describe privately funded staff members placed in governor’s offices as “refugees” from the Obama administration who are working to reposition U.S. policy on climate and energy to conform with their preferred policies.

Horner, author of a 2007 book called “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism,” raises several questions in the new report in response to what he uncovered:

Are the donors going to such lengths to avoid 1) directly placing consultants in governors’ offices or 2) giving the money to do so directly to those offices, because they are barred from such placement? If so, why is this permissible? Or is the effort creating middlemen all merely due to appearances? Why do we find participants misleading or telling outright falsehoods when questioned about what we have found?

And the biggest issue of all is, does this represent government for hire?

The “off-the-book” operations detailed in the emails call out for legislative oversight to determine whether they violate state laws, Horner concludes.

Commentary: Norway’s Boardroom Gender Quota Didn’t Work. California May Try It Anyway.


California aims to experiment with a gender boardroom quota law that has been tried in countries all over Europe. (Photo: Mike Blake/Reuters/Newscom)

The latest craze is a bill that would force publicly held companies to put women on their boards by 2019. Specifically, companies would have to add at least one woman to their board by the end of 2019, and by the end of 2021 the boards must be made up by at least 40 percent women, depending on the size.

All this, under the threat of heavy fines.

The legislation passed through the California Legislature and awaits signature by Gov. Jerry Brown. If Brown signs the measure into law, it would make California the first state to have such a mandatory quota.

The legislation likely runs afoul of the California Constitution and the Constitution of the United States, but it’s also a terrible idea on its own merits.

Over the last decade, numerous European countries—France, Germany, and Italy, among others—have adopted similar laws with generally negative results.

Norway was the first country to do so, and the results have been lackluster to say the least. Norway adopted a gender boardroom quota in 2006, requiring 40 percent of publicly traded corporate boards be comprised of women.

The result, according to The Washington Times, is that numerous Norwegian companies have either left the country or changed their practices to skirt the law.

“The number of public limited firms in Norway by 2009 was less than 70 percent of the number in 2001, according to the study, while the number of privately held firms not subject to the gender quotas jumped by more than 30 percent,” according to The Washington Times.

This won’t be good for California, which already has a problem with businesses pulling up stakes and moving elsewhere.

Though proponents of the law claimed it would improve businesses by forcing them to include more women in the upper echelons of power, there is little evidence that’s the case.

A 2012 study found that the “constraint imposed by the quota caused a significant drop in the stock price at the announcement of the law.”

“The quota led to younger and less experienced boards, increases in leverage and acquisitions, and deterioration in operating performance, consistent with less capable boards,” the study found.

In a review of the gender quota laws across Europe, The Economist concluded that they have not “proved their worth.”

Among The Economist’s findings was that the law has failed to open up jobs for women in the “lower levels of the corporate hierarchy.” The women who are succeeding in this system are typically from a limited pool that now receives additional opportunities and higher pay from multiple companies that want their services.

So, the women in the thin slice at the top do great because companies need to fill their quotas.

The fact that the quotas have had either negligible or negative impact on businesses is already problematic, but it’s also worth considering the message that’s being sent to women. The policy essentially amounts to affirmative action, which can provoke doubt in the actual capabilities of those who are promoted to high positions, whether that doubt is warranted or not.

As Carrie Lukas, managing director of the nonprofit Independent Women’s Forum, argued in The New York Times, gender quota laws are a bad way to ensure more women get into corporate boardrooms, regardless of intent.

“Board quotas may seem like a convenient shortcut to workplace equality, but they are not—nor are they a long-term solution,” Lukas wrote. “A distraction at best, they may undo women’s historic gains by suggesting that we cannot succeed on our own.”

One of the things that infuriated Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in his career as a lawyer was the condescending attitude insinuating that he got to where he is only through an affirmative action boost. In some ways, he saw it as worse than open bigotry.

California’s law will create the same perception of female executives, even for those who rose on merit alone—especially if the quotas foist underqualified candidates onto boards that only increase the perception that women aren’t up to the job.

Even some feminists recognize that using government power to force companies to hire more women is counterproductive regardless of end goals.

The evidence is clear. Boardroom quotas are simply a bad idea that should be left in Europe.

Commentary By

Portrait of Jarrett Stepman

Jarrett Stepman is an editor and commentary writer for The Daily Signal and co-host of “The Right Side of History” podcast. Send an email to Jarrett.

 

 

A Very Important Email I Received Today. A VERY BIG REASON FOR CELEBRATION


But, first, Please read the forwarded email that I received from Pastor Jim Domen of Church United. Assembly Bill 2943 was WITHDRAWN by it’s author, Assemblyman Evan Low, from being sent on to the govenor for signature. Mr. Low is reconsidering the merits of his bill in light of the impact of the faith community and it’s leaders throughout the state. THIS IS A VICTORY FOR GOD AND HIS CHURCH as we seek to PRAY, PARTICIPATE, and PENETRATE our culture and civic society with the truth of the gospel!! As you read Mr. Low’s statement, please pray for him and his colleagues as they wrestle with their consciences and the Spirit of God. “The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.” 2 Peter 3:9 (NIV).
Jim Ortiz
Senior Pastor, My Friend’s House
President, Whittier Area Evangelical Ministerial Alliance (WAEMA)
“…a servant…must be found faithful…” 1Cor. 4:2

My Friend’s House, AG, Inc.
6525 S. Norwalk Bl.
Whittier, CA 90606

Direct: 562/201-4298
Office: 562/692-0953; Fax: 562/692-1983
www.myfriendshouseag.com
www.waema.info
View this email in your browser
Former homosexuals, lesbians, bisexuals and transgenders shared their stories of transformation on the steps of California’s capitol. June 12, 2018. Photo credit: Shiloh Tabernacle Church (Rancho Cucamonga, CA Church) Apostles Puredi & Ruth Hillary
Dear Pastor Jim,

Assemblyman Evan Low (D-Campbell) decided not to send his bill AB 2943 to the Assembly. His statement is below:”Authoring Assembly Bill 2943 is one of the most personal decisions I have made since taking office. As an elected official, I made decisions that discriminated against my very existence in order to support the broader community I represented. I officiated at weddings but, at the time, I could not legally have one of my own. I hosted blood drives but I was prohibited from participating due to the FDA’s discriminatory ban on gay blood donors. I hosted Boy Scouts earning merit badges but as a child I was never able to earn my own.

As a young person I often found myself confused about my sexual orientation. It was hard to find any mainstream media surrounding the feelings I was having. Gay men were not depicted in movies or TV that I was exposed to. I hid myself and my feelings because I was afraid of what others would think of me. This left me feeling very lost, scared, alone, and even suicidal. I wondered if I could change. Coming out was not an easy experience. Yet, I am grateful my community embraced me as I was, a gay man. Many fellow members of the LGBT community are not as fortunate and do not have the support I did and have been subjected to the harmful and fraudulent practice of conversion therapy.

I authored Assembly Bill 2943 to ensure a remedy for those who are deceived by this deceptive practice. As the bipartisan bill progressed through the Legislature this year, opposition began to speak out against the legislation. I knew this was an emotionally charged issue, so I spent the past few months traveling up and down the state meeting with a wide variety of faith leaders.

I was heartened by the conversations. A number of religious leaders denounced conversion therapy and recognized how harmful the practice is while acknowledging it has been discredited by the medical and psychological communities. I left those productive conversations feeling hopeful. I believe every person who attended these meetings left with a greater understanding for the underlying reason and intention of this bill to create a loving and inclusive environment for all. However, I believe there is still more to learn.

The best policy is not made in a vacuum and in order to advance the strongest piece of legislation, the bill requires additional time to allow for an inclusive process not hampered by legislative deadlines. With a hopeful eye toward the future, I share with you that, despite the support the bill received in the Assembly and Senate, I will not be sending AB 2943 to the Governor this year. I am committed to continuing to work towards creating a policy that best protects and celebrates the identities of LGBT Californians and a model for the nation to look towards.”

Assemblyman Low, the Church in California knows and feels your pain. We are grateful for your decision not to continue with AB 2943. Please know as we represent Jesus Christ, His heart and blood was given for you, me and every person in this world – past, present and future.

One of the Formers changed by His grace and truth,

Jim

Founder & Pastor Jim Domen, M.Div.

Church United
1601 Dove St., Suite 145
Newport Beach, CA 92660
949-791-7378
ChurchUnited.com

Office space donated by a Church United patron 

Copyright © 2018 Church United, All rights reserved.
I’ve included you on this list to inform you of issues affecting you and your church. I’m here to serve you, Jim

Our mailing address is:

Church United

1601 Dove St. Suite 145

Newport Beach, CA 92660

Add us to your address book

Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: