USA
All posts tagged USA
‘Black History Month is an effort by variously motivated black leaders to promote pride and self-respect in current Blacks. Often, truth and fiction are comingled into a confusing jumble of misinformation. As a white American interested in truth, I will add some balance to the narrative.
There were comparatively few slaves in New England (usually one or two slaves per family, if any), but New York had many slaves. Slavery was not very beneficial in New York because the slaves had to be fed and cared for all year, yet the growing season was short.
New Yorkers were very afraid of black slaves and had a constant fear of a slave uprising when Whites would be slaughtered in their sleep. There were few massive uprisings, but many small plots, fights, and flights during which a master or overseer was slain. So, in the early l700s, slaves were beaten if three or more congregated in one place unless they were working. That would keep down conspiracies, but if a slave killed a white person, he was tortured and executed.
There was a slave uprising in New York City (population of about 8,000 citizens and 1,000 slaves) in 1712 in which nine Whites were killed, and the authorities hanged 13 slaves, and burned four alive (one over a slow fire). One slave was broken on the wheel, and one was left to starve to death in chains. So much for the sanctified, self-justification of the northern hypocrite.
Now, to answer the sanctified, self-justification of the southern hypocrite. The southern planter sat on his porch, chewing tobacco, and drinking a cool glass of rum, and said, “Well, the southern slave is much better off than he was living in miserable squalor, sin, and superstition in darkest Africa.”No doubt, his living conditions were better, and his eating was more on schedule in slavery, but I remind you that Africa was home, and he had been forced from his home. In Africa, he was with his family, in lifetime surroundings, among friends, speaking his own language, and around his own culture. In American slavery, he was not his own man. Often, he was separated from his wife and children. He was the property of others. Even if he lived in a condominium on Virginia Beach, it was still wrong for him to be enslaved.
It is also true that slavery was wrong even when the slave owner was kind, thoughtful, and benevolent. All slave owners were not haters and sadistic tyrants. Most of them were average businessmen who needed workers. It was not a good business practice to mistreat a worker. Dead slaves don’t work! Some slave owners were thoughtful and kind, which did not justify slavery.
Some slave owners saw the wisdom in taking care of their slaves, even encouraging marriage to the extent of giving them a house, a plot of ground, and household goods. A slave with a family, home, garden, and some farm animals would be less inclined to rebellion. Slaves were not worked from daybreak to sundown. The January 1979 issue of Natural Historyreported,“Slaves spent their hours away from the field doing household chores, making handicrafts, hunting, and fishing, cultivating their own food, and entertaining themselves with dancing.” Archeological research at slave cabins in Georgia and Florida reveals that some slaves even had firearms!
Black leftists would have us believe that all slaves were worked to death and were practically starved to death. However, that only happened when the owner was a sadist or an idiot! Two liberal (very liberal) professors tell us in their book, Time On The Cross: The Economics Of American Negro Slavery, that some planters instituted a profit-sharing for their slaves. They also reveal “the average pecuniary income actually received by a prime field hand was roughly fifteen percent greater than the income he would have received for his labor as a free agricultural worker.” Wonder why public school books and race-baiters on television never mention that.
On some plantations, the best workers were given tobacco, whiskey, cash, holidays, and trips to town on the weekend. Rather substantial year-end bonuses were sometimes awarded.
We are told that the slaves were docile and contented, but that is not true, especially in earlier years. There was a natural tendency for second-generation slaves to be less belligerent and more contented, but that was not true of the first-generation slaves. The facts debunk the “contented” theory.
When the slaves arrived at the ports, the slaves were examined and branded with the mark of the new owner and thenmarched to the beach. Those Blacks brought from the interior were terrified of the pounding surf, the swaying slave ship, and the white traders. Some of the Blacks thought the white men were cannibals and would devour them on the beach. It was not uncommon for the captives to claw at the sand and attempt suicide rather than be crammed into the waiting ships. That doesn’t sound as if they meekly accepted slavery.
Suicide was prevalent, especially upon leaving the African Coast since they had no idea what was happening to them.
The Power to Die reveals that some slaves refused to eat or leaped into the sea, prompting some captains to install a net to make it more difficult to accomplish their desires. Many slaves strangled themselves, tore open their throats, and hanged themselves. In America, they jumped into rivers or out of windows or even ran into burning buildings.
One sea captain wrote: “The negroes [sic] are so wilful [sic] and loth [sic] to leave their country, that they have often leaped out of the canoes, boat and ship, into the sea, and kept under water till they were drowned, to avoid being taken up and saved by our boats….” There are numerous incidents of slaves jumping into the sea, cutting their throats, self-strangling, and self-starvation.
Upon arrival in their new land, those incidents drastically decreased; however, they did not give up the thought of freedom.
There were many slave rebellions, although not massive, that resulted in many executions of the leaders. Any slave who reported a rebellion was rewarded with his freedom, so most “uprisings” did not result in freedom for many slaves. It is natural that the more vicious the owner, the greater would be the desire for freedom of his slaves; however, not all slave owners were cruel and sadistic men.
Nat Turner was a slave in Southampton County, Virginia, and always felt he was destined to do great works that he thought were established by seeing spirits fighting in the night sky. He often heard voices which he often passed to his fellow slaves. After a solar eclipse, he was convinced it was an indication for him to lead his fellow slaves in a rebellion against their masters. One evening in 1831 he led a group of 75 slaves to attack and kill their masters as they slept. No child was spared or gender as they killed with guns, swords, clubs, and farm equipment. Some adults and children were beheaded. About 51 Whites plus ten or so others were killed in two days until the slaves were found and tried. Turner and 16 of his group were then executed in Jerusalem, Virginia.
Some famous Americans who profess sanity even call Turner “legendary” (Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates) and spoke of his “heroism and sacrifices.” Say what?
Movie producer Nate Parker described Turner as “a measured, self-determined man of faith, whose courage and sacrifice left him a martyr.” Nat wasn’t martyred; he was executed for the murder of innocent men, women, and children, even babies.
Molefi Kete Asante, a scholar at Temple University calls Turner a “reflective and mature thinker” who “believed in liberty,” “demonstrated both gravitas and charisma” and “has earned his place in the panoply of revolutionary icons.”
All three of the above promoters of Nat Turner have two things in common: they are all black and have major problems in their differentiation between right and wrong. They are missing a moral compass.
Whatever the location and how kind the slave owners were, chattel slavery is always wrong. Many slave owners cared for their slaves and were interested in improving their living and working conditions. Of course, those owners were still wrong. Those owners would not have wanted to be slaves, so it was wrong for them to enslave others. Jesus taught that truth when He said in Matthew 7:12, “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them….”That verse, if obeyed, would have wiped out slavery and all other injustices to men.
Slavery cannot be justified; however, it is easy for us to criticize the early Americans from our present advantage of enlightenment and abundance. What would you have done if you had lived in Jamestown in the 1600s with a farm to be worked, no white laborers to hire, and starvation facing you and your family? It is never right to do wrong, but it is easy for us to sit in judgment from a comfortable distance of more than 350 years.
While we can never condone slavery, let us at least be aware of the conditions that prompted it and be determined to never again enslave humans of any color for any reason.’https://donboys.cstnews.com/facts-about-slavery-some-black-history-month-proponents-dont-admit
‘In America, an after-school program sponsored by The Satanic Temple is popping up around the nation. What irresponsible parent would allow their child to attend such things? June Everett, national director of the After School Satan Club,1 said the following in a TV interview:
“To us, Satan is a symbol … like Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy … A symbol for standing up to tyrannical authority … We don’t believe in a supernatural Satan … we don’t talk about Satanism… we don’t push it on the kids.”2
However, if they don’t talk about Satanism, then why the name? Everett stated Satan for her is a “symbol for standing up to tyrannical authority”. Ultimately, in her mind, this means the Creator of life (the arch nemesis of Satan) who is both concerned with children growing up (Matthew 18) with healthy boundaries, as well as children inside the womb (Psalm 139).’ Read the rest of the article @ https://creation.com/abortion-prayers-arrest
‘Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter last October and the subsequent reporting on the Twitter Files by journalists Matt Taibbi, Bari Weiss, and a handful of others beginning in early December is one of the most important news stories of our time. The Twitter Files story encompasses, and to a large extent connects, every major political scandal of the Trump-Biden era. Put simply, the Twitter Files reveal an unholy alliance between Big Tech and the deep state designed to throttle free speech and maintain an official narrative through censorship and propaganda. This should not just disturb us, it should also prod us to action in defense of the First Amendment, free and fair elections, and indeed our country.
After Musk completed his acquisition of Twitter, he fired a slew of useless or insubordinate employees, instituted new content moderation policies, and tried to reform a woke corporate culture that bordered (and still borders) on parody. In the process, Musk coordinated with Taibbi and Weiss on the publication of a series of stories based on internal Twitter documents related to an array of major political events going back years: the Hunter Biden laptop scandal, Twitter’s secret policy of shadow banning, President Trump’s suspension from Twitter after the January 6 U.S. Capitol riot, the co-opting of Twitter by the FBI to suppress “election disinformation” ahead of the 2020 election, Twitter’s involvement in a Pentagon overseas psy-op campaign, its silencing of dissent from the official Covid narrative, its complicity in the Russiagate hoax, and its gradual capitulation to the direct involvement of the U.S. intelligence community—with the FBI as a go-between—in content moderation.
As Taibbi has written, the Twitter Files “show the FBI acting as doorman to a vast program of social media surveillance and censorship, encompassing agencies across the federal government—from the State Department to the Pentagon to the CIA.”
The Twitter Files contain multitudes, but for the sake of brevity let us consider just three installments and their related implications: the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story, the suspension of Trump, and the deputization of Twitter by the FBI. Together, these stories reveal not just a social media company willing to do the bidding of an out-of-control federal bureaucracy, but a federal bureaucracy openly hostile to the First Amendment.
Hunter Biden’s Laptop
On October 14, 2020, the New York Post published its first major exposé based on the contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop, which had been dropped off at a Delaware computer repair shop in April 2019 and never picked up. It was the first of several stories detailing Biden family corruption and revealing the close involvement of Joe Biden in his son’s foreign business ventures in the years during and after Biden’s vice presidency. Hunter, although doing no real work, was making tens of millions of dollars from foreign companies in places like Ukraine and China. The Post’s bombshell reporting shined a bright light on what was happening.
According to the emails on the laptop, Hunter introduced then-Vice President Biden to a top executive at Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company that was paying Hunter (who had no credentials or experience in the energy business) up to $50,000 a month to sit on its board. Soon after this meeting, Vice President Biden pressured the Ukrainian government to fire a prosecutor investigating the company. In an earlier email, a top Burisma executive asked Hunter for “advice on how you could use your influence” to benefit the company. The Post’s ensuing stories revealed more of the same: a shocking level of corruption and influence-peddling by Hunter Biden, whose emails suggest his father was closely connected to his overseas business ventures. Indeed, those ventures appear to consist entirely of Hunter providing access to Joe Biden.
Twitter did everything in its power to suppress the Biden story. It removed links to the Post’s reporting, appended warnings that they might be “unsafe,” and prevented users from sharing them via direct message—a restriction previously reserved for child pornography and other extreme cases. In an extraordinary step, Twitter also locked the Post’s account and the accounts of anyone who shared links to its reporting, including White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany. These actions were justified under the pretext that the stories violated Twitter’s hacked-materials policy, even though there was no evidence, then or now, that anything on the laptop was hacked.
Twitter executives at the highest levels were directly involved in these decisions. Former head of Legal, Policy, and Trust Vijaya Gadde, the company’s chief censor, played a key role, as did former head of Trust and Safety Yoel Roth. Oddly, all this seems to have been done without the knowledge of Twitter’s then-CEO Jack Dorsey. And it was done despite internal pushback from other departments.
“I’m struggling to understand the policy basis for marking this as unsafe,” wrote a Twitter communications executive in an email to Gadde and Roth. “Can we truthfully claim that this is part of the policy?” asked former VP of Global Communications Brandon Borman. His question was answered by Deputy General Counsel Jim Baker—a former top lawyer for the FBI and the most powerful member of a growing cadre of former FBI employees working at Twitter—who said that “caution is warranted” and that some facts “indicate the materials may have been hacked.”
But there were no such facts, as Baker and other top Twitter executives knew at the time. The laptop was exactly what the Post said it was, and every fact the Post reported was accurate. Other major media outlets like The New York Times and The Washington Post would begrudgingly admit as much 18 months later, after Joe Biden was ensconced in the White House.
If there were no hacked materials in the Post’s reporting, why did Twitter immediately react as if there were? Because long before the Post published its first laptop story, there had been an organized effort by the intelligence community to discredit leaked information about Hunter Biden. The laptop, after all, had been in federal custody since the previous December, when the FBI seized it from the computer repair shop. So the FBI knew very well that it contained evidence of straightforward criminal activity (such as illicit drug use) as well as of corruption and influence-peddling.
The evening before the Post ran its first story on the laptop, FBI Special Agent Elvis Chan sent ten documents to Roth at Twitter through a special one-way communications channel the FBI had established with the company. For months, the FBI and other federal intelligence agencies had been priming Roth to dismiss news reports about Hunter Biden ahead of the 2020 election as “hack-and-leak” operations by state actors. They had done the same thing with Facebook, whose CEO Mark Zuckerberg admitted as much to Joe Rogan in an August 2022 podcast. As Michael Shellenberger reported in the seventh installment of the Twitter Files, the FBI repeatedly asked Roth and others at Twitter about foreign influence operations on the platform and were repeatedly told there were none of any significance. The FBI also routinely pressured Twitter to hand over data outside the normal search warrant process, which Twitter at first resisted.
In July 2020, Chan arranged for Twitter executives to get top secret security clearances so the FBI could share intelligence about possible threats to the upcoming presidential election. The next month, Chan sent Roth information about a Russian hacking group called APT28. Roth later said that when the Post’s story about Hunter Biden’s laptop broke, “It set off every single one of my finely tuned APT28 hack-and-leak campaign alarm bells.” Even though there was never any evidence that anything on the laptop was hacked, Roth reacted to it just as the FBI had conditioned him to do, using the company’s hacked-materials policy to suppress the story as soon as it appeared, just as the agency suggested it would, less than a month before the election.
Suspending the President
The erosion of Twitter’s content moderation standards would continue after the Hunter Biden laptop scandal, reaching its apogee on January 8, 2021, two days after the Capitol riot. That is when Twitter made the extraordinary decision to suspend President Trump, even though he had not violated any Twitter policies. As the Twitter Files show, the suspension came amid ongoing interactions with federal agencies—interactions that were increasing in frequency in the months leading up to the 2020 election, during which Roth was meeting weekly with the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. As the election neared, Twitter’s unevenly applied, rules-based content moderation policies would steadily deteriorate.
Content moderation on Twitter had always been an unstable mix of automatic enforcement of rules and subjective interventions by top executives, most of whom used Twitter’s censorship tools to diminish the reach of Trump and others on the right through shadow banning and other means. But that was changing. As Taibbi wrote in the third installment of the Twitter Files: “As the election approached, senior executives—perhaps under pressure from federal agencies, with whom they met more as time progressed—increasingly struggled with rules, and began to speak of ‘vios’ [violations] as pretexts to do what they’d likely have done anyway.”
After January 6, Twitter jettisoned even the appearance of a rules-based moderation policy, suspending Trump for a pair of tweets that top executives falsely claimed were violations of Twitter’s terms of service. The first, sent early in the morning on January 8, stated: “The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me, AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future. They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!” The second, sent about an hour later, simply stated that Trump would not be attending Joe Biden’s inauguration on January 20.
That same day, key Twitter staffers correctly determined that Trump’s tweets did not constitute incitement of violence or violate any other Twitter policies. But pressure kept building from people like Gadde, who wanted to know whether the tweets amounted to “coded incitement to further violence.” Some suggested that Trump’s first tweet might have violated the company’s policy on the glorification of violence. Internal discussions then took an even more bizarre turn. Members of Twitter’s “scaled enforcement team” reportedly viewed Trump “as the leader of a terrorist group responsible for violence/deaths comparable to Christchurch shooter or Hitler and on that basis and on the totality of his Tweets, he should be de-platformed.”
Later on the afternoon of January 8, Twitter announced Trump’s permanent suspension “due to the risk of further incitement of violence”—a nonsense phrase that corresponded to no written Twitter policy. The suspension of a sitting head of state was unprecedented. Twitter had never taken such a step, even with heads of state in Nigeria and Ethiopia who actually had incited violence. Internal deliberations unveiled by the Twitter Files show that Trump’s suspension was partly justified based on the “overall context and narrative” of Trump’s words and actions—as one executive put it—“over the course of the election and frankly last 4+ years.”
That is, it was not anything Trump said or did; it was that Twitter’s censors wanted to blame the President for everything that happened on January 6 and remove him from the platform. To do that, they were willing to shift the entire intellectual framework of content moderation from the enforcement of objective rules to the consideration of “context and narrative,” thereby allowing executives to engage in what amounts to viewpoint discrimination.
Private companies, of course, for the most part have the right to engage in viewpoint discrimination—something the government is prohibited from doing by the First Amendment. The problem is that when Twitter suspended Trump, it was operating less like a private company than like an extension of the federal government.
***
Among the most shocking revelations of the Twitter Files is the extent to which federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies came to view Twitter as a tool for censorship and narrative control. In part six of the Twitter Files, Taibbi chronicles the “constant and pervasive” contact between the FBI and Twitter after January 2020, “as if [Twitter] were a subsidiary.” In particular, the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security wanted Twitter to censor tweets and lock accounts it believed were engaged in “election misinformation,” and would regularly send the company content it had pre-flagged for moderation, essentially dragooning Twitter into what would otherwise be illegal government censorship. Taibbi calls it a “master-canine” relationship. When requests for censorship came in from the feds, Twitter obediently complied—even when the tweets in question were clearly jokes or posted on accounts with few followers.
Some Twitter executives were unsure what to make of this relationship. Policy Director Nick Pickles at one point asked how he should refer to the company’s cooperation with federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies, suggesting it be described in terms of “partnerships.” Time and again, federal agencies stressed the need for close collaboration with their “private sector partners,” using the alleged interference by Russia in the 2016 election as the pretext for a massive government surveillance and censorship regime operating from inside Twitter.
Requests for content moderation, which increasingly resembled demands, came not only from the FBI and DHS, but also from a tangled web of other federal agencies, contractors, and government-affiliated think tanks such as the Election Integrity Project at Stanford University. As Taibbi writes, the lines between government and its “partners” in this effort were “so blurred as to be meaningless.”
The Deputization of Twitter
After the 2016 election, both Twitter and Facebook faced pressure from Democrats and their media allies to root out Russian “election meddling” under the thoroughly debunked theory that a Moscow-based social media influence operation was responsible for Trump’s election victory. In reality, Russia’s supposed meddling amounted to a minuscule ad buy on Facebook and a handful of Twitter bots. But the truth was not acceptable to Democrats, the media, or the anti-Trump federal bureaucracy.
In 2017, Twitter came under tremendous pressure to “keep producing material” on Russian interference, and in response it created a Russia Task Force to hunt for accounts tied to Moscow’s Internet Research Agency. The task force did not find much. Out of some 2,700 accounts reviewed, only two came back as significant, and one of those was Russia Today, a state-backed news outlet. But in the face of bad press and threats from Democrats in Congress, Twitter executives decided to go along with the official narrative and pretend they had a Russia problem. To placate Washington and avoid costly new regulations, they pledged to “work with [members of Congress] on their desire to legislate.” When someone in Congress leaked the list of the 2,700 accounts Twitter’s task force had reviewed, the media exploded with stories suggesting that Twitter was swarming with Russian bots—and Twitter continued to go along.
After that, as described by Taibbi, “This cycle—threatened legislation wedded to scare headlines pushed by congressional/intel sources, followed by Twitter caving to [content] moderation asks—[came to] be formalized in partnerships with federal law enforcement.”
Late in 2017, Twitter quietly adopted a new policy. In public, it would say that all content moderation took place “at [Twitter’s] sole discretion.” But its internal guidance would stipulate censorship of anything “identified by the U.S. intelligence community as a state-sponsored entity conducting cyber-operations.” Thus Twitter increasingly allowed the intelligence community, the State Department, and a dizzying array of federal and state agencies to submit content moderation requests through the FBI, which Chan suggested could function as “the belly button of the [U.S. government].” These requests would grow and intensify during the Covid pandemic and in the run-up to the 2020 election.
By 2020, there was a torrent of demands for censorship, sometimes with no explanation—just an Excel spreadsheet with a list of accounts to be banned. These demands poured in from FBI offices all over the country, overwhelming Twitter staff. Eventually the government would pay Twitter $3.4 million in compensation. It was a pittance considering the work Twitter did at the government’s behest, but the payment illustrated a stark reality: Twitter, a leading gatekeeper of the digital public square and arguably the most powerful social media platform in the world, had become a subcontractor for the U.S. intelligence community.
***
The Twitter Files have revealed or confirmed three important truths about social media and the deep state.
First, the entire concept of “content moderation” is a euphemism for censorship by social media companies that falsely claim to be neutral and unbiased. To the extent they exercise a virtual monopoly on public discourse in the digital era, we should stop thinking of them as private companies that can “do whatever they want,” as libertarians are fond of saying. The companies’ content moderation policies are at best a flimsy justification for banning or blocking whatever their executives do not like. At worst, they provide cover for a policy of pervasive government censorship.
Second, Twitter was taking marching orders from a deep state security apparatus that was created to fight terrorists, not to censor or manipulate public discourse. To the extent that the deep state is using social media companies like Twitter and Facebook to subvert the First Amendment and run information psy-ops on the American public, these companies have become malevolent government actors. As a policy matter, the hands-off, laissez-faire regulatory approach we have taken to them should come to an immediate end.
Third, the administrative state has metastasized into a destructive deep state that threatens to bring about the collapse of America’s constitutional system within our lifetimes. Emblematic of the threat is the fact that “the intelligence community” has proven itself incapable of not interfering in American elections. The FBI in particular has directly meddled in the last two presidential elections to a degree that should call into question its continued existence. Indeed, the FBI’s post-9/11 transformation from a law enforcement agency to a counter-terrorism and intelligence-gathering agency with seemingly limitless remit has been a disaster for civil liberties and the First Amendment. We need either to impose radical reforms or scrap it entirely and start over.
The late great political scientist Angelo Codevilla argued that our response to 9/11 was completely wrong. Instead of erecting a sprawling security and surveillance apparatus to detect and disrupt potential terrorist plots, we should have issued an ultimatum to the regimes that were harboring Al Qaeda: you make war on these terrorists and bring them to justice or we will make war on you. The reason not to do what we did, Codevilla argued, is that a security and surveillance apparatus powerful and pervasive enough to do what we wanted it to do was incompatible with a free society. It might defeat the terrorists, but it would eventually be turned on the American people.
The Twitter Files leave little doubt that Codevilla’s prediction has come to pass. The question we face now is whether the American people and their elected representatives will fight back. The fate of the republic rests on the answer.’https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/the-twitter-files-reveal-an-existential-threat/?_hsmi=245368685&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8djEiArZi7oZ5bxPRk9siyxAf5O-y7uH2Lr5dJDxeOmKGkRT2WYpV3xb0dghLbTugfkLArvXGtbWKu_aRA5ZGi8ZL09Q
‘On its website, the Western University Student Council (USC) claims that females, transgender and “non-binary” peoples are not the only ones who experience periods.
“Menstrual products are a necessity for a large portion of Western’s population, and students who menstruate, including but not limited to female, non-binary, and transgender students, require access to these products in order to move through daily life,” reads the USC’s website.
According to the Western Gazette, the union plans on installing 150 Aunt Flow dispensers that feature free “100 percent organic cotton, biodegradable and synthetic-free tampons and pads” in men’s, women’s and gender-neutral washrooms.
The installation of dispensers is part of the USC’s “Free the Dot” initiative, a program the union launched in partnership with its food support services that offers students free hygiene products and contraception.’https://tnc.news/2023/02/07/tampons-mens-western/
These people are NUTS! Note what they say below;
‘Upcoming Workshops
Reducing the Stigma Around Menstrual and Sexual Wellness
The purpose: raise awareness about the different components of menstrual equity and reduce the stigma around menstrual health.
Events and Initiative dates for 2022-2023 Academic Year coming soon, download the USC Now App to keep up to date with events and initiatives for free the dot.
Petition
Menstrual products are not a luxury- they are a necessity. Menstrual products are a necessity for a large portion of Western’s population, and students who menstruate, including but not limited to female, non-binary, and transgender students, require access to these products in order to move through daily life. The USC recommends that Western University invest in the provision of free menstrual products to be provided in ALL washrooms on campus. Sign your name to this petition to show your support for this recommendation!’https://westernusc.ca/free-the-dot/
2Tiimothy 3:13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
‘Biology matters, though apparently not if you are a man who *feels* like a woman, then biology just has to take a back seat.
The American Red Cross has revealed they will now allow males who pretend to be women to donate their blood, even if they have been having sex with other males.
Under normal circumstances, males who engage in sexual activity with other males are asked to wait three months before donating blood, a requirement that will be waived for men who self-ID as women.
According to the American Red Cross website, the organization says it “understand[s] that there is a difference between biological sex and gender,” but goes on to clarify that the Red Cross is following the recommendations of the FDA to determine donor eligibility on the basis of self-declared sex, as opposed to biological sex of the potential donors.
This change would allow a homosexual or bisexual male to present at the clinic and self-describe himself as “female” or “trans” and be exempted from the 3-month deferral typically associated with males who actively engage in sexual activity with other males. This may pose a risk to both the Red Cross staff, the donor, and the viability of blood donations.
Gay men have previously been limited in giving blood due to higher rates of sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV. Usually men who have sex with other men must wait 3 months before donating.
A member of the Reduxx team called the Red Cross Donor and Client Support Center posing as a biological male who identified as a woman to check eligibility requirements. When the agent was asked if a person “assigned male at birth” who was actively having sex with other biological males was able to donate blood, he responded that so long as the potential donor self-declared their sex as “female,” they would be allowed.
“If you identify as a female… if you answer the question as a female, anything that’s going to come up– regarding the transgenderism… is not going to apply,” the agent stated, after consulting with his managerial team for several minutes.
Similarly under the rules, females who identify as “men” and who have sex with biological males or other females who identify as “men” are ineligible and subject to the 3-month deferral.
Males who identify as “female” and have sex with other males who identify as “female” are eligible to donate under the lesbian guidelines.
The policy of self-identification applies to all forms of blood, plasma, and platelet donation, which contradicts The Red Cross’ weight and height requirements for donors on the basis of sex. Regular donors are also allowed to have information on their sex changed upon verbal confirmation, which the Red Cross perplexingly claims is for the sake of “donor safety and accuracy of records.” Individuals do not need to declare that they are transgender.
The three month waiting period is so blood screening can pick up evidence of sexually transmitted diseases.
Binary spokeswoman Kirralie Smith said the policy puts lives at risk.
“It is utterly absurd to change a policy that is dependent on biological factors,” she said.
“Blood donated by men who have sex with men is at risk. This is not unjustly discriminatory, it is not a matter of feelings, stereotypes, or perception. It is a serious medical issue that could cause devastation to recipients if the blood is contaminated.
“This policy highlights the incredible lunacy people are willing to sink to in an effort to appease extremists.
“Men are not female and never can be, regardless of their costume, drug taking or surgery.”’https://www.binary.org.au/the_american_red_cross_policy_that_denies_biological_reality?
‘One of the earliest known descriptions of the life and mission of Harvard College, a promotional pamphlet printed in England in 1643 and entitled “New Englands (sic) First Fruits,” justifies the establishment of the College “to advance Learning and perpetuate it to Posterity; dreading to leave an illiterate Ministery to the Churches, when our present Ministers shall lie in the Dust.” Outlining the college curriculum, complete with the time and order of studies, the missive provides invaluable detail regarding academic life and studies at seventeenth century Harvard.’https://guides.library.harvard.edu/c.php?g=405381&p=6465805
‘A Harvard Medical School course teaches enrollees how to provide “affirming care” for patients involved in adulterous and sadomasochist sexual lifestyles.
The continuing education course, “Advancing Excellence in Transgender Health: A Course for the Whole Healthcare Team,” is not yet scheduled for 2023, but the university wants to open the class up as a national learning opportunity for healthcare professionals. The class is offered by the Fenway Institute, an LGBT advocacy organization.
One section of the 2022 course agenda contained the presentation “Alternative Sexualities in Healthcare: Providing Affirming Care for Patients Who Engage in Kink, BDSM, Fetish, Swinging, Ethical Non-Monogamy, Polyamory, and Open Arrangements.”’https://www.thecollegefix.com/harvard-med-school-teaches-affirming-care-for-adultery-kink-and-bdsm/
And we wonder why society is the way it is today?
whatyareckon 