All posts by Wintery Knight

https://winteryknight.com/

Is Joe Biden a Roman Catholic? Where does he stand on abortion and religious liberty?

Major pro-abortion group endorses Joe Biden for President
Major pro-abortion group endorses Joe Biden for President

What does Joe Biden think about Roman Catholics? He might like you to believe that he’s a great friend of Catholics, so he can get their votes. But he’s very strongly in favor of abortion and infanticide. And he’s also opposed to religious liberty for Roman Catholics. How do I know? Because he said so himself.

Here’s the story from The Federalist:

Biden’s record is one of attacking nuns, not defending them. Last month, he pledged to overturn a Supreme Court decision that affirmed a group of nuns’ right to deny contraceptive coverage based on their sincerely-held religious beliefs. The Little Sisters of the Poor are a Catholic order that has existed since 1839 and serves impovrished elderly in over 30 countries, including the United States. In 2013, the Little Sisters sued the Obama-Biden administration’s Health and Human Services, seeking a religious exemption to providing contraceptives and abortifacients that went against their beliefs. After three years of litigation, the Supreme Court ruled in the Little Sisters’ favor in 2016.

When the Trump administration issued a new rule that expanded religious exemptions to include the Little Sisters, the state of Pennsylvania interfered, suing the administration to take protections away from the nuns. That case also made it to the Supreme Court, which again decided in favor of the Little Sisters in July 2020.

But the day the Supreme Court issued its ruling, Biden promised to take away the nuns’ hard-fought exemption if elected president.

“I am disappointed in today’s U.S. Supreme Court decision,” Biden said in response. “If I am elected I will restore the Obama-Biden policy.”

So, not good on religious liberty, especially for Roman Catholics.

And here’s an interesting article from Life News, about Biden’s support for abortion. Is he a moderate?

NARAL, the pro-abortion political and lobbying organization, yesterday announced its endorsement of pro-abortion former vice president Joe Biden, the presumptive Democrat nominee, for president.

If elected, Biden has promised to:

  • enshrine Roe v. Wade in federal law;
  • appoint justices who will uphold abortion on demand;
  • reverse the Trump Administration’s pro-life policies;
  • reverse President Trump’s Title X rule that prevents pro-abortion groups from promoting or referring for abortions;
  • promote abortion around the world by reversing the Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance program which prevents federal taxpayer dollars from being used by abortion groups to perform or promote abortion overseas;
  • abolish the Hyde Amendment which prevents federal tax dollars from being used to pay for abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother.

Joe Biden isn’t a Roman Catholic. Like all other Democrats, he’s an atheist. He doesn’t think that the Bible is an authority on truth or morality. I know, because I looked at his actions. His actions declare that he’s a pro-abortion, anti-Christian bigot.

Four reasons why you should vote Democrat in November 2020

What would the Democrats do if they won in November?
What would the Democrats do if they won in November?

I found four interesting news stories last night that have really shown some of the wonderful benefits that you’ll get from voting Democrat in November 2020. First, the FBI won’t try to overthrow elections. Law enforcement won’t early-release convicted criminals. Women athletes will be able to play sports. Rioters and looters will be much more civil. It will be awesome!

Let’s start with this article from Just The News about the wonderful non-partisan FBI:

The Senate Judiciary Committee on Sunday released a document it says shows the FBI misled senators on the Intelligence Committee during the Russia probe by falsely suggesting Christopher Steele’s dossier was backed up by one of his key sources.

“Somebody needs to go to jail for this,” Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., the panel’s chairman, told the Fox News program Sunday Futures with Maria Bartiromo. “This is a second lie. This is a second crime. They lied to the FISA court. They got rebuked, the FBI did, in 2019 by the FISA court, putting in doubt all FISA applications.

“A year before, they’re lying to the Senate Intel Committee. It’s just amazing the compounding of the lies,” Graham added.

The document in question contains the draft talking points the FBI used to brief the Senate Intelligence Committee in February 2018, including an assessment that the primary sub-source of the information contained in the Steele dossier had backed up the former MI-6 agent’s reporting.

The primary sub-source “did not cite any significant concerns with the way his reporting was characterized in the dossier to the extent he could identify it,” the FBI memo claimed. “…At minimum, our discussions with [the Primary Sub-source] confirm that the dossier was not fabricated by Steele.”

[…]In fact, by the time the FBI provided senators the briefing, agents had already interviewed Steele’s primary sub-source who disavowed much of what was attributed to him in the dossier as in “jest” or containing uncorroborated allegations.

Agents also had been warned by the CIA that Steele’s memos contained disinformation fed to him by Russian intelligence services, and had created a spreadsheet showing most of the claims in the dossier were either debunked, unable to be corroborated or Internet rumor.

Graham said the document is so misleading he is demanding FBI Director Chris Wray identify the names of those involved in the briefing. “They misled the hell out of them,” he said.

Fair and balanced. You can count on people like Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, James Comey, and Andrew McCabe to enforce the law fairly, and not to try to overturn the results of an election they lost using the FBI as a weapon against their political opponents. Because that never happened under Obama when he used the IRS to attack conservative groups in an election year.

And look at this example of Democrats being tough on crime:

Ibrahim Bouaichi, the Maryland man suspected of murdering Karla Elizabeth Dominguez Gonzalez in the West End last week, was released from jail on bond earlier this year while awaiting trial on charges that he attacked and raped her last fall, according to court records.

Gonzalez was shot and killed on July 29 at around 6 a.m. outside her home on S. Greenmount Drive in the West End. Soon after her death, Alexandria Police identified Bouaichi as a suspect and said that he was armed and dangerous.

Law enforcement is a big priority for Maryland Democrats, and they’ll always choose to protect the people who pay their salaries from criminals.

Democrats are so pro-woman, that they are willing to protect women athletes:

Outsports, an LGBTQ website affiliated with Vox just doxxed the names of over-300 collegiate and professional athletes that signed a letter vouching for biological women in sports. The letter was sent to the National College Athletic Association Board of Governors last week and lauded Idaho’s “Fairness in Women’s Sports Act,” which supports women in sports.

Doxing people is awesome, and definitely not creepy and fascistic. And those Democrat feminists were right to do it. If you can’t win an argument, then definitely resort to fascism, vandalism, violence, and death threats. Democrats don’t have any mental illnesses, you know. They’re totally sane.

Expect rioters and looters to be more civil under a Biden administration. Portland, Oregon is dominated from top to bottom by Democrats, and look at how moral people are there:

Amid the rioting and vandalism at the precinct, KOIN-TV reported that officers were hit with projectiles that included glass bottles and rocks — and cops said one officer was severely injured after taking a large rock to the shoulder.

In the middle of all that, the station said an elderly woman who said she lives in the neighborhood pleaded with the group to stop the vandalism and stood in the way of those who were splashing paint on the plywood outside the building.

But they splashed paint on her too, KOIN noted.

Rather than realizing how far out of hand they’ve gotten, the violent left-wingers started yelling at the elderly woman: “This isn’t your world anymore!”

Yeah, way to stick it to the man, brave Democrats. Speak truth to power! I think everyone on the right needs to give the Democrats a chance. They have an excellent record to run on.

Ryan T. Anderson lectures on marriage and why it matters

A family praying and reading the Bible
A family praying and reading the Bible

Here’s the lecture:

About the speaker:

Ryan T. Anderson researches and writes about marriage and religious liberty as the William E. Simon Fellow at The Heritage Foundation. He also focuses on justice and moral principles in economic thought, health care and education, and has expertise in bioethics and natural law theory.

Anderson, who joined the leading Washington think tank’s DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society in 2012, also is the editor of Public Discourse, the online journal of the Witherspoon Institute of Princeton, N.J.

Anderson’s recent work at Heritage focuses on the constitutional questions surrounding same-sex “marriage.” He is the co-author with Princeton’s Robert P. George and Sherif Girgis of the acclaimed book “What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense” (Encounter Books, December 2012).

The lecture starts at 7:20 in. The lecture ends at 49:35. There are 32 minutes of Q&A.

Introduction:

  • When talking about marriage in public, we should talk about philosophy, sociology and public policy
  • Gay marriage proponents need to be pressed to define what marriage is, on their view
  • Every definition of marriage is going to include some relationships, and exclude others
  • It’s meaningless to portray one side as nice and the other mean
  • Typically, marriage redefiners view marriage as a more intense emotional relationship
  • Marriage redefiners should be challenged in three ways:
  • 1) Does the redefined version of marriage have a public policy reason to prefer only two people?
  • 2) Does the redefined version of marriage have a reason to prefer permanence?
  • 3) Does the redefined version of marriage have a reason to prefer sexual exclusivity?
  • Also, if marriage is just about romance, then why is the state getting involved in recognizing it?
  • The talk: 1) What marriage is, 2) Why marriage matters, 3) What are the consequences of redefining marriage?

What marriage is:

  • Marriage unites spouses – hearts, minds and bodies
  • Marriage unites spouses to perform a good: creating a human being and raising that human being
  • Marriage is a commitment: permanent and exclusive
  • Male and female natures are distinct and complementary

The public purpose of marriage:

  • to attach men and women to each other
  • to attach mothers and fathers to their children
  • there is no such thing as parenting, there is only mothering and fathering
  • the evidence shows that children benefit from mothering and fathering
  • boys who grow up without fathers are more likely to commit crimes
  • girls who grow up without fathers are more likely to have sex earlier
  • Children benefit from having a mother and a father
  • can’t say that fathers are essential for children if we support gay marriage, which makes fathers optional
  • without marriage: child poverty increases, crime increases, social mobility decreases, welfare spending increases
  • when government encourages marriage, then government has less do to – stays smaller, spends less
  • if we promote marriage as an idea, we are not excluding gay relationships or even partner benefits
  • finally, gay marriage has shown itself to be hostile to religious liberty

Consequences redefining marriage:

  • it undermines the norm in public like that kids deserve a mom and a dad – moms and dads are interchangeable
  • it changes the institution of marriage away from the needs of children, and towards the needs of adults
  • it undermines the norm of permanence
  • we learned what happens when marriage is redefined before: with no-fault divorce
  • no-fault divorce: after this became law, divorce rates doubled – the law changed society
  • gay marriage would teach society that mothers and fathers are optional when raising children
  • if marriage is what people with intense feelings do, then how can you rationally limit marriage to only two people?
  • if marriage is what people with intense feelings do, then if other people cause intense feelings, there’s no fidelity
  • if marriage is what people with intense feelings do, then if the feelings go away, there is no permanence
  • the public policy consequences to undermining the norms of exclusivity and permanence = fatherless children and fragmented families
  • a final consequences is the decline and elimination of religious liberty – e.g. – adoption agencies closing, businesses being sued

We’re doing very well on abortion, but we need to get better at knowing how to discuss marriage. If you’re looking for something short to read, click here. If you want to read a long paper that his book is based on.

Suzanne Venker interviews Dr. Stephen Baskerville about divorce and its beneficiaries

Marriage and family
Marriage and family

I am just LOVING the Suzanne Venker podcast. You should subscribe if you like discussions with experts about marriage, divorce, feminism, sex and relationships. Recent guests: Christina Hoff Sommers, Rollo Tomassi, Janice Fiamengo, Denise McAllister, Katy Faust, Helen Smith, Joy Pullmann, Heather Mac Donald, Mona Charen, Dr. Laura, Dennis Prager, Allison Armstrong, etc.

You can listen to the episode here.

And it came with a free summary:

Children of divorce are in desperate need of a relationship with both their parents. Sadly, far too many are reduced to having a relationship with only one parent: the mother.

Citing a principle called the “best interest of the child,” family courts award sole or primary custody of most children of divorced parents to mothers, thereby reducing fathers to occasional visitation and zero authority.

The silence on this issue is deafening, and this silence comes just as much from the right as it does from the left. It even comes from churches.

Making matters worse is that divorce is no longer fault-based. Unilateral divorce is now the law of the land, and three-fourths of divorces are initiated by wives. Women don’t have to allege any fault by the husband, and he has no right to oppose the divorce.

To address this monstrous social travesty, I could think of no one better than Stephen Baskerville, former Professor of Government at Patrick Henry College. Stephen is widely recognized as a leading authority on fatherhood, family policy, and sexual politics. He holds a Ph.D. from the London School of Economics and writes on political ideologies with an emphasis on religion, family policy, and sexuality. His books include The New Politics of Sex and Taken Into Custody: The War against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family.

Stephen serves on advisory boards to the Ruth Institute, the Men’s Health Network and other organizations. His website is http://www.stephenbaskerville.com.

IN THIS EPISODE:

5:00-8:00 How Stephen began writing on the “divorce industry,” the political dynamics involved and about no-fault divorce: why it disproportionately affects fathers.

8:00 How women are encouraged to get divorced and take the children, make false accusations against fathers etc.

10:24 How men are less likely to use children as weapons against the other spouse

10:45  The Myth of the Deadbeat Dad

14:00 What is no-fault divorce and why is it wrong, why is it a system of “chaos” and why we need to “enforce the constitution” when it comes to divorce

11:40 – 16:00  How the Bill of Rights is violated in many divorce cases and how basic constitutional rights are being violated.

17:00  How political correctness keeps ups from being able to address it and solve the problems with no-fault divorce and how both the left and right wing media both ignore it

19:00  How even Ronald Reagan admits he was deceived when he signed the first No Fault divorce legislation into action in CA. How there was also no public debate or discussion at the time it was enacted and throughout the years until now

19:45 How these laws have affected the social structure, including crime, fatherlessness in homes, etc.

20:49-22:50  What does Stephen tell and recommend for fathers as recourse for these issues?

24:35-30:30  Why the effects of the sexual revolution have led to the the West to brink of social and economic ruin (this includes sexual chaos, domestic violence, sexual harassment, etc.)

30:45 – Why feminism has not created a “utopia” for a women

33:00 – Stephen discusses single parent homes and the breakdown of the family

36:20 How the church not being involved in marriage has created a vacuum for the lawyers, social workers, judges and therapists to step in

37:45 Stephen talks about the idea of being “offended” and why men are responsible for stepping up and being leaders

For a virgin who has not and probably never will marry, I have had a lifelong interest in how to date and marry the right way – in order to get results and leave a legacy. So I know all these speakers, and have books my many of them (Dr. Laura, Janice Fiamengo, Helen Smith, Dr. Laura, Christina Hoff Sommers, Stephen Baskerville, etc.) in my house. I’m fascinated by these issues and know very much about what does and does not work in a marriage.

New study: sex-reassignment surgery does not bring mental health benefits

Thinking about transgenderism
Thinking about transgenderism

If you look at the actual science of sex re-assignment surgery, it doesn’t make a good case that these procedures actually deliver results.

Here’s the latest from Daily Signal:

The world’s largest dataset on patients who have undergone sex-reassignment procedures reveals that these procedures do not bring mental health benefits. But that’s not what the authors originally claimed. Or what the media touted.

In October 2019, the American Journal of Psychiatry published a paper titled, “Reduction in Mental Health Treatment Utilization Among Transgender Individuals After Gender-Affirming Surgeries: A Total Population Study.” As the title suggests, the paper claimed that after having had sex-reassignment surgeries, a patient was less likely to need mental health treatment.

Well, over the weekend, the editors of the journal and the authors of the paper issued a correction. In the words of the authors, “the results demonstrated no advantage of surgery in relation to subsequent mood or anxiety disorder-related health care.”

But it’s actually worse than that. The original results already demonstrated no benefits to hormonal transition. That part didn’t need a correction.

So, the bottom line: The largest dataset on sex-reassignment procedures—both hormonal and surgical—reveals that such procedures do not bring the promised mental health benefits.

In fact, in their correction to the original study, the authors point out that on one score—treatment for anxiety disorders—patients who had sex-reassignment surgeries did worse than those who did not:

individuals diagnosed with gender incongruence who had received gender-affirming surgery were more likely to be treated for anxiety disorders compared with individuals diagnosed with gender incongruence who had not received gender-affirming surgery.

You would think patients suffering from gender dysphoria would want to know that.

Previously, I had blogged about another study that found that the choice to go transgender was enormously susceptible to peer pressure and teacher pressure.

Here’s how the study was first reported by Science Daily:

This month, a Brown University researcher published the first study to empirically describe teens and young adults who did not have symptoms of gender dysphoria during childhood but who were observed by their parents to rapidly develop gender dysphoria symptoms over days, weeks or months during or after puberty.

[…]The study was published on Aug. 16 in PLOS ONE.

Peer pressure / The Internet:

The pattern of clusters of teens in friend groups becoming transgender-identified, the group dynamics of these friend groups and the types of advice viewed online led her to the hypothesis that friends and online sources could spread certain beliefs.

[….]”Of the parents who provided information about their child’s friendship group, about a third responded that more than half of the kids in the friendship group became transgender-identified,” Littman said. “A group with 50 percent of its members becoming transgender-identified represents a rate that is more 70 times the expected prevalence for young adults.”

“Friends and online sources could spread certain beliefs”.

Mental disorders / traumatic events:

Additionally, 62 percent of parents reported their teen or young adult had one or more diagnoses of a psychiatric disorder or neurodevelopmental disability before the onset of gender dysphoria. Forty-eight percent reported that their child had experienced a traumatic or stressful event prior to the onset of their gender dysphoria, including being bullied, sexually assaulted or having their parents get divorced.

“experienced a traumatic or stressful event prior to the onset of their gender dysphoria” such as “having their parents get divorced”.

When you read studies like this, it almost makes you think that we shouldn’t be rushing children into sex-reassignment surgery, doesn’t it? But then what would the adults who are desperate to feel good about themselves do to feel good about themselves? It makes them feel good to let children do whatever they want. And it feels so bad to tell children no when they want something. The important thing for these selfish adults is to let the children do what they want right now. That’s called “compassion”.