This news story happened recently, and I think it’s worth blogging about to show how secular leftists see marriage, family, and parent’s rights. Now, you would think that since 1) the parents are paying the salaries of the secular leftists in government and 2) parents are paying the bills for all of the children’s needs, that secular leftists would respect parent’s leadership. Let’s take a look.

Here’s the first article from Daily Signal:

California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill into law Monday banning schools from implementing policies that require parents be notified if their child requests to be identified as a different gender.

AB 1955, also known as the Support Academic Futures and Educators for Today’s Youth (SAFETY) Act, strikes down policies that some California schools have already implemented protecting parents’ rights to be made aware of issues and make decisions regarding their children.

So, parents are “good enough” to pay the salaries of secular leftists in the California government and public schools. But they are not “good enough” to be told what is happening to their own children in the schools that they are paying for. Parents and families have no role to play in the lives of young people. Only the secular leftists are allowed to teach the children about anything.

Secular leftists think that parents are just slaves, and that the slaves have to let the masters take their money and indoctrinate their children. The masters don’t want the slaves to tell their children that the masters are bad. But when the children run into problems, it’s the parents they turn to for love and support. The masters don’t spend their own money and time fixing anyone’s problems. They’re “generous” with other people’s time and money, not their own.

And it’s not just California, it’s in the Biden administration as well. This is how the federal government thinks, too.

Here’s another article from Daily Signal:

The chief pediatrician at Texas Children’s Hospital resigned in April 2022 after just seven months in her role, shortly after Gov. Greg Abbott forced the hospital to pause attempted sex-change procedures on children, such as puberty blockers, hormones, and surgeries.

Now she’s working for President Joe Biden’s administration in a high-ranking position at the National Institutes of Health as Biden’s Justice Department targets whistleblowers exposing alleged ongoing transgender practices at Texas Children’s.

[…]This appointment came after conversations with trans-identifying Rachel Levine, the biologically male assistant secretary at HHS who identifies as a woman, according to emails obtained by America First Legal (AFL) through litigation against HHS.

AFL believes that the emails illustrate “the Biden administration’s conscious decision to continue pushing the harmful practice of child transgender surgeries and to assist in stepping up HHS Office for Civil Rights (OCR) investigations in Texas following the state’s ban of such medical treatments on children in March 2022.”

Something to think about now that we are having elections. Have you checked voter guides to see which candidates are the most conservative? I have. Make sure you let all your friends know who you are voting for and why, so they can vote too.

I’m trying to find good articles to tell me who the replacement candidates are, and what are the complications with choosing one of these replacements at this late date. In this post, we’ll look at three potential candidates, and talk about the complications of changing candidates after the primary is already over.

Here’s the first article from Daily Signal.

First, what will happen at the convention?

Democrats already have held their primary elections across America. The result was a resounding victory for Biden in a virtually uncontested race. Their options are now limited.

The party can’t hold another primary and the Democratic National Convention, set to begin Aug. 19 in Chicago, is just around the corner.

[…]Biden’s 3,896 pledged convention delegates are free to vote for a replacement at the Democratic National Convention. The total number of Democratic delegates is 3,949, so the president had nearly all of them. If the delegates don’t reach a majority decision with 1,976 votes on a nominee, the party’s so-called superdelegates, over 700 of them, will decide who to nominate.

Superdelegates are party leaders, and the list typically consists of officeholders and former officeholders.

That convention process leaves the field open in a limited sense. To get into the running at the convention, a candidate would have to receive over 300 signatures from delegates. Only a maximum of 50 delegates may come from individual state delegations.

The article mentions California governor Gavin Newsom, Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer, and vice president Kamala Harris. They think that Harris is the most likely candidate to replace Biden, and they note that she is polling well against him:

A CBS/YouGov poll reported last week that Trump leads Harris 51% to 48% in a hypothetical match-up by popular vote. But Forbes reports that the Democratic polling firm Bendixen & Amandi showed Harris could beat Trump 42% to 41%.

Harris has early endorsements from Biden himself, and the Clintons, and she has easier access to Biden’s election campaign money. If she is the nominee, then she gets all of the $91 million.

This editorial from Fox News explains:

If Kamala Harris becomes the Democrat Party presidential nominee, does she get access to the campaign cash?

Yes, because when the Biden for President committee filed its registration statement with the FEC, it registered itself as the “principal campaign committee” for both Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.

If someone other than Kamala Harris becomes the presidential nominee, can that individual access the $91.5 million for his or her presidential campaign?

No, under FEC regulations, the new nominee would have no access to or control over the Biden for President campaign cash. Biden for President would be limited to giving no more than a $2,000 contribution to the new presidential nominee’s campaign committee.

Could the funds be transferred to the Democratic Party?

Yes, under FEC regulation 11 CFR 113.2, there is no limit on the transfer of funds from a candidate committee to party committees. Biden for President could, therefore, transfer all of its cash to the Democratic National Committee, Democratic congressional and senatorial committees, and state and local party committees, which could then use the money to support their federal, state and local candidates. Additionally, pursuant to the regulation, it could make donations to “State and local candidates subject to the provisions of State law.”

However, because political party committees have expenditure limits (a vestige of the 1970s post-Watergate federal campaign finance reforms), the DNC is limited in the amount of its expenditures that it is permitted to make in coordination with the new nominee’s campaign committee.

For the 2024 campaign, the limit is $32.4 million. A party committee could make independent expenditures regarding the presidential campaign, but it could not make unlimited coordinated expenditures of the newly transferred funds.

The article also notes all the money could be sent to Democrat SuperPACs, but there cannot be any coordination between them and the new nominee’s campaign.

I scanned some articles from the secular left news sites, and they seemed to think that Harris was going to be the nominee. I guess we’ll find out on August 19th. If they go with her, then they won’t have to change the names on all the state ballots. But if they choose someone else, there could be problems changing the name.

Did you know that women tend to be further to the left than men? According to surveys, women are more leftist than men on abortion, same-sex marriage, and a host of other policies. I’ll show you a few surveys below. But even more interesting is that there is a link between support for leftist policies, and higher mental illness. Let’s take a look at it.

First, here is an article from The Hill:

Forty-four percent of young women counted themselves liberal in 2021, compared to 25 percent of young men, according to Gallup Poll data analyzed by the Survey Center on American Life. The gender gap is the largest recorded in 24 years of polling. The finding culminates years of rising liberalism among women ages 18 to 29, without any increase among their male peers.

That article is a bit old, here’s a new one from this week in The Post Millennial:

In annual surveys over the last few years, data pulled from Monitoring the Future has shown that about a quarter of high school seniors identify as conservative or very conservative. Only 13 percent of the 12th grade boys identify as liberal.

[…]The graph excludes moderate students, but of those high school seniors that do identify politically, around 65 percent of boys were conservative while only around 31 percent of girls identified that way.

According to surveys, young women are also more likely to support abortion under any circumstances (40 to 27) and more likely to support same-sex marriage than men.

I don’t support abortion because I favor the rights of unborn babies over the happiness of adults. I don’t support same-sex marriage because studies show children do better when they are raised by a mother and a father. And I think that’s why most of these men are with me, they follow that same reasoning, and side with the children against the adults.

I thought this part of the article was interesting:

As one Politico analyst put it, “Democrats have a masculinity problem.” Citing trends among black and Latino voters, the analyst pointed out that even in minority communities that have voted majority Democrat, men have been turning to the Republican party at higher rates than women.

Some conservative figures such as Jordan Peterson and Dennis Prager (through PragerU) have millions of followers on YouTube, a platform where the users are majority male.

In addition, one of the more popular conservative political podcasts, The Ben Shapiro Show, has an audience that skews overwhelmingly male at 86 percent. The audience also skews younger, 18-44, in comparison to Fox’s former show with Tucker Carlson, 25-54, which skews slightly female at 53 percent.

This is good news. Boys are finding themselves role models who they see as “strong”. And those new role models are conservative. These stronger role models champion truth, and they make moral judgements. Even if it hurts other people’s feelings.

Let’s go on to the second point. These leftist policies are having a bad effect on young women’s mental health.

Feminist web site Evie Magazine reported on the some 2020 findings by Pew Research (left-wing pollster):

A 2020 Pew Research study reveals that over half of white, liberal women have been diagnosed with a mental health condition at some point.

[T]he study, which is titled Pew American Trends Panel: Wave 64, was dated March 2020 — over a year ago.

The study, which examined white liberals, moderates, and conservatives, both male and female, found that conservatives were far less likely to be diagnosed with mental health issues than those who identified as either liberal or even “very liberal.”

[…]White women, ages 18-29, who identified as liberal were given a mental health diagnosis from medical professionals at a rate of 56.3%, as compared to 28.4% in moderates and 27.3% in conservatives.

I found an interesting article in the Wall Street Journal that talked about how one leftist policy concern (global warming alarmism) is tied to higher rates of mental illness.

It says:

A study in 2021 of 16- to 25-year-olds in 10 countries including the U.S. reported that 59% were very or extremely worried about climate change, and 84% were at least moderately worried. Forty-five percent claimed they were so worried that they struggled to function on a daily basis, the definition of an anxiety disorder.

The study found that the mental illness was more common in younger people:

Climate anxiety and dissatisfaction with government responses are widespread in children and young people in countries across the world and impact their daily functioning.

So now we are looking at a direct link between the policies of the left, and the lower mental health of the left. And we know that more women than men are on the left. And we see more mental illness among women.  Interesting, isn’t it?

And this has consequences. Leftist women are noticing that men are more conservative than they are, and it’s affecting their dating:

The marriage rate is also declining. Could this decline in marriage be related to the increase in leftist women, and all the related mental illnesses that leftist women have? Does it make sense for a conservative man to enter a relationship where he pays all the costs and bears all the risks, but all the decisions are being made by a leftist woman? It’s dangerous for a man to do that.

Consider that the divorce rate is very high right now, and divorce takes away a man’s money, his access to his kids, and his freedom. Women initiate 69% of divorces. College-educated women  – who are especially leftist – initiate 90% of divorces. This high divorce rate cannot be blamed on men, because the divorce rate of lesbians is the highest of all. No man to blame in that situation.

Why would a man sign up to be controlled by feminist institutions, like the divorce courts? Men are not interested in projects where they have to pay for everything, but someone else is making the decisions. Especially if they get blamed when things go wrong.

Facing all of these risks, a man would have to be crazy to even talk to a leftist woman – much less date her. Unfortunately, we aren’t making enough young conservative women for these conservative young men to marry. And so, the marriage rate is declining. Young women today are not as conservative as previous generations.

I know a lot of people today are worried about young men falling under the influence of bad role models. But the surveys show that boys tend to have the right role models, and the right political views. So, we need to work on making young women more conservative.