News

Woman ignored father’s objections about her boyfriend, then boyfriend murdered her

8 Comments

There is a big battle between feminism and patriarchy. Feminists tell women to imitate the values and priorities of the hot no-commitment bad boys. These men are the “best” men, because they they don’t want to end the woman’s fun times with “boring” marriage. That’s feminism. On the other side are the patriarchs, who tell women to choose good men, and not to delay marriage.

Here is a good story from the New York Post about a father who tried to lead his daughter, but was ignored by her.

A 27-year-old mother of two has been identified as the victim beheaded on a street in Northern California last week.

Karina Castro, who worked as a Door Dash driver, left behind 7-year-old and 1-year-old girls, KGO-TV reported.

Her youngest daughter was fathered by the man who’s been arrested for her murder, 33-year-old Jose Raphael Solano Landaeta, who goes by the name Rafa Solano.

Her father, Marty Castro, told the outlet, “Every time I saw her, I would beg her. Don’t talk to him. Leave him and it seemed like the more I did that, the more she would see him.”

Solano had been violent with Castro before, and she got a restraining order against him in April, but continued to see him, Castro’s family said.

Deputies from the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office found Karina’s body Thursday in San Carlos, south of San Francisco, after being flagged down by a witness, law enforcement sources told KNTV.

Her head had been cut off with a sword, the local outlet reported.

The trouble with feminists is that they see traditional male and female character traits as “sexist”. Chastity is sexist. Sobriety is sexist. Choosing mates based on their marriage-ability is sexist. Marrying early is sexist. Being a stay-at-home mom is sexist. Any kind of expectation on women to act like traditional women and prepare for wife and mother roles is “sexist”. Any kind of expectation on men to act like traditional men and prepare for husband and father roles is “sexist”.

So what ends up happening is that women just pick whichever man looks good to them, and gives them tingles. And guess what? The tall, hot bad boys with tattoos give more tingles than the average height guy with no tattoos or piercings who makes 80K working as an electrician. Women have been taught to avoid men who demonstrate ability at traditional male roles: protector, provider, moral leader and spiritual leader. They don’t want to be judged, and they don’t want to be led. What’s left to choose once you eliminate traditional male roles as “sexist”? What’s left is this murderer guy.

When I was interning with a big Information Technology company, I met a girl named Carolyn. Carolyn had a boyfriend who she was sexually active with. She would complain to everyone about how her boyfriend just stayed in school and studied philosophy. And about how he would not propose to her. And about how she could not get him to act morally. So I said to her, why would you choose such a man if all you do is complain about him?

The answer I finally got was that she chose him precisely because of the things she complained about. He was a philosophy student, so he could not judge her for being lazy in her career. He was an atheist, so he couldn’t judge her for drinking, smoking, or forgetting his birthday. Any time he tried to hold her accountable for something, she could easily get him to shut up about it by giving him sex. She wanted to choose a man who would not make moral judgments of her or lead her toward marriage. And he didn’t. Then she would complain that he didn’t behave morally or propose marriage.

Patriarchy is the idea that women’s fathers should be able to advise them about how to make wise decisions, especially about men. Fathers don’t have any tingles about hot, bad boys. They hate hot, bad boys. Instead, they like marriage-minded good men who read their Bibles and have long, gapless resumes. When you see radical feminists raging against patriarchy, they are raging against the biological fathers of women. They don’t like the idea that biological fathers lead their daughters towards marriage and motherhood. Right now, we are playing an interesting game in society, where good fathers are demeaned and degraded. What you see in the story above is what happens when young woman accept this view.

News

Treason? FBI paid Russian informant to lie to them about Trump

3 Comments

There was a bombshell news story that came out on Tuesday that I wanted to tell everyone about. Previously, we knew that a Democrat PR firm and a Democrat law firm were behind the Trump-Russia collusion dossier. This is the dossier that the FBI used to get a warrant to spy on Trump’s election campaign staff during the election. Now there is news about the source of the dossier.

Margot Cleveland writes about it at The Federalist:

Our federal government paid for Russian disinformation to frame the president of the United States for colluding with Russia.

The FBI put a contributor to the Hillary Clinton campaign’s Donald Trump smear dossier on FBI payroll as a confidential human source after investigating Igor Danchenko for allegedly spying for the Russian government, revealed Special Counsel John Durham in a court filing unsealed by a Virginia federal court yesterday. The filing contains this bombshell and seven other significant details about the Democrat-led plot to use U.S. intelligence agencies to deny Americans the results of their choice for president in 2016.

The FBI made Danchenko a confidential human source, providing him and the FBI’s use of him “national security” cover, in March 2017 and terminated that designation in October 2020, according to the court filing unsealed on Sept. 13. Danchenko is the originator of the false claim trumpeted all over global media that Donald Trump told prostitutes to pee on beds the Obamas had slept in in a Russian hotel.

The FBI had previously targeted Danchenko, Christopher Steele’s primary source, as a possible Russian agent. But after discovering Danchenko’s identity as Steele’s Sub-Source No. 1, rather than investigate whether Danchenko had been feeding Steele Russian disinformation, the FBI paid Danchenko as a CHS.

Danchenko faces trial next month on five counts of lying to the FBI related to his role as Steele’s primary sub-source.

That’s pretty mild compared to this revelation:

A second shocker from the Sept. 13 court filing concerned Danchenko’s hiring as a paid CHS.

“In March 2017, the FBI signed the defendant up as a paid confidential human source of the FBI,” the special counsel revealed in the motion. It was not until October 2020 that “the FBI terminated its source relationship with” Danchenko.

Simply put: Our federal government paid for Russian disinformation to frame the president of the United States for colluding with Russia.

The FBI did this knowing that Danchenko “was associate of two FBI counterintelligence subjects”; “had previous contact with the Russian Embassy and known Russian intelligence officers”; “had also informed one Russian intelligence officer that he had interest in entering the Russian diplomatic service”; and, according to a think-tank employee, suggested he had contacts willing to purchase classified information.

Also, the FBI and Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team continued to use Danchenko as a paid CHS even knowing his stories were fabrications. In fact, Mueller’s team was so focused on getting Trump, it completely ignored whether the Steele dossier included Russian disinformation.

Hillary Clinton was involved in collusion with Russians in order to interfere with the 2016 election:

Not only did the FBI pay for Russian disinformation, so did Clinton, and she did so to interfere in the 2016 election. The public already knew from Durham’s (failed) prosecution of Clinton campaign attorney Michael Sussmann that the campaign paid Fusion GPS for opposition research. Fusion in turn hired Steele to dig up dirt on Trump.

That trial also revealed that Clinton personally approved pushing a smaller aspect of the Russia-collusion hoax, namely the Alfa-Bank secret communications hoax.

From yesterday’s filing we now know the primary sub-source for the Steele dossier paid for by Clinton was not merely a Russian national who fabricated the “intel,” but also a suspected Russian agent. Tuesday’s motion also highlighted the fact that longtime Clinton backer “Dolan maintained a relationship with several high-ranking Russian government officials who appear in the Steele Reports.”

So, for all her vapors over Trump’s connections with Russia and his supposed collusion with Russia to interfere in the election, the evidence shows Clinton holds that dishonor.

There’s another report on these events here from Just The News, which is centrist.

I definitely recommend reading Margot’s article about this, to find out how corrupt and untrustworthy the FBI really are. If they don’t want people to think of them as corrupt and untrustworthy, then they should quit going after whistleblowers and clean their own house. They did this to themselves. They hired partisan Democrats and now they are shocked that there were no checks and balances to stop the treason that followed. Instead of pointing fingers at us for judging them, they should point fingers at themselves. These are incompetent, immoral people. No different from the secret police in any other fascist socialist regime.

News

New study: Contraceptives double risk of depression in teenage girls

2 Comments

The Sydney Morning Herald reports:

A Danish study of a million women has found a link between the use of hormonal contraception such as the the pill and increased risk of depression.

Compared with non-users, women and teenage girls aged 15 to 34 who used hormonal contraception had a 1.23 times higher risk of being diagnosed with depression, especially adolescents, according to a paper published in the journal JAMA Psychiatry.

Researchers at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark analysed health registry data of one million Danish women from 2000 and followed them up after an average of six years.

Of the 55 per cent of those who used hormonal contraception, there were just over 23,000 first diagnoses of depression at the time of follow up.

More than 133,000 had received their first prescription of antidepressants.

The highest risk of depression was among the adolescent girls, who had a 1.8-times higher risk of first use of an antidepressant.

The risk varied slightly among the different types of hormonal contraception, but the risk was three times higher among those who used non-oral products, such as progestogen implants.

Few studies have quantified the effect of low-dose hormonal contraception on the risk for depression, but study author Ojvind Lidegaard says their research warrants the need for further studies into the potential adverse effects of the pill.

“Use of hormonal contraceptives was associated with subsequent antidepressant use and first diagnosis of depression at a psychiatric hospital among women living in Denmark.

“Adolescents seemed to be more vulnerable to this risk than women 20 to 34 years old,” Lidegaard said.

Of course, one wonders where these studies were BEFORE the pill was championed by the radical feminists. We didn’t have studies before we adopted abortion, no-fault divorce, single mother welfare and gay marriage, either. Do you think that those might have unintended consequences? Shouldn’t we care about the consequences before we adopt policies that go against traditional moral values?

Anyway, let’s review some studies on birth control pills, since no one ever tells young people these things before it’s too late.

This is from the ultra-leftist Time magazine, of all places.

Excerpt:

Dr. David Gaist, a neurologist at Odense University Hospital and the University of Southern Denmark, and his colleagues found that women taking hormonal contraceptives — those containing estrogen, progestin or a combination of both — showed higher rates of a rare brain tumor known as glioma. Their results, published Thursday in the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, raise questions about the connection between oral contraceptives and brain cancer, but shouldn’t yet be interpreted as a reason to stop taking birth control, says Gaist.

Using data from Denmark’s national registries of health records, cancer cases and prescriptions, Gaist zeroed in on the women aged 15 years to 49 years diagnosed with glioma, and then analyzed whether they were prescribed contraceptives and for how long. Overall, women who had used hormonal contraceptives at any point in their lives showed a 50% higher risk of developing the brain tumors compared to those who had not used them. And women who used the birth control for more than five years nearly doubled their risk of the cancer.

Let’s take a look at some previous studies on the effects of contraceptives.

From the Times of India.

Excerpt:

 Women who take oral contraceptives regularly are at a higher risk of developing breast cancer compared to others, shows a study by AIIMS doctors. Breast cancer risk was found to be 9.5 times more in women with a history of consuming such pills. Early menstruation cycle, late marriage and lower duration of breastfeeding were the other major factors responsible for the disease among Indians, according to the study published in the latest issue of the Indian Journal of Cancer.

The study was conducted on 640 women, of which 320 were breast cancer patients. “We found long-term use of oral contraceptive pills (OCP) higher among those suffering from breast cancer-11.9%-compared to healthy individuals-1.2%,” said Dr Umesh Kapil, a professor at the public health nutrition unit, AIIMS. He said breast cancer is caused by repeated exposure of breast cells to circulating ovarian hormones, and long-term use of OCPs, which contain estrogen and progesterone, may be increasing this risk by causing hormonal imbalance.

The study mostly had women who used OCPs for birth control. Emergency contraceptives, popularly called morning-after pills, were not included.

This is not the first study, nor even the second study, to confirm this link.

Birth control pills

Many studies showed that taking birth control pills caused an increased risk of breast cancer.

Study 1: (March 2003)

RESULTS: Among the youngest age group (<35 years, n = 545), significant predictors of risk included African-American race (RR = 2.66: 95% CI 1.4-4.9) and recent use of oral contraceptives (RR = 2.26; 95% CI 1.4-3.6). Although these relationships were strongest for estrogen receptor-negative (ER-) tumors (RRs of 3.30 for race and 3.56 for recent oral contraceptive use), these associations were also apparent for young women with ER+ tumors. Delayed childbearing was a risk factor for ER+ tumors among the older premenopausal women (Ptrend < 0.01), but not for women <35 years in whom early childbearing was associated with an increased risk, reflecting a short-term increase in risk immediately following a birth.

Study 2: (October 2008)

Oral contraceptive use ≥1 year was associated with a 2.5-fold increased risk for triple-negative breast cancer (95% confidence interval, 1.4-4.3) and no significantly increased risk for non-triple-negative breast cancer (Pheterogeneity = 0.008). Furthermore, the risk among oral contraceptive users conferred by longer oral contraceptive duration and by more recent use was significantly greater for triple-negative breast cancer than non-triple-negative breast cancer (Pheterogeneity = 0.02 and 0.01, respectively).

When people talk about a war on women, maybe they should be thinking about this practice of promoting behaviors to women that make them sick. And eventually, we all have to pay for the increased costs of health care when we encourage people to do things that make them sick. We should not be promoting birth control to young women in order to enable them to have recreational sex. It’s not worth the harm it causes them. When you add in the psychological damage and the risk of abortion if the contraception fails, it really is not the right thing to tell a young woman.