News

Gay rights activist Congresswoman admits to affair with younger campaign staffer

3 Comments
Here she is speaking for the Human Rights Campaign, a massive gay rights group
Katie Hill speaking for the Human Rights Campaign, a major gay rights group

When I saw all these stories coming out about Hollywood elites and Democrat mega-donors exposed for sexual harassment, pedophilia, rape, etc., I really started to wonder whether there is anything more to the Democrat party than championing sexual perversion and inflicting the consequences of that onto children, born and unborn. Here’s the latest Democrat sex scandal in the news.

Here’s the Washington Examiner reporting:

California Democratic Rep. Katie Hill was still paying consulting fees to her campaign staffer and former lover Morgan Desjardins, 24, as recently as last month.

According to FEC Records, since April 2019, Hill’s campaign has paid a little over $14,000 in fundraising-related consulting fees to Desjardins, doling out around $2,500 most months. Additionally, between 2017 and 2018, she made around $50,000 as a senior campaign staffer.

Hill, who is facing a House Ethics Committee investigation over allegations she had an intimate relationship with her legislative director, Graham Kelly, found herself under scrutiny after a nude photo of her brushing Desjardin’s hair was posted on the RedState.

Hill, 32, has admitted her relationship with Desjardins during her successful campaign for a House seat based in northern Los Angeles County but disputed any inappropriate relationship between her and Kelly occurred.

The image was posted along with text messages sent between Hill, the congresswoman’s estranged husband Kenny Heslep, whom she is divorcing, and Desjardins. According to the texts posted at RedState, the trio had an intimate three-way relationship during Hill’s first campaign for office, but it soured quickly after she won her race and went to Washington, D.C.

Now, the problem with having sex with your subordinates is that there is a power dynamic, because you are paying them. It’s easy to see what Katie Hill did as sexual assault and even rape, because her employees may have felt that they had to do whatever she wanted, e.g. – threesomes, with her, or they would lose their jobs. This is why companies outlaw relationships between employees – they don’t want people to use power within the company to pressure subordinates into sexual activities. Yet Democrats do this all the time and the mainstream media is silent about it.

Remember, even the pious, moral Muslim Ilhan Omar is now divorcing her husband because she had an affair with someone she was paying with campaign funds:

Rep. Ilhan Omar has filed for divorce from the father of her three kids, claiming the marriage is “irretrievable” — amid allegations that she had an affair with DC-based political consultant Tim Mynett.

[…]In August, The Post was first to report that DC-based doctor Beth Mynett had filed for divorce from her husband, Tim Mynett, alleging that he was carrying on an affair with Omar.

All the while, Omar’s campaign fund was paying Tim Mynett’s firm for work, including for travel.

Are Democrats really obsessed with sexual deviancy? Well, consider Democrats like Bill Clinton, Anthony Weiner, Eliot Spitzer, Eric Schneiderman, Ed Murray, etc. It seems like they are always involved in sex scandals. And in fact you can even see wealthy Democrat mega-donors like Jeffrey Epstein and Terry Bean getting charged with having sex with underage people all the time. (Terry Bean is the co-founder of the Human Rights Campaign, the largest gay rights group in the nation). The Democrat politicians who take money from the sexual deviants then try to change America to make what their donors are doing seem normal and even praiseworthy. That’s why Hillary Clinton threatened the women who accused her husband of rape and sexual assault.

Sexual deviancy seems to be the main plank in the Democrat party platform, and all the rest of the rhetoric about “free this” and “free that” is just to buy the votes needed to make all sorts of adult selfishness and sexual exploitation of the weak legal, and even immune to dissent and disapproval. Which is why Democrats are always using the government to attack Christians who disapprove of adult selfishness and sexual exploitation of the weak.

Now I have a question for you. What is it that young Democrat women are hoping to achieve by supporting the party of sexual deviance? Do they think that this will lead them to a faithful man, a stable marriage, well-behaved children and a peaceful home? If so, then maybe we ought to be having talks with young women about what sort of worldview grounds self-sacrificial love, commitment, and objective moral obligations. It sure isn’t the secular leftist nihilistic worldview of the Democrat party. If they want a Mike Pence marriage, then why not tell them to get the worldview of Mike Pence? They certainly won’t get to a Mike Pence marriage with the worldview of Katie Hill.

If you want to read more about Katie Hill’s destructive relationships, check out this story from Red State, which has blurred photos and text messages.

News

Atheist Jerry Coyne explains why morality is impossible for atheists

1 Comment
Sherlock Holmes and John Watson about to do philosophy
Sherlock Holmes and John Watson about to do philosophy

Let’s review what you need in your worldview in order to have a rationally grounded system of morality.

You need 5 things:

1) Objective moral values

There needs to be a way to distinguish what is good from what is bad. For example, the moral standard might specify that being kind to children is good, but torturing them for fun is bad. If the standard is purely subjective, then people could believe anything and each person would be justified in doing right in their own eyes. Even a “social contract” is just based on people’s opinions. So we need a standard that applies regardless of what people’s individual and collective opinions are.

2) Objective moral duties

Moral duties (moral obligations) refer to the actions that are obligatory based on the moral values defined in 1). Suppose we spot you 1) as an atheist. Why are you obligated to do the good thing, rather than the bad thing? To whom is this obligation owed? Why is rational for you to limit your actions based upon this obligation when it is against your self-interest? Why let other people’s expectations decide what is good for you, especially if you can avoid the consequences of their disapproval?

3) Moral accountability

Suppose we spot you 1) and 2) as an atheist. What difference does it make to you if you just go ahead and disregard your moral obligations to whomever? Is there any reward or punishment for your choice to do right or do wrong? What’s in it for you?

4) Free will

In order for agents to make free moral choices, they must be able to act or abstain from acting by exercising their free will. If there is no free will, then moral choices are impossible. If there are no moral choices, then no one can be held responsible for anything they do. If there is no moral responsibility, then there can be no praise and blame. But then it becomes impossible to praise any action as good or evil.

5) Ultimate significance

Finally, beyond the concept of reward and punishment in 3), we can also ask the question “what does it matter?”. Suppose you do live a good life and you get a reward: 1000 chocolate sundaes. And when you’ve finished eating them, you die for real and that’s the end. In other words, the reward is satisfying, but not really meaningful, ultimately. It’s hard to see how moral actions can be meaningful, ultimately, unless their consequences last on into the future.

Theism rationally grounds all 5 of these. Atheism cannot ground any of them.

Let’s take a look at #4: free will and see how atheism deals with that.

Atheism and free will?

Here’s prominent atheist Jerry Coyne’s editorial in USA Today to explain why atheists can’t ground free will. (Note: link is dead)

Excerpt:

And that’s what neurobiology is telling us: Our brains are simply meat computers that, like real computers, are programmed by our genes and experiences to convert an array of inputs into a predetermined output. Recent experiments involving brain scans show that when a subject “decides” to push a button on the left or right side of a computer, the choice can be predicted by brain activity at least seven seconds before the subject is consciously aware of having made it. (These studies use crude imaging techniques based on blood flow, and I suspect that future understanding of the brain will allow us to predict many of our decisions far earlier than seven seconds in advance.) “Decisions” made like that aren’t conscious ones. And if our choices are unconscious, with some determined well before the moment we think we’ve made them, then we don’t have free will in any meaningful sense.

If you don’t have free will, then you can’t make moral choices, and you can’t be held morally responsible. No free will means no morality.

Here are some more atheists to explain how atheists view morality.

William Provine says atheists have no free will, no moral accountability and no moral significance:

Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear — and these are basically Darwin’s views. There are no gods, no purposes, and no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end of me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will for humans, either.

Richard Dawkins says atheists have no objective moral standards:

In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, or any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference… DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music. (Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life (1995))

When village atheists talk about how they can be moral without God, it’s important to ask them to justify the minimum requirements for rational morality. Atheists may act inconsistently with their worldview, believing in free will, expecting praise and blame for complying with the arbitrary standards of their peer group, etc. But there is nothing more to morality on atheism that imitating the herd – at least when the herd is around to watch them. And when the herd loses its Judeo-Christian foundation – watch out. That’s when the real atheism comes out – the atheism that we’ve seen before in countries that turned their backs on God, and the moral law. When God disappears from a society, anything is permissible.

News

Court rules that father must affirm that his son is a girl

20 Comments

Most people today who have noticed that men are hesitant to get married, or even get into relationships, with women. But few outside of the men’s rights movement are aware of the real reasons. Although it’s fashionable to mock men as weaklings for their cautiousness with women and marriage, it takes a little more work to look beyond the insults and find the real root causes.

So, with that in mind, consider this story from the red state of Texas, about a man whose ex-wife took him to court to force their 7-year-old boy to transition (via drugs and surgery) to becoming female.

Here’s the first from Life Site News, posted in December 2018:

A six-year-old Texas boy is being dressed and presented as a girl by his mother; at the same time, she is threatening the boy’s father legally for not going along with her plan for their son to live as a girl.

J4m35 lives as a girl when with his mother, but when with his father and given the choice, the six-year-old boy lives as a boy.

Court order:

J3ffr3y Y0ng3r is currently prohibited by court order from affirming in any way his son’s sex, including imparting Christian teaching on gender and sexuality to J4m35.

Child abuse charges against the father for disapproving:

4nn3 G30rgu1a5 has charged Y0ng3r, her ex-husband and J4m35’s father, with child abuse for not affirming their son as a transgender “girl,” according to court documents.

Restraining order blocking father’s contact with the boys:

She has also sought restraining orders against Y0ng3r, she is trying to terminate his parental rights, and also seeks to compel Y0ng3r to pay for J4m35’s visits with a transgender-affirming therapist and for medical procedures to “transition” J4m35 to a girl.

Chemical castration and sex-reassignment surgery:

The controversial “treatment” could include hormonal sterilization that could begin in as soon as two years when J4m35 turns eight, in preparation for J4m35 to later have “sexual reassignment” surgery.

Father loses all parental rights:

The court has awarded her the sole right to consent to psychiatric and psychological treatment of J4m35 and his twin brother Jude, rendering the boys’ father unable to get a second opinion.

Child Protective Services:

Y0ng3r is even prohibited from cutting his sons’ hair, having been reported by a teacher to Texas Child Protective Services for giving J4m35 a haircut.

Father gets the bill:

Since the cost for psychological and psychiatric treatment of children is considered child support in Texas, a website on the case created by friends of the family says, and current Texas statutes being what they are, Y0ng3r could be “forced to pay for the sexual mutilation of his own son.”

And here is the latest from Life Site News about the outcome of the trial:

A jury has ruled against J3ffr3y Y0ng3r, the father who is trying to protect his seven-year-old son, J4m35, from chemical castration via a gender “transition.”

[…]The jury’s decision likely means that Mr. Y0ng3r will be required to “affirm” J4m35 as a girl, despite his religious and moral objections, and will also be forced to take a class on transgenderism.

Although it was a jury trial, I just want to point out that the judge overseeing the trial is a woman, and G30rgu1a5 has two female lawyers leading the questioning of witnesses.  The therapist who diagnosed the boy with gender dysphoria is also a (gay) woman, and founder of Da11as Ra1nb0w C0uns3l1ng. So a panel of women is overruling the wishes of the child’s father for his son, and this apparently isn’t a problem for anyone.

The American Conservative noted that G30rgu1a5 is not the biological mother of the boys. They were conceived with Y0ng3r’s sperm and eggs from an egg donor. This is an immediate red flag to me, as women who use IVF are often feminists who deliberately delayed child-bearing during their fertile years for their careers.

By the way, the story has also been reported in The Blaze, the Daily Caller, Daily Wire, Christian Post, etc.

Support for gay marriage by gender (Source: Pew Research 2019)
Support for gay marriage by gender (Source: Pew Research 2019)

My thoughts

First, everyone who reads this blog knows that I am forever blaming women for their poor choice of men, and poor choices of when to have sex. Well, it works exactly the same in reverse: Jeff Y0ng3r should not have married this woman. I blame him for this mess.

Second, there is no concern in the church about the challenges facing marriage-minded men in this society. Christian men receive no support from the church when they try to lead on moral or spiritual issues that conflict with women’s emotions and preference for non-judgmentalism. In my opinion, it’s very likely that if I were somehow married to this crazy lady, that my church would side with her against me, just because she is a woman. After all, what are people learning in church about male headship or defenses against feminism or LGBT? NOTHING. The church’s goal is to produce feelings and community. They prioritize essential oils and praise hymns. What good is that to me against  an army of anti-Christian teachers, doctors, therapists, lawyers, judges, and powerful gay rights groups? I’m not going to get involved in a situation where I am wasting a lot of time and money losing legal battles.

Finally, I just wanted to point out that marriage-minded men are aware of how the government is stepping in and overruling their authority as fathers and husbands. It’s not just in obvious ways, like no-fault divorce, higher taxes, big government meddling in families, Equality Act, etc. It’s also in subtle ways, e.g. – men are forced to pay into a public school system that is dominated by secular leftist administrators and teachers. Stories like the one above show a growing intrusion by government into Christian men’s lives, which is made possible by higher taxes and more government spending. The money for big government intrusions comes out of Christian homes. The bigger the government, the less money and fewer degrees of freedom the husband / father has to execute his plan. And this is something we have to address if we expect Christian men to take the risk of getting married and having kids. “Man up and jump off this cliff that feminism and socialism has made!” isn’t going to cut it.