Culture, Issues, States

Judge Strikes Down California Assisted-Suicide Law

California’s insistence on allowing doctors to send patients to a premature death has hit a brick wall this week after a state judge struck down the state’s 2016 End of Life Option Act.

California was among latest (very blue) states to jump onto the bandwagon in deciding when a sick or elderly person’s life is no longer ‘quality’ and therefore worthy of ‘death with dignity’.

But the dark underside of the policy stinks of the sort of euthanasia policies that aren’t too far removed from the Third Reich.

Insurance agencies have routinely offered to pay for cheap assisted suicide pills instead of costly life-saving surgery.

And it’s been demonstrated already that folks without insurance or with mental disability are routinely coaxed into ‘no longer being a burden’ to family and friends.

Assisted suicide is really nothing more than soft-eugenics, and it’s high time we send the policy to an untimely death, across the board.

Here’s more from Daily Caller…

A California state judge struck down a law allowing doctors to prescribe life-ending drugs to terminally ill adult patients Tuesday, ending the state’s 2016 attempt to legalize euthanasia.

California’s End of Life Option Act passed the legislature in 2016 amid fierce backlash from those claiming it was immoral, CNN reported Wednesday. Judge Daniel Ottolia’s ruling did not pertain to the content of the law, however. He instead ruled in unconstitutional on a procedural basis because it was passed during a special session convened by Gov. Jerry Brown. The ruling comes less than a month after the U.K. ordered the death of toddler Alfie Evans in April, shocking the world.

Adult, terminally ill patients should have the right to decide their life is no longer worth living and “die with dignity,” proponents of assisted suicide argue. The laws force doctors to harm their patients and can make patients feel pressured to commit suicide to cut costs for their families, critics counter.


Culture, Issues

‘Expert’: Get Consent Before Changing Baby’s Diaper

With triple-x material on the web consuming fully a third of the traffic globally, it’s not a surprise that exploitation of women is all the rage these days.

Morally vacuous reprobates like Harvey Weinstein and his predator friends have been destroyed as the whole Hollywood house of cards came crashing down.

And it’s a good thing. But in usual fashion, the radical left has taken a good thing and completely twisted it beyond recognition.

Now it’s non compos mentis on parade. Enter an Australian ‘expert’ who argues that consent should be given by babies before their diapers can be changed.

No, we’re not kidding.

This is me-too on crack cocaine.

Next up for the left is required consent before you can walk your dog.

Here’s more from PJ Media…

The flowering of the #MeToo movement against sexual assault has brought many abusers to justice, but the emphasis on consent can go way too far. One sexuality expert in Australia illustrated the absurdity of the overemphasis on consent by suggesting that a parent should seek his or her baby’s consent before changing a diaper (called a “nappy” in Australia).

“I’m going to change your nappy now? Is that okay?” Deanne Carson, founder of Body Safety Australia, suggested in remarks to ABC News. “Of course, the baby’s not going to respond, ‘Yes, mom, that’s awesome. I’d love to have my nappy changed.’ But if you leave a space and wait for body language, and wait to make eye contact, then you’re letting that child know that their response matters.”


Culture, Politics

New Poll: Americans’ Optimism Hits 11-Year High

After eight long years of national depression (and oppression) under Barack Obama, it’s “morning in America again.”

According to a new poll commissioned by — wait for it — CNN, fully 57% of Americans are optimistic about the future of the country.

What’s even more surprising is that 40% of Democrats are optimistic as well.

American attitudes haven’t been this positive since 2007, just before the Great Recession began.

But it shouldn’t come as any surprise.

When regulations are slashed, taxes are cut and an administration that actually likes the military is at the helm, voters tend to be inspired.

But after all, it’s not rocket science, folks.

November should be an eye-opener for Democrats who banked on voters souring on Trump.

Here’s more from Breitbart…

A poll released by the far-left CNN shows that optimism about the direction of the country under President Trump has hit an 11-year high of 57 percent. The last time this same poll registered a number that high was in January 2007. This includes 40 percent of Democrats, which is a leap of 15 points from just last month. Only 40 percent say things are going badly.

Also of note is that CNN polled a random sample of adults. Polls that screen for registered or likely voters generally produce a more favorable result for Trump. This poll is a good example. While Trump’s job approval rating sits at 41 percent with all adults, when CNN’s polling firm (SSRS) screened for registered voters, the president’s job approval rating jumped to 44 percent.

The fact that 57 percent of Americans are expressing optimism about the direction of the country is a very big deal and bodes well for Republicans in the upcoming midterm election. What’s more, if the number holds, it is a very good sign Trump will be re-elected despite his own personal job approval ratings.


Culture, Issues

NAACP: Mandatory Bias Testing for Everyone

Racism is bad, and, yes, it still exists. Okay, now that we have that out of the way, ‘racialism’ is just as bad.

What the heck is ‘racialism’, you ask?

It’s the inability to view any subject from any perspective except race.

And obsessive racialism might explain why the NAACP now, according to the organization’s president, believes anyone who serves in a public capacity ought to undergo what’s called a mandatory Implicit Bias Test.

It’s a test that claims to show whether a person harbors unconscious racial bias.

The problem — aside from the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution — is that it’s an inherently flawed test that produces rampant false negatives.

It’s a page right out of a George Orwell book.

In other words, for the NAACP, it’s 1984 all over again.

Here’s more from Hotair…

NAACP President Derrick Johnson wrote a piece for USAToday yesterday announcing that his organization was calling for mandatory implicit bias testing for all public officials. Implicit bias testing is a method which claims to be able to detect subconscious bias within individuals’ thought processes (more on that in a moment). While Johnson didn’t call for mandatory testing of everyone, he thinks testing everyone is a good idea.

Everyone should get tested for implicit bias, and if you’re a public official or receiving public dollars — it should be mandatory. It’s just a matter of time before another black person is abused, arrested, or shot dead for flying, golfing, driving, walking or drinking coffee “while black.”…

While the United States has a very long history with explicit bias and state-sponsored racism, we are only partially committed to believing the extent to which our internal biases impacts us subconsciously. We are unable to grasp that implicit bias functions like a powdered drug stirred into our societal drink and continuously seeping out our societal pores, ranging from law enforcement to education to religion, entertainment and media. It’s like our shadow and travels with all of us everywhere we go, regardless of our self-proclaimed objectivity or colorblindness…

The NAACP is calling for an expansion of the movement to demand mandatory testing for implicit bias, particularly for officials paid with public dollars. For major corporations, implicit bias training must become a part of corporate responsibility rather than always as a response to video-taped intolerance.

This is the beginning of a movement designed to awaken the soul of our nation in ways that not only make us better people, but also a society where we are both accountable for what we know as well as what we are unaware of.


Culture, Politics, States

Connecticut Votes to Eliminate Electoral College

The American kulturkampf between constitutional conservatism and the coastal forces of the party of ‘whatever’ came to loggerheads this week in Connecticut.

After slim margins, both the state’s House and Senate voted to adopt what’s become known as the National Popular Vote movement, which allows the state to order its electors to the Electoral College to cast votes for the presidential candidate who won the popular vote across the nation.

It’s an idea advocated alternately by those on the right and the left who are reacting to the most recently elected president.

But since Americans’ notion of history generally only goes back to yesterday’s lunch, useful idiots in favor of the idea have forgotten entirely why the Founding Fathers established the Electoral College in the first place.

And it’s the smaller states like Connecticut who will pay the price for that electoral amnesia.

National Popular Vote is proof that stupid is as stupid does.

Here’s more from Washington Examiner…

Connecticut voted over the weekend to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which in theory would pool its Electoral College votes for the presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote.

If Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy signs the legislation, Connecticut would be the 12th jurisdiction to enter the compact.

The legislation passed the Connecticut Senate 21-14 and the House 73-71.

The compact seeks to make the Electoral College obsolete by having states vow to cast all EC votes to the winner of the popular vote in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

The compact could impact presidential elections if it is able to sway 270 EC voters, the threshold to win the presidency, to cast ballots for the popular vote winner. However, the compact has only 172 EC votes, including the seven added by Connecticut’s participation in the pact.


Culture, Issues, Politics

Study: Econuts Are Hypocrites on the Environment

A landmark study of Americans has produced some surprising results which, frankly, shouldn’t be all that surprising after all.

Pacific Standard tracked 600 Americans for a full year to gauge both their attitudes and their behaviors with respect to ‘climate change’.

Those surveys were divided into three categories: ‘skeptic’, ‘believers’, and ‘cautiously worried’.

One might assume skeptics would be the least likely to recycle, use public transportation, etc. Nope.

The study found exactly the opposite. Similarly, ‘believers’ were less likely to engage in environmentally-friendly behavior.

The authors contend that voting liberally, donating to environmental groups and other activities justify their hypocritical buying habits and behaviors.

But we knew that already, didn’t we?

Somewhere over the globe, Al Gore is planning his next doomsday speech aboard his private jet.

Here’s more from Hotair…

A year-long study of 600 Americans placed them into three distinct categories—”believers,” “cautiously worried,” and “skeptics”—based on their self-stated level of concern over climate change. Not surprisingly, believers were most likely to support federal policies to address the problem while skeptics were least likely to support such policies. But the researchers also found a result which seemed counter-intuitive. From Pacific Standard:

While policy preferences of group members tracked with their beliefs, their behaviors largely did not: Skeptics reported using public transportation, buying eco-friendly products, and using reusable bags more often than those in the other two categories.

This pattern was found consistently through the year, leading the researchers to conclude that “belief in climate change does not appear to be a necessary or sufficient condition for pro-environmental behavior.”

Hall and his colleagues can only speculate about the reasons for their results. But regarding the concerned but inactive, the psychological phenomenon known as moral licensing is a likely culprit.

Previous research has found doing something altruistic—even buying organic foods—gives us license to engage in selfish activity. We’ve “earned” points in our own mind. So if you’ve pledged some money to Greenpeace, you feel entitled to enjoying the convenience of a plastic bag.


Culture, Politics

RIP: Boy Scouts Change Name After 108 Years

The commissars of political correctness, ‘inclusiveness’ and diversity have had their way. And now the Boy Scouts of America has officially died.

After over a century of operation as an institution to train young boys into virtuous, self-reliant young men, the BSA has succumbed and will now be known simply as ‘Scouts BSA’.

According to Chief Scout Executive Mike Surbaugh, they made the decision because it “conveys the inclusive nature of the program” going forward.

Memo from God: “That whole ‘male and female He created them’ thing wasn’t a euphemism.”

Meanwhile, we’re still waiting on word from the Girl Scouts on whether they’ll recognize reality and properly merge with the uber-feminist National Organization for Women.

Here’s more from BizPacReview…

What about the Girl Scouts? Don’t they have to change, too?

After more than a century, the Boy Scouts of America are giving in to political correctness and changing the name of their flagship program.

The Boy Scouts announced Wednesday that after 108 years, its iconic name will be changed to simply Scouts BSA to accommodate incoming girls into the program, the New York Post reported.

The name change was decided after long and  “incredibly fun” deliberations, according to Chief Scout Executive Mike Surbaugh.

“We wanted to land on something that evokes the past but also conveys the inclusive nature of the program going forward,” he said. “We’re trying to find the right way to say we’re here for both young men and young women.”


Culture, Issues, States

Program At U of Texas: Masculinity Equals Assault

For those of you born with a ‘Y’ chromosome, just accept it: you’re a big jerk. At least, that’s what the University of Texas thinks you need to know.

And if you don’t already intuitively recognize that, then the university’s new program on masculinity will surely do the trick.

The program, called ‘MasculinUT’, seeks to ‘bring more men to the table to address interpersonal violence, sexual assault and other issues.”

The message to male university students is clear: check your manhood at the door; it’s not welcome here.

Suddenly those “Keep Austin Weird” bumper stickers make perfect sense.

Here’s more from Redstate…

The University of Texas is facing ridicule after a new program called “MasculinUT” was announced in a way that insinuated it was treating masculinity as a mental health crisis.. The university has attempted to explain the program as simply an effort to “bring more men to the table to address interpersonal violence, sexual assault and other issues,” but the reality is that UT is still promoting a facetious connection between masculinity and assault and violence.

When the program was originally announced, its stated goal was to help male UT students “take control over their gender identity and develop a healthy sense of masculinity.” as PJ Media reported:

The program is predicated on a critique of so-called “restrictive masculinity.” Men, the program argues, suffer when they are told to “act like a man” or when they are encouraged to fulfill traditional gender roles, such as being “successful” or “the breadwinner.”

Though you might enjoy “taking care of people” or being “active,” MasculinUT warns that many of these attributes are actually dangerous, claiming that “traditional ideas of masculinity place men into rigid (or restrictive) boxes [which]… prevent them from developing their emotional maturity.”

“If you are a male student at UT reading this right now, we hope that learning about this helps you not to feel guilty about having participated in these definitions of masculinity, and instead feel empowered to break the cycle!” the program offers.


Culture, International, Politics

RIP: Alfie Evans Yields to UK Socialized Health Nazis

For the second time in a year, the commissars of socialist ‘health care’ in the United Kingdom have presided over the death of a young child after determining — contrary to the wishes of the parents — that the child’s illness was untreatable, thus resigning the child to a state-sanctioned death sentence.

In both cases, treatment was being offered by medical experts in another country, but the UK denied parents the right to leave the UK to seek alternative treatment.

The tragic death of Alfie Evans early yesterday morning wasn’t merely a case of big government gone awry.

It was an international human rights violation after Italy actually granted Alfie citizenship, which UK authorities refused to honor.

But let’s not be too quick to point fingers. Obamacare’s death panels would have resulted in precisely the same outcome.

Now in the West, the right to life is conditioned on the whim of the Leviathan.

Here’s more from PJ Media…

In the wee hours of Saturday morning, 23-month-old Alfie Evans yielded up his spirit, after days of fighting on after staff at Alder Hey Children’s Hospital removed his ventilator in an act intended to result in his death. The British courts ruled that such a death was in his “best interest.”

“Our baby boy grew his wings tonight at 2:30 am. We are heart broken. Thank you everyone for all your support,” Kate James, Alfie Evans’ mother, shared on Facebook.

“My gladiator lay down his shield and gained his wings at 2:30,” Tom Evans, the boy’s father, announced on Facebook. He said he and his wife were “absolutely heartbroken,” adding, “I LOVE YOU MY GUY.”

The tragedy may have been inevitable, but the young boy’s death was helped along by the same British court system that prevented the parents of Charlie Gard from taking their terminally ill 11-month-old boy to New York for experimental treatment.


Culture, States

University Installs ‘Cry Closet’ For Snowflake Students

The brilliant paragons of the culturally effete in the universities across America are doing their darndest to invite a land invasion from a world power disgusted by the lack of martial vigor in America.

Not so long ago, young men were plucked from schools, factories, and fields across the country to go halfway around the world to fight and die in some of the most gruesome conditions ever known.

Now, ‘men’ of the same status in life can’t get through college finals without ‘having a good cry’.

So the Ivory Tower elites at the U of Utah have seen fit to accommodate them with an official ‘cry closet’ for those times when life just gets too hard.

Somehow demanding they ‘suck it up’, ‘grow a pair’ and ‘act like men’ just isn’t sufficient.

Perhaps two words will do: Jordan Peterson.

Here’s more from Redstate…

If students at the University of Utah are stressed out this finals season, they don’t have to deal with it like the adults they’re supposed to be preparing to be, they can just cry in the library. In fact, it’s pretty much encouraged. The school has built a special “cry closet” in the library for their breakdowns.

“Just let it all out,” university spokeswoman Jana Cunningham told a local CBS station. “Let yourself just get away from your studies for the next 10 minutes.”

KSL-TV reports Miller, a senior, created the 400-pound, stand-alone closet for students who need a “safe space sometimes, even if it’s in a very public place.”

“I think one of these should be everywhere all the time,” student Jayde Allison told KUTV while laughing. “Just its name, ‘The Cry Closet,’ is a little funny because definitely finals is a time to cry and panic.”

College is supposed to be a place to prepare students for adulthood (legally, they are adults). This is the opposite. Yes, even we adults get overwhelmed. Adults cry sometimes. We do it at appropriate times and places, we don’t expect places to be built for us to have breakdowns in public.