Unintended Consequences

The Alliance Defending Freedom has put together a great video showing the unintended consequences of allowing anyone claiming to be gender dysphoric free access to public restrooms. It’s called The Unintended Victims of Bathroom Bills and Locker Room Policies

After watching the video you can learn more at Safe Bathrooms and from my paper Educating Myself: Gender Dysphoria and Public Bathrooms.

Ad Blocking: A Dark Cloud Well-Deserved


Other publishers are appealing to their readers’ sense of fairness and justice, asking them to turn off their blockers and reminding them they are a critical part of the ecosystem that has powered the internet for the past 20 years. Without ads, there would be no free content online.1

Most users don’t care about ads, BUT…

  • We don’t want to be tracked. Do you care?
  • We don’t want pop up ads. Do you care?
  • We don’t want auto-play video ads. Do you care?

We’ve complained for years, but you didn’t listen. You cared more about your bottom line than your readers. Not that tools are available, and becoming more mainstream, you want to appeal to our "sense of fairness and justice."

The problem here is we, the readers, are fed up with the intrusive, and abusive, nature of advertising. It’s going to be pretty tough to appeal to our sense of fairness and justice when we don’t trust you, and have every reason not to. You haven’t used any sense of fairness and justice, why should we?

Heterosexuality Rears Its Ugly Head In a Same-Sex “Marriage”

Santos said, "Because [she] is not her daughter; [she] is our daughter."

Manuel Santos is patently wrong. When he refers to her, he is referring to the baby’s biological mother, Patidta Kusongsaang, and when he refers to our, he is referring to him and his husband, Gordon Lake.

Let me point out the obvious. Santos and his husband can not have children. It’s impossible, by nature1. Therefore, the baby, Carmen, is not biologically theirs. From a legal standpoint, she may be, but not biologically. No court decision can change that.

Children, by nature, have a biological mother and a biological father. Again, this is something that a court can’t change. A court decision doesn’t change the child’s DNA. The child will forever be the biological child of Manuel Santos and Patidta Kusongsaang, no matter how Santos and his partner feel about it. To think otherwise is a denial of reality; a delusion you might say.

But it seems to me, that this same-sex "marriage" is exactly that, a denial. While the argument is posed as an equality, and love, measure, it leaves out the family measure.

It’s at this point the unnaturalness of the union becomes apparent. A same-sex couple can’t procreate. They must receive assistance from an outside individual; an individual of the opposite sex.

And it’s here that reality must be confronted: In order to have biological children, at least one member of the same-sex couple must embrace heterosexually in order to procreate. And only one of them can be the biological parent.

There is no hate in that statement. There is no bigotry. Only truth.

The bottom line is this: homosexuality is a social construct, not a biological one, and they must choose to put homosexuality aside in order to create a family in which one parent is still left out biologically.

  1. This seems to me to be the very definition of an unnatural relationship.


I ran across this article, today: After 13 Years, I’m Leaving Christianity. It’s an interesting read. As the title implies, the author, Keay Nigel, discusses why she left Christianity. While many thoughts ran through my mind as I read it, I’ve chosen to comment on an analogy she made. Here’s the context:

For instance, my church had taught us that our God is the one true God, and that all other religions are works of Satan. Buddhism, Taoism and Hinduism were described as unintelligent religions; their worship of pagan figures, animals and deities were said to be wrong, nonsensical, useless, and laughable even. The pastor had in fact described miracles in other religions as demonic.

It’s scary that young minds were indoctrinated with such disrespecting, bigoted extreme ideas.

Here’s the analogy:

Just because you’re lactose-intolerant doesn’t mean others shouldn’t be allowed to drink milk.

And my question:

But what if everyone were lactose-intolerant? Wouldn’t it be a good thing if they were told not to drink the milk? What if people were sick because they were lactose-intolerant, but didn’t realize it was the milk causing it? What if I told them that they had to stop drinking milk in order to get better; it’s the only way!

Would I still be a bigot?

Animal Cruelty or the Price to the Poor?

In the piece, Animal Cruelty or the Price of Dinner?, Nicholas Kristof discusses the care, or lack thereof, of chickens in the slaughter industry. We get concern about: dogs, chickens on the way to slaughter, the health of chickens, the effect of sick chickens on humans, the livelihood of farmers speaking out, chicken living conditions, and efficiency vs. oppressive treatment of farmers and animals from the industry. In the midst of this complaint, there’s this nugget:

In fairness, the chicken companies excel at producing cheap food, with the price of chicken falling by at least half in real terms since 19301.

This is important because the one thing that never gets mentioned in this list of gripes is what tinkering with these things will do to the cost of chicken. Obviously, it will raise prices. And when the prices of goods and services go up, who does it hurt? The poor.

And what isn’t mentioned in Kristof’s list of concerns? How fixing the "problem" will affect the poor? Is that because he cares more about the chickens? Maybe not, but leaving the poor out of the equation is a common theme when discussing liberal initiatives.

  1. Kristof, Nicholas. "Animal Cruelty or the Price of Dinner?". The New York Times. 16 Apr 2016. Web. Accessed 19 Apr 2016.

By The Numbers – The Untold Story of Muslim Opinions & Demographics


I was simply going to share the video, but will you watch it? I’m betting you don’t, so I’m going to share some of the key points. Watch if for the full effect. Really!

We keep hearing that 99.9% of all Muslims are peace loving, but is that true? Not according to these numbers. Depending on where you live in the world, only 25% to 75% hold peaceful, non-radical ideas.

"this fear of being called a racist, has caused many people to act against their better judgment" ~Raheel Raza

According to the video, there are approximately 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. Think about the percentages in the video compared to that 1.6 billion.


There are three Spheres of Radicalization:

  1. Center sphere: Violent Jihadists who want to kill apostates, and/or die trying. They believe in paradise and martyrdom. This group is represented by ISIS, which boasts 40,000 – 200,000 Muslims fighting around the world. These numbers do not include violent terrorist organizations such as Hamas, Hezbollah, Al-Qaeda, IRCG.

  2. Inner ring: Islamists are "just as convinced of martyrdom and paradise, and want to foist their religion on the rest of humanity, but they want to work within the system. They don’t want to blow themselves up on a bus. They want to change governments, and use democracy against itself" [emphasis added]. They "want the same things as the Jihadist, but using different tactics." Examples of this are Palestinians electing Hamas into power, and Egyptians electing the Muslim Brotherhood into power. Both are terrorist organizations. Here in the U.S., we have CAIR who works to silence critics of Islam. The U.S. Department of Justice says that CAIR is or was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood; the United Arab Emerites lists CAIR as terrorist organization

  3. Outer ring: Fundamentalist are those who don’t aren’t trying to blow people up, or trying to change governments, but hold radical ideas.

  • 79-86% of Sharia-supporting Muslims in Afghanistan, Egypt, and Jordan believe apostates should be executed. An average of 27% of all Muslims around the world believe believe apostates should be executed (that’s 237 million Muslims around the world).
  • 39% of all Muslims around the world believe honor killings can be justified (that’s 345 million Muslims around the world).
  • 42%, 35%, 26% of French, British, American Muslims believe suicide bombings against civilians can be justified.
  • 54% of Muslims surveyed want Sharia to be the law of the land in Muslim majority countries.
    • 52% support whippings, and cutting off of hands for thieves (281 million).
    • 51% are in favor or stoning spouses if they’re unfaithful (289 million)


This doesn’t even come close to the 99.9% narrative that we’re being fed by liberals. How is it that they can be so out of touch with reality? Is it intentional? There are approximately 3 million Muslims in the United States. Based on the numbers in this video, 780,000 Muslims in America believe suicide bombings against civilians can be justified. Is it no wonder then, condemnation from Islamic communities is strangely quiet in the wake of what are clearly terrorist attacks by Radical Islamists?

But, this of course, leads to the next question. Why do so many Muslims hold radical and violent views? Where do these beliefs originate? Dare I say, from Islam itself?

Michigan’s State Board of Education Seeks To Undermine Parental Rights

Do you know who your kids are at school?

If your children go to a public school in Michigan, you may soon be intentionally kept in the dark.

…a boy named “Jake” could become a girl named “Jane” at school, seemingly without his parents ever knowing.

Without his parents ever knowing. Isn’t that grand? Those running our public schools complain that parents aren’t involved enough with their kids, but now they’re going to intentionally cut you out of your child’s life.

Because, you know, your kids get to decide what gender they are, all on their own, like it’s no big deal. No parent needed. No doctor needed. They get to arbitrarily decide for themselves. And they get to choose which locker room they want.

Students who are bothered by having members of the opposite sex in their locker rooms can request “an adjusted changing schedule” or “use of a private area in the facility.”

So, basically, the student’s whose "gender" doesn’t match their plumbing, can use whatever bathroom/locker room they want. If they want to use the facilities of the opposite sex, because they’re not comfortable with their own, by all means have at it. The school will see to it that they are not inconvenienced. They’re feelings are important.

On the other hand, the student’s whose "gender" does match their plumbing, has to put up with whatever the confused student decides. Despite the fact that it may bother the non-confused student, they are the ones that will be inconvenienced. They can use a different facility or schedule. They can be put out. Their feelings are not important.

If a person’s mind doesn’t match their plumbing, it’s a problem. But by all means, let’s reinforce the problem instead of working to resolve it.

The purpose of the guidance, according to the document, is to further the state’s “goals of cultivating and sustaining caring, supportive, respectful, and affirming learning environments that provide for the education, safety, and welfare of all students.”

This is just a bold-faced lie. If they were truly interested in the welfare of all students, they wouldn’t violate the privacy of some. And when I say some, I mean the majority. But you can bet, when something goes wrong, it’ll be the parent who’s responsible for not knowing what’s going on with their child.

You can read the actual draft at: MDE – Public Comment on the State Board of Education Draft Statement and Guidance on Safe and Supportive Learning Environments for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Questioning (LGBTQ) Students

Property Rights, Renting, and Airnnb

Property rights advocates say the right to rent is being threatened at the local government level, as cities across the country push restrictions on exactly how and to whom Americans can lease out their lofts and living quarters.

Apparently, government doesn’t know its proper role, as people’s property rights are under attack across the country. The only way to stop the erosion of liberty, is to stop electing control freaks. You own the house. You should have a right to do with your rooms as you wish without interference from government; or your neighbors.

But Council Member Burkley Allen, sponsor of the measure, told Fox News it was passed due to strong community engagement.

Strong community engagement is meaningless when the community infringes on the rights of their neighbors to be left alone. The role of government should be to protect the liberty of the individual from harassment from neighbors.

But what about the rights of the community to live in a "nice neighborhood?" The problem with this is that everyone’s definition of a nice neighborhood is different, and therefore, doesn’t trump their neighbor’s right to be left alone. This includes the ability of your neighbor to supplement their income by renting out a room.

In the past, it seems like it was quite common for people to rent out rooms to strangers. It’s a practice that fell out of popularity somewhere along the line, but seems to be regaining popularity. I think it’s a great way for people to supplement their income if they have the room, but no, we can’t have that.

To those that want to interfere, I say bugger off. Mind your own business.

Indiana Should Defund Government Travel To States Hostile Towards Religious Freedom

From Hot Air: California bill would defund government travel to states with religious freedom laws

A California lawmaker has introduced a bill that would ban government-funded travel to states with laws that he says discriminate on sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression.

"No one wants to send employees into an environment where they would be uncomfortable," said Democrat Evan Low, Jon Ortiz, a reporter for the Sacramento Bee, reported this week.

Low said he decided to introduce the bill after Indiana signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act into law in March 2015.

I think an Indiana lawmaker needs to introduce a bill that would ban government-funded travel to states with laws that are openly hostile towards religious freedom and expression. No one wants to send employees into an environment where they would be uncomfortable.

Is the Female Chore Burden a Scourge?

I just learned that Bill and Melinda Gates publish an annual letter on Bill’s personal blog. I only heard about it because a story entitled The Scourge of the Female Chore Burden showed up in Google Now under Stories to read. Pleasant title. Alarm bells. Obviously I had to find out about the scourge on society that was being alluded to, and it turns out that Melinda Gates wrote a section of the letter called More Time.

First, let me make it clear that I’m not addressing the issues in poorer countries. There are issues that come with different cultures, and poverty, that don’t need to be addressed here in America. I happen to agree with Melinda that culture needs to change in most impoverished countries, but until that happens first, no real progress will be made in other areas such as economics, equality, health, education, etc.

But things are different in "civilized" countries. I don’t think it’s fair to compare our culture with that of the culture in Tanzania, for example. There, it probably is considered to be the responsibility of the woman to do the unpaid stay-at-home chores. Melinda writes:

Unless things change, girls today will spend hundreds of thousands more hours than boys doing unpaid work simply because society assumes it’s their responsibility.

While it may appear that way in the United States, I don’t believe that’s the way it really is. Generally speaking, I don’t think anyone assumes its the woman’s responsibility to do the unpaid housework. I, personally, know of two families where the father stays home with the kids, and does all the housework because the woman had a better job when the kids came along. It made sense to them, and quite frankly, it makes sense to me. I’ve never heard of anyone questioning that decision, except my wife who doesn’t understand how any mother could leave her kids all day. But even she, admits that it’s cool that the father quit his job to take on that role. To the best of my knowledge, no one makes fun of them. And why would they? A few exceptions aside, I think most people don’t care whether the man or the woman are the breadwinner… as long as someone is.

Now, this work has to be done by somebody. But it’s overwhelmingly women who are expected to do it, for free, whether they want to or not. [Emphasis hers]

There are actually two points I want to address in the statement. The first point I want to address is "this work has to be done by somebody." The problem I have with this is that she’s using a rather narrow definition of work, because as she said, they are doing the work "for free." If you look at it from a cold, hard, paycheck, cash aspect, then she’s right. But raising a family isn’t just about cash; it’s about providing for a family. And a lot of times, that means doing the work yourself.

Let’s use a politically incorrect, typical family as an example. Both man and woman work to provide for the family. In this typical family, the man goes out and gets a job in order to do the paid work, and the woman stays-at-home and does the unpaid work. Despite the fact that one is paid and the other is unpaid, both are contributing economically to the family. The man is bringing in money for the whole family, including the woman. It’s not just his. If you see this as the man’s money, and not the family’s money, that’s an issue. The woman, while not being paid cash for her housework, is contributing also economically. How is that, you ask? Because the family isn’t paying out money to have someone else do the laundry, or scrub the floors, or babysit, or whatever. Since the woman is doing this unpaid work, that’s cash in the pocket for the family to spend elsewhere. Because she’s doing the work, there isn’t a negative on the family finances, so in essence, you can say she’s not economically wasting her time. She may not get cold, hard, cash, but the very fact that there isn’t a negative drain on the checkbook… Yeah, that’s a positive economic impact on the family.

Steven Nelms wrote an article breaking down the costs of what he would have to pay annually for outside help if his wife didn’t do all that unpaid work. Tell me she isn’t making a positive economic impact on her family.

Here’s a thought. Maybe the man should pay the woman out of his paycheck, and then when they go out to dinner, they can go dutch.

The second point I want to address is "whether they want to or not." I think there are a lot more women that want to stay home with their children as opposed to men. My wife, for example, finds the idea that a woman could carry a human being inside of her body, feel it kicking, and go through the trial of childbirth, only to finally drop it off for someone else to raise, absurd. How could any good mother possibly do that to a human being they were that close to for nine months? While generalizing because she knows there are good mothers out there that do just that, it raises an important point, because Melinda’s letter really doesn’t account for the women that do want to stay at home.

I do get the feeling, however, that Melinda doesn’t really think women should stay-at-home. While not as blunt as Hilary Rosen, when she said stay-at-home mom Ann Romney, "never worked a day in her life," I think that Melinda sees a mother’s time spent better, economically speaking, by getting a paying job.

…it’s obvious that many women would spend more time doing paid work, starting businesses, or otherwise contributing to the economic well-being of societies

The irony of all this is that she also thinks that men should spend more time at home:

In fact, studies show that when fathers are able to take time off from paid work when their children are born, they spend more time with their kids and doing other kinds of housework for years to come. As a result, they form a stronger bond with their partners and children. That’s one reason why I think access to paid family and medical leave is so important for families.

Paid leave? If one of the benefits your company allows is paid leave, then more power to you. But, to be clear, it should not be a requirement, and no, the government shouldn’t pay for it. It’s your family. Plan for it. Save up and take unpaid leave. Didn’t plan ahead? Didn’t save? Too bad. Someone else shouldn’t have to pay for your poor planning.

As we continue to watch the family break down in the so-called civilized world, I question whether contributing to the well-being of society should be a priority. It’s apparent to me, that in a time when more women were stay-at-home moms, the family unit was a much stronger entity. While I don’t think it needs to be the woman’s responsibility, shouldn’t it be someone’s in the family?