Calif. Gov. Newsom Signs Bill to Amend Sex Offender Law Reducing Penalties For Sex with ‘Willing’ Same-Sex Minors

California Governor Gavin Newsom (D) on Friday night signed a bill that would allow judges to decide whether to list a man as a sex offender for having oral or anal sex with a same-sex minor.

The bill lowers the penalties for adults who have sex with ‘willing’ same-sex minors. A Judge could decide if the adult has to register as sex offender if the offender is within 10 years of age of the victim.

The bill does not apply to minors under the age of 14.

SB 145 was introduced by state senator Scott Wiener and passed the California legislature last week.

Since 1944, judges decided whether a man had to register as a sex offender if he had sex with a female minor 14 years of age or older when the age difference is not more than 10 years, so Wiener argued that since the law didn’t apply to young boys, the LBGTQ community was being ‘discriminated against.’

The law ends discrimination “by treating LGBTQ young people the exact same way that straight young people have been treated since 1944,” Wiener said in a statement last week, adding: “Today, California took yet another step toward an equitable society.”

In other words, Scott Wiener is arguing that a 14-year-old boy can actually consent to sex with a 24-year-old grown man (predator).

The bill passed the Democrat-led assembly, however it was even too much for some Democrat state lawmakers.

25 Assembly members voted against the bill. It passed with 41 votes, with 13 lawmakers not voting and then it cleared the senate with a 23-10 vote (7 senators did not vote).

“I cannot in my mind as a mother understand how sex between a 24-year-old and a 14-year-old could ever be consensual, how it could ever not be a registrable offense,” Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, D-San Diego, said before the bill’s passage last week. “We should never give up on this idea that children should be in no way subject to a predator.”

Senator Ted Cruz blasted California Democrats.

“Today’s California Democrats believe we need more adults having sex with children, and when they do, they shouldn’t register as sex offenders,” Ted Cruz said. “This is extreme and very harmful to kids.”

Source: TGP

Supreme Court Hijacks Congress’s Power to Legislate by Redefining “Sex” to “Sexual Orientation”

The Supreme Court hijacked Congress’s power to legislate and redefined “sex” to “sexual orientation” or “gender identity.” The highest court of the land decided by a 6-3 vote to essentially rewrite a federal civil right’s law. For years the left has been fighting to change this federal law, and on Monday, 6 unelected judges rewrote the law.

Associated Press reported:

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a landmark civil rights law protects LGBT people from discrimination in employment, a resounding victory for LGBT rights from a conservative court.

The court decided by a 6-3 vote that a key provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 known as Title VII that bars job discrimination because of sex, among other reasons, encompasses bias against LGBT workers.

Conservative justices Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas dissented.

Neil Gorsuch, a Trump appointee, sided with the liberal justices.

“An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the court. “Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids.”

Justice Alito fired a warning shot and said Monday’s ruling could destroy women’s sports, weaken religious freedom, weaken freedom of speech and personal privacy.

The Court tries to convince readers that it is merely enforcing the terms of the statute, but that is preposterous,” Alito wrote in the dissent. “Even as understood today, the concept of discrimination because of ‘sex’ is different from discrimination because of ‘sexual orientation’ or ‘gender identity.’

There is only one word for what the Court has done today: legislation. The document that the Court releases is in the form of a judicial opinion interpreting a statute, but that is deceptive.” Alito added.

Constitutional lawyer Mark Levin weighed in.

“Today’s Supreme Court decision will be lauded and celebrated in the media as “historic.” There will be little or any criticism of the Court’s complete disregard for the actual law and its legislative activism in violation of separation of powers,” Levin said in a tweet.

Levin blasted Gorsuch. “These things used to matter. Not so much anymore. Roberts no longer pretends to be a judge; now Gorsuch has left his robe behind as well (and it’s not the first time).” he said.

Judicial Watch boss Tom Fitton fired a warning shot.

Source: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/06/justice-alito-fires-warning-shot-supreme-court-hijacks-congresss-power-legislate-redefining-sex-sexual-orientation/

Polish President Vows to Ban LGBT Indoctrination in Schools

Polish President Andrzej Duda has vowed to ban LGBT propaganda from being taught in schools as part of a broader pro-family agenda he hopes to implement if elected to a second term in office.

During a gathering with supporters ahead of the June 28th presidential eletion, Duda signed a “Family Card” containing a raft of promises and proposals, including blocking the legalization of homosexual marriage and barring gay couples from adopting children in the conservative, Catholic nation.

“Parents are responsible for the sexual education of their children,” Duda told supporters. “It is not possible for any institutions to interfere in the way parents raise their children.”

“It’s a foreign ideology. There is no consent for this phenomenon to happen in our country in any way.”

The Family Card also contains a promise to protect the Rodzina 500 Plus program, a government assistance initiative designed to encourage traditional nuclear families to have more children.

According to the latest polling data from Politico, Duda maintains a sizeable 17-point lead over his closest competitor, Warsaw Mayor Rafal Trzaskowski, who allowed LGBT education to be introduced into Warsaw schools.

In response to Duda’s pledge, activists staged a “Rainbow Disco at the Palace” event where attendees were urged to blast music and dance in front of the Presidential Palace in Warsaw, according to Do Rzeczy.

Source: https://europe.infowars.com/its-a-foreign-ideology-polish-president-vows-to-ban-lgbt-indoctrination-in-schools/

Facebook Shuts Down ‘500 Mom Strong’ Group That Advocated Against Drag Queen Story Hour

500 Mom Strong, a Facebook group for mothers opposed to Drag Queen Story Hour, was banned because their presence is considered “transphobic.” As of June 1, the group was flagged for violating Terms of Service, and was promptly banned.
The owner of the now banned Facebook page had reported that the group had been under attack for some time now, and her final group removal had been on the horizon for some time.

The Facebook Community Standards violation that Facebook used to remove the group was for “transphobic” language.

Anna Hall Bohach, who founded and ran the group, noted in an email to The Christian Post that threats to remove the group began when it was flagged for hate speech consistently.

Facebook told 500 Mom Strong that Facebook’s policy was made “to protect against recidivist behavior and do not allow people to set up new Pages that represent Pages that have already been removed from our platform.”

According to Bohach she “shared a post that said, ‘Reminder: Women don’t have to be polite to someone who is making them uncomfortable.’” This is just one example of the ‘hate speech’ violations alleged against 500 Mom Strong.

Bohach also claims there have been parody pages set up largely by trans people or their allies who have posted hateful rhetoric towards the legitimate 500 Mom Strong group.

“When I asked them about the half dozen other fake 500 Mom Strong pages that were put up by drag queens [and] used to parody 500 Mom Strong, I received no answer and the pages are still active. There is also a fake profile, created by drag queens, using my name and information that has been reported multiple times by my friends and me that Facebook refuses to remove. I asked the Facebook representative about it and I still have yet to receive an answer,” Bohach said.

None of these pages appear to be flagged or removed.

500 Mom Strong has not been reinstated.

Source: National File

Wikipedia Co-Founder Publishes Blog Post: Wikipedia Is Badly Biased

Dr. Lawrence M. Sanger, a world-renowned technologist, respected information expert, an in-demand public speaker, and co-founder of the online non-profit encyclopedia Wikipedia, wrote a blog on his website titled ‘Wikipedia Is Badly Biased.’

Wikipedia’s “NPOV” is dead.1 The original policy long since forgotten, Wikipedia no longer has an effective neutrality policy. There is a rewritten policy, but it endorses the utterly bankrupt canard that journalists should avoid what they call “false balance.”2 The notion that we should avoid “false balance” is directly contradictory to the original neutrality policy. As a result, even as journalists turn to opinion and activism, Wikipedia now touts controversial points of view on politics, religion, and science. Here are some examples from each of these subjects, which were easy to find, no hunting around. Many, many more could be given.

Wikipedia’s favorite president?

Examples have become embarrassingly easy to find. The Barack Obama article completely fails to mention many well-known scandals: Benghazi, the IRS scandal, the AP phone records scandal, and Fast and Furious, to say nothing of Solyndra or the Hillary Clinton email server scandal—or, of course, the developing “Obamagate” story in which Obama was personally involved in surveilling Donald Trump. A fair article about a major political figure certainly must include the bad with the good. The only scandals that I could find that were mentioned were a few that the left finds at least a little scandalous, such as Snowden’s revelations about NSA activities under Obama. In short, the article is almost a total whitewash. You might find this to be objectively correct; but you cannot claim that this is a neutral treatment, considering that the other major U.S. party would treat it differently. On such a topic, neutrality in any sense worth the name essentially requires that readers not be able to detect the editors’ political alignment.

Not Wikipedia’s favorite president

Meanwhile, as you can imagine, the idea that the Donald Trump article is neutral is a joke. Just for example, there are 5,224 none-too-flattering words in the “Presidency” section. By contrast, the following “Public Profile” (which the Obama article entirely lacks), “Investigations,” and “Impeachment” sections are unrelentingly negative, and together add up to some 4,545 words—in other words, the controversy sections are almost as long as the sections about his presidency. Common words in the article are “false” and “falsely” (46 instances): Wikipedia frequently asserts, in its own voice, that many of Trump’s statements are “false.” Well, perhaps they are. But even if they are, it is not exactly neutral for an encyclopedia article to say so, especially without attribution. You might approve of Wikipedia describing Trump’s incorrect statements as “false,” very well; but then you must admit that you no longer support a policy of neutrality on Wikipedia.

I leave the glowing Hillary Clinton article as an exercise for the reader.

Wikipedia can be counted on to cover not just political figures, but political issues as well from a liberal-left point of view. No conservative would write, in an abortion article, “When properly done, abortion is one of the safest procedures in medicine,” a claim that is questionable on its face, considering what an invasive, psychologically distressing, and sometimes lengthy procedure it can be even when done according to modern medical practices. More to the point, abortion opponents consider the fetus to be a human being with rights; their view, that it is not safe for the baby, is utterly ignored. To pick another, random issue, drug legalization, dubbed drug liberalization by Wikipedia, has only a little information about any potential hazards of drug legalization policies; it mostly serves as a brief for legalization, followed by a catalog of drug policies worldwide. Or to take an up-to-the-minute issue, the LGBT adoption article includes several talking points in favor of LGBT adoption rights, but omits any arguments against. On all such issues, the point is that true neutrality, to be carefully distinguished from objectivity, requires that the article be written in a way that makes it impossible to determine the editors’ position on the important controversies the article touches on.

What about articles on religious topics? The first article I thought to look at had some pretty egregious instances of bias: the Jesus article. It simply asserts, again in its own voice, that “the quest for the historical Jesus has yielded major uncertainty on the historical reliability of the Gospels and on how closely the Jesus portrayed in the Bible reflects the historical Jesus.” In another place, the article simply asserts, “the gospels are not independent nor consistent records of Jesus’ life.” A great many Christians would take issue with such statements, which means it is not neutral for that reason—in other words, the very fact that most Christians believe in the historical reliability of the Gospels, and that they are wholly consistent, means that the article is biased if it simply asserts, without attribution or qualification, that this is a matter of “major uncertainty.” In other respects, the article can be fairly described as a “liberal” academic discussion of Jesus, focusing especially on assorted difficulties and controversies, while failing to explain traditional or orthodox views of those issues. So it might be “academic,” but what it is not is neutral in the original sense we defined for Wikipedia.

Of course, similarly tendentious claims can be found in other articles on religious topics, as when the Christ (title) article claims,

Although the original followers of Jesus believed Jesus to be the Jewish messiah, e.g. in the Confession of Peter, Jesus was usually referred to as “Jesus of Nazareth” or “Jesus, son of Joseph”.[11] Jesus came to be called “Jesus Christ” (meaning “Jesus the Khristós”, i.e. “Jesus the Messiah” or “Jesus the Anointed”) by later Christians, who believe that his crucifixion and resurrection fulfill the messianic prophecies of the Old Testament.

This article weirdly claims, or implies, a thing that no serious Biblical scholar of any sort would claim, viz., that Jesus was not given the title “Christ” by the original apostles in the New Testament. These supposed “later Christians” who used “Christ” would have to include the apostles Peter (Jesus’ first apostle), Paul (converted a few years after Jesus’ crucifixion), and Jude (Jesus’ brother), who were the authors of the bulk of the epistles of the New Testament. “Christ” can, of course, be found frequently in the epistles.3 Of course, those are not exactly “later Christians.” If the claim is simply that the word “Christ” does not appear much in the Gospels, that is true enough (though it can be found four times in the book of John), but it is also a reflection of the fact that the authors of the Gospels instead used “Messiah,” and quite frequently; the word means much the same as “Christ.” For example, he is called “Jesus the Messiah” in the very first verse of the New Testament (Matthew 1:1). Clearly, these claims are tendentious and represent a point of view that many if not most Christians would dispute.

It may seem more problematic to speak of the bias of scientific articles, because many people do not want to see “unscientific” views covered in encyclopedia articles. If such articles are “biased in favor of science,” some people naturally find that to be a feature, not a bug. The problem, though, is that scientists sometimes do not agree on which theories are and are not scientific. On such issues, the “scientific point of view” and the “objective point of view” according to the Establishment might be very much opposed to neutrality. So when the Establishment seems unified on a certain view of a scientific controversy, then that is the view that is taken for granted, and often aggressively asserted, by Wikipedia.

The global warming and MMR vaccine articles are examples; I hardly need to dive into these pages, since it is quite enough to say that they endorse definite positions that scientific minorities reject. Another example is how Wikipedia treats various topics in alternative medicine—often dismissively, and frequently labeled as “pseudoscience” in Wikipedia’s own voice. Indeed, Wikipedia defines the very term as follows: “Alternative medicine describes any practice that aims to achieve the healing effects of medicine, but which lacks biological plausibility and is untesteduntestable or proven ineffective.” In all these cases, genuine neutrality requires a different sort of treatment.

Again, other examples could be found, in no doubt thousands of other, perfectly unexciting topics. These are just the first topics that came to mind, associated as they are with the culture wars, and their articles on those topics put Wikipedia very decidedly on one side of that war. You should not be able to say that about an encyclopedia that claims to be neutral.

It is time for Wikipedia to come clean and admit that it has abandoned NPOV (i.e., neutrality as a policy). At the very least they should admit that that they have redefined the term in a way that makes it utterly incompatible with its original notion of neutrality, which is the ordinary and common one.4 It might be better to embrace a “credibility” policy and admit that their notion of what is credible does, in fact, bias them against conservatism, traditional religiosity, and minority perspectives on science and medicine—to say nothing of many other topics on which Wikipedia has biases.

Of course, Wikipedians are unlikely to make any such change; they live in a fantasy world of their own making.5

The world would be better served by an independent and decentralized encyclopedia network, such as I proposed with the Encyclosphere. We will certainly develop such a network, but if it is to remain fully independent of all governmental and big corporate interests, funds are naturally scarce and it will take time.

  1. The misbegotten phrase “neutral point of view” is a Jimmy Wales coinage I never supported. If a text is neutral with regard to an issue, it lacks any “point of view” with regard to the issue; it does not take a “neutral point of view.” My preferred phrase was always “the neutrality policy” or “the nonbias policy.”[]
  2. On this, see my “Why Neutrality?“, published 2015 by Ballotpedia.[]
  3. Both in the form “Jesus Christ” (e.g., 1 Peter 1:1, Jude 1:1) and in the form “Christ Jesus” (1 Corinthians 1:2).[]
  4. That it was Wikipedia’s original notion, see the Nupedia “Lack of Bias” policy, which was the source of Wikipedia’s policy, and see also my final (2001) version of the Wikipedia neutrality policy. Read my “Why Neutrality?” for a lengthy discussion of this notion.[]
  5. UPDATE: In an earlier version of this blog post, I included some screenshots of Wikipedia Alexa rankings, showing a drop from 5 to 12 or 13. While this is perfectly accurate, the traffic to the site has been more or less flat for years, until the last few months, in which traffic spiked probably because of the Covid-19 virus. But since the drop in Alexa rankings do not seem to reflect a drop in traffic, I decided to remove the screenshots and a couple accompanying sentences.[]

Source: https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/