Transgender Bathroom Crime Study Misses The Mark – Transgenderism and Women’s Privacy

Transgender Bathroom Crime Study Misses The Mark – Transgenderism and Women’s Privacy

(Link): New “Transgender Bathroom Crime” Study Misses The Mark

Interesting comment at the bottom of the page by Miles Coburn:

What gets me is abortion was greenlit in society on the basis of “penumbras of privacy” on the part of women’s rights. And now, actual privacy concerns are being disregarded.

Now that he mentions it, yes: why do so many liberals insist that a woman should have a right to privacy regarding abortion (and not every woman gets one), but a lot of women use public bathrooms and restrooms, and these same liberals believe that biological women don’t deserve privacy? That a biological man’s rights (a man who thinks he is a woman) trumps a woman’s privacy or right to safety?

Continue reading “Transgender Bathroom Crime Study Misses The Mark – Transgenderism and Women’s Privacy”

Majority of Heterosexuals Say They Won’t Date Trans Folk and That’s Discrimination Somehow – by Brett T.

Majority of Heterosexuals Say They Won’t Date Trans Folk and That’s Discrimination Somehow – by Brett T.

(Link): Majority of Heterosexuals Say They Won’t Date Trans Folk and That’s Discrimination Somehow – by Brett T.

Zhana Vrangalova late last month wrote a piece for Them about the results of a study by two Canadian researchers that showed that the vast majority of cisgender people (those who identify as their biological sex) would not consider dating a trans person, and that is just another example of the discrimination trans people suffer.

Of 958 participants in the study, only 12 percent said they would consider dating a trans woman or trans man.

Continue reading “Majority of Heterosexuals Say They Won’t Date Trans Folk and That’s Discrimination Somehow – by Brett T.”

The Dating Swamp: How Finding Love in DC May Be Impossible For Young Trump and GOP Staffers – Liberals Hypocritically Insist You Date Transgender Persons But Not Trump Voters

The Dating Swamp: How Finding Love in DC May Be Impossible For Young Trump and GOP Staffers – Liberals Hypocritically Insist You Date Transgender Persons But Not Trump Voters

(Disclaimer: I personally did not vote for anyone in the 2016 Presidential race, because I did not care for any of the candidates)

Wait. I’m confused.

Most Liberals insist other people date not based on personal preferences but on political correctness.

So, for example, pro-Trans activist Liberals yell and scream at CIS Lesbian women to date Trans women, even though many lesbians have made it clear they prefer to date other CIS (lesbian) women.

But now, liberals are not willing to date Republicans or Trump voters? They will supposedly date, or advocate that others date, people with penises who claim to be women, but they won’t date Republicans or whomever or whatever differing political persuasion? What?

(Link): The Dating Swamp: How Finding Love in DC May Be Impossible For Young Trump and GOP Staffers

Excerpts:

Trying to find love in D.C. can be tricky. If you’re a young Trump administration staffer, it might be near impossible.

GOP employees and other right-wingers have been complaining that dating in one of the most Democratic cities in America is a political minefield.

They’ve been called out, flipped off and told they are personally responsible for the death of democracy.

One 29-year-old lobbyist told Fox News that learning to date in a Trump world is “absolutely insane.”

 “It’s getting so bad,” the lobbyist, who asked to remain anonymous because she works with the administration, said.

Continue reading “The Dating Swamp: How Finding Love in DC May Be Impossible For Young Trump and GOP Staffers – Liberals Hypocritically Insist You Date Transgender Persons But Not Trump Voters”

Why Are Conservatives Forcing Mothers From Their Kids? by M. Walther

Why Are Conservatives Forcing Mothers From Their Kids?

I am marginally still a social conservative, but as the months go by, I find myself drifting further and further away from it (though I’ll never be a liberal).

I was a stalwart social conservative for many years, but I’ve become more attuned to some of the hypocrisy or double standards contained within some socially conservative points or views.

One of the things I’ve struggled with the last couple of years is that Republicans (I’m an ex Republican) and social conservatives claim to be “pro-family,” yet, they often want to push through policies that cut off or limit families or kids or single mothers in some way.

Yes, I grasp that Republicans are for smaller government and want to cut expenses, but I don’t see how they can do that in the area of family benefits.

How can you claim to be “pro family” and to support children, and say that liberals are the evil anti-family types, when you keep promoting legislative material that wants to cut funding for families or kids? (Please see the “Related Posts” section at the bottom of this post for more.)

By the way. Many social conservatives and Christian conservatives fret, fret, fret that marriage and baby-making are on the decline in the United States – see for example links on my blog such as this one –

(Link):  Conservatives and Christians Fretting About U.S. Population Decline – We Must “Out-breed” Opponents Christian Host Says

And yet, they penalize women who do become pregnant and give birth. If you are a Republican, Christian, or social conservative who thinks family is great, motherhood is great, and that women should have more children, then why on earth would you penalize women who do in fact give birth?

Shouldn’t you be willing to help all mothers – whether single or not – more? I don’t understand the hatred for mothers who need a helping hand from the very people who bray on and on about how horrible it is today’s culture supposedly disregards motherhood and the nuclear family.

Many Republicans, social conservatives, and Christians I’ve seen since I’ve been a teenager reading political columns, have regularly argued that children are better off if their mothers stay at home, rather than dropping them off at a daycare to hold down an outside-the-home career.

But as this editorial by Walthers explains, some of the Republican reforms of welfare has forced women into working outside the home, thus leaving their children motherless during the day.

How is it out of one side of their mouths that conservatives are saying it’s bad for women who are mothers to work outside the home, but then forcing them into the position to do that very thing?

(Link): Why Are Conservatives Forcing Mothers From Their Kids? by Matthew Walther

What would happen, I wonder, if all the Republican state senators in the country woke up to find that all their wildest dreams had come true?

Continue reading “Why Are Conservatives Forcing Mothers From Their Kids? by M. Walther”

Liberals Bully Porn Actress Online For Refusing to Film Sex Scenes With Homosexual Actors

Liberals Bully Porn Actress Online For Refusing to Film Sex Scenes With Homosexual Actors

(Links to follow.) Story as I understand it: a porn actress, Ames, who identified as bi-sexual, tweeted that she refused to film sex scenes with a male actor known to also film homosexual sex scenes with other male actors, because she had health safety concerns.

After she tweeted that, Liberal Social Justice Warriors piled on, some even sending her death threats about it. They really think a woman should have to have sex with someone, or a certain type or category of person, even if she does not want to.

The day after receiving all this online bullying, the actress committed suicide by hanging.

I thought liberals were supposed to be pro-woman, feminist, and supportive of a woman’s chose? No, some of them are not (the ones who are wholly sold out for supporting a Liberal Agenda vs. sincerely helping all women), as this story once again demonstrates.

Continue reading “Liberals Bully Porn Actress Online For Refusing to Film Sex Scenes With Homosexual Actors”

A Response to the Editorial “America Needs a New Sexual Revolution” by Melissa Mackenzie

A Response to the Editorial “America Needs a New Sexual Revolution” by Melissa Mackenzie

I guess Ms. Mackenzie drank from the Gender Complementarian Kool-Aid, or something like it.

The complementarian world is a world in which one is taught there are only two options concerning women (I know this because (Link): I used to be one myself for many years):

-either be and live as a traditional values person who believes all women are, or should be, passive, dainty, and delicate and should marry young and have children,
or,
-be and live as a bra-burning, man-hating, liberal feminist.

I present a third option, which is hated by some liberals (when I bring it to their attention), and it’s an option that is never even considered by other conservatives, which is as follows:
I am a right wing woman who rejects sexism, and finds fault in both the left and right wing on some women’s issues, but who also sees some merit to some arguments on either side, depending on the topic.

In this blog post, I am commenting upon this editorial on The American Spectator:

 (Link): America Needs a New Sexual Revolution by Melissa Mackenzie

A foundation of the opening of this editorial rests upon a presupposition that, and to paraphrase my understanding of the author’s perspective:

“Everything that is wrong today in regards to culture, sex, marriage, dating, and women, is liberal, secular, FEMINISM, and feminism is EVIL! One can directly trace the downfall of American sexual morality to the feminism of the 1960s!!”

Such thinking is a common trope in about every right wing publication I’ve ever read on these subjects.

To that point, about feminism supposedly being to blame for all of society’s marital or sexual problems, I would ask you to read this off-site post, which is by a Christian (not by a left wing, secular feminist):

(Link): Perhaps Feminism Is Not The Enemy

What I will do here is provide excerpts by MacKenzie then, under her comments, offer my thoughts.

MacKenzie writes (source again):

There’s a coarsening of relationships between men and women, parents and children, and people with each other.

// end MacKenzie quotes ///

I don’t think secular, left wing feminism was the start of the “coarsening of relationships between men and women” but is a response to it.

One can read the Old Testament of the Bible, which dates back several thousand years, to see men raping their own sisters, owning harems of women (in some cases, women having no choice but to be in a harem, or to be a concubine), and men committing adultery. There was no 1960s, American- style feminism around in Biblical days.

Continue reading “A Response to the Editorial “America Needs a New Sexual Revolution” by Melissa Mackenzie”

On Offering Up Prayers and Thoughts – and how it annoys Liberal Christians and Atheists

On Offering Up Prayers and Thoughts – and how it annoys Liberal Christians and Atheists

I had been thinking about doing a post about this subject for the past one to two years but never got around to it.

This has become a really big pet peeve of mine, and I see it all the time from liberal Christians, ex Christians, and atheists: criticizing people of faith who publicly offer up prayers or thoughts for people, especially after a national tragedy, such as a mass public shooting or a natural disaster.

Continue reading “On Offering Up Prayers and Thoughts – and how it annoys Liberal Christians and Atheists”

How Single Men and Women are Making Politics More Extreme by Ed West

How Single Men and Women are Making Politics More Extreme

I’m a single woman, but I’ve never been liberal.

(Link): How Single Men and Women are Making Politics More Extreme

….The more freedom we have, the more there will be very feminine and masculine subcultures too, and this might explain a great deal of recent political developments — in particular the campus identity politics movement and the alt-right.

The former is heavily female, while the latter is overwhelmingly male — in fact, not just male, but populated by men who seem to have difficulties with women.

…Single women tend to be politically very liberal, voting for the Democrats in huge numbers….

Generally speaking, the culture wars are far more intense between women because women have to make more sacrifices — whether children or career — and this inevitably influences their worldview.

Continue reading “How Single Men and Women are Making Politics More Extreme by Ed West”

Teen Vogue Magazine Promoting Anal Sex (2017)

Teen Vogue Magazine Promoting Anal Sex

One wonders if this teen magazine ever offers celibacy or virginity as choices for teen girls? Probably not. Liberals generally do not support a girl or woman’s choice to sexually abstain, but will mock it.

I don’t think the vast majority of women want to have anal sex with a man but are usually pressured into it by a boyfriend. Ditto on oral sex and other non-missionary style forms of sex. (But perhaps the article was aimed at LGBT individuals.)

If you are a teen girl (I cannot imagine why a teen girl would be reading my blog, but regardless…) you can do with your body as you please. If you do not want to have any sex at all, then do not have sex. If you do not want to have anal sex, then do not have anal sex.

Do not allow feminists, boyfriends, magazines, or Hollywood pressure you, shame you, or guilt trip you into doing sexual activity you feel conflicted about or don’t want to participate in.

If you have a boyfriend who is pressuring you to have sex or to engage in a particular sex act you’d rather not perform, please realize it is better to be single than to stay in a relationship with a guy who guilt trips you, uses threats of breaking up, or whatever, to get his way with you sexually.

If a guy does not respect your boundaries and wishes in the area of sexuality, break up with him!  Please stop wasting your time with him. You will eventually get another boyfriend later. There is nothing wrong with being single.

(Link): Teen Vogue’s Bizarre Anal Sex Article Shows Women Are Still Being Defined in Relation to Men

Excerpts:

The supposedly progressive piece, intended for teenage girls, refers to women as ‘non-prostate owners’, ignores the organ for female pleasure and fails to mention any potential dangers

Defining women by the men around them is an issue feminists have sought to address, and correct, for years.

…It would stand to reason that we could assume that in 2017 any work aimed at women would be sure to avoid such regressive patterns.

However, in (Link): Anal Sex: What You Need To Know for Teen Vogue, sex educator and feminist activist Gigi Engle managed to harp back to a time where women were defined by their relationship to men.

…Not only is any potential pleasure a woman may feel during anal sex reduced to the lack of male body parts (she is a “non-prostate owner”) but the clitoris, the actual hub of female sexual pleasure, has been removed. The lack of a male body part is the focus of what defines the female body, and what is actually there isn’t identified at all.

What is this teaching the audience of a magazine aimed at teenage girls? It tells them their identity is not “woman”, but rather “non-man”.

It tells them that should they consent to anal sex, their body is just a hole for the man to penetrate, and the part of their body that is most sensitive and reliable for the female orgasm is so irrelevant that it doesn’t even warrant a label.

It tells them that consenting to anal sex is not about their pleasure, but about their partner’s.

What it fails to tell them is the potential dangers of anal sex. The possibilities of fissures and tears which can become infected very easily due to contamination by faeces, severe enough to need surgery, or lead to anal abscesses which increase the chances of catching HIV.

By treating anal sex as an equivalent to vaginal sex, you increase the chances that your audience will not understand the potential damage they can do to their own or their partner’s body, and in turn increase their chances of becoming seriously ill.

(Link): Parents outraged over Teen Vogue anal sex how-to column (but magazine still defends it)

Teen Vogue is defending its decision to publish a graphic tutorial to anal sex for children and teenagers – (Link): calling critics homophobic.

“This is anal 101, for teens, beginners and all inquisitive folk,” author Gigi Engle wrote in “A Guide to Anal Sex.”

… (Link): The original article did not include any references to practicing safe sex – but was later amended to include a line about condoms being “non-negotiable.”

“Here is the lowdown on everything you need to know about butt stuff,” the writer declared.

Parents across the nation became enraged upon learning that Teen Vogue wanted to turn their children in sexual deviants.

Continue reading “Teen Vogue Magazine Promoting Anal Sex (2017)”

Stuff that Stuff Christian Culture Likes Facebook Group Likes

Stuff that Stuff Christian Culture Likes Facebook Group Likes

Stephanie Drury, owner of SCCL Facebook group, doesn’t care about victims.

Drury may thinks she cares about victims, and she may even want you to think she cares about victims, and you may even mistakenly think she cares about victims or other wounded people, but-

From what I’ve witnessed on her Facebook group and Twitter behavior, what Drury really cares about is pushing a liberal agenda. (I will discuss this a little more below the list.)

In the past, owner of SCCL Facebook group, Stephanie Drury, linked to a few of my posts on this blog, with the motive of having her group of Flying Monkeys mock and ridicule my posts or me.

I used to be a regular visitor to Drury’s SCCL group, for a period spanning approximately four years. I always lurked, never posted, because I spotted several red flags with her group.

Over the last 2 or 3 years, I at times tweeted Drury with stories I thought she would find interesting, and sure enough, she would share some of those links on her SCCL Facebook group.

I tried to be on friendly terms with her on Twitter, but I guess that doesn’t matter to her.

Around the first week of June 2017, Drury once again shared a link to one of my blog posts with her SCCL Facebook group. In the past, I said nothing when she did this with other posts of mine.

This time, however, I tweeted her to let her know I saw her post a link to my blog post on her group.

After that, she tweeted me a few times, but so too did some of her fans on Twitter, and none of it was nice.

Continue reading “Stuff that Stuff Christian Culture Likes Facebook Group Likes”

Mutual Exclusivity on Social Issues by Liberals, Atheists, and Some Moderate Christians

Mutual Exclusivity on Social Issues by Liberals, Atheists, and Some Moderate Christians

Over the past two years on twitter (and on some blogs), I keep seeing some people – usually liberals, but sometimes atheists and moderate Christians – engage in this game of mutual exclusivity as concerning social issues.

They also seem to have a blind spot or two. They will point out the “sins” committed by Christians, Republicans, or conservatives all damn day long, but then ignore those very same sins when committed by liberals, Democrats, or Muslims, atheists – or whatever other special interest groups they usually pander to.

TRANSGENDERISM

For example, if you speak out in concern against CIS men using transgender bathroom policies to rape CIS women, trans-activists will say you should be more concerned about churches who harbor child sex abusers.

I think I may have addressed that argument in this post:

(Link): Conservatives, Christians, Transgenders, and Bathrooms – Addressing Libby Anne’s “Love, Joy, Feminism” Post About Transgenders

The fact that so many churches harbor child rapists, or handle child sex cases improperly, does not automatically make it acceptable to allow CIS men into women’s bathrooms or locker rooms under the guise of being “trans friendly.”

The two are separate topics.

Therefore, I am against this argument from some people that everyone should be more, or only, concerned about child safety at churches than they should be with child welfare at public rest-rooms or public fitting rooms.

It is not a mutually exclusive concept.

An individual can be concerned about CIS men exploiting trans-friendly bathroom rules to rape CIS women, and that same individual can also be concerned about predators using churches to victimize children.

Yes, it’s possible to care about more than one issue at a time.

Continue reading “Mutual Exclusivity on Social Issues by Liberals, Atheists, and Some Moderate Christians”

Liberals and White People

Liberals and White People

In the past few weeks, I’ve seen more and more headlines about liberals complaining about white people, and stories along the lines of college kids wanting to exclude white people from campuses, for at least a day.

There are college kids who want non-white dorm buildings.

Liberals also go on quite a bit about “white privilege.”

I also saw a headline or two about some kooks who wanted to “kill all the white people,” and one of these kooks was arguing that anyone and everyone in culture be permitted to kill all whites.

There is also a headline or two about left wing college instructors who think society would benefit if all white people were dead.

One thing I cannot comprehend about this is how do multi-racial people fit in?

Not everyone out there has two white parents or is descended purely from white people.

In my family, for instance, both sides inter-married with full-blooded Native American Indians, from more than one Native American Indian Nation.

So, I’m not totally a “Person of Color” (or whatever liberals would call it), nor am I totally Caucasian. I’m a little of both. I’m not sure where I would fit in within the liberal scheme of things.

So, when these college kids call for “No Whites” day at their college, and if I were a student at their school, would they argue I could attend, or would they demand I stay at home that day? And on what would they base their response?

What do these liberals do with guys such as former American President Barack Obama, in that, I believe one of his parents was white and one was black?

A few decades ago in American culture, white racists did not want black people to be in the same areas as white people, so everything was segregated. Why in the holy hell do today’s liberals want to now segregate everyone? They’re reverting back to 1950s or 1960s-era culture. Very odd.

I’m still very curious as to how liberals would address people who are not 100% white or who aren’t descended from only white people.

If you’re advocating for killing white people – not that I think one should – but if you are, how can you be sure the person you’re killing is 100% white?

To some people, I may appear white, but others see I have Native American features.

What if you kill a person thinking she’s white, but in reality, she was only partially white?

Are you liberals advocating for this disgusting view (of killing all whites) going to do DNA testing on every person to make sure everyone you send to the gas chamber is totally white?

And what do you do with people of color who are married to 100% white people? (Previous post on this blog: (Link): More Americans Are Marrying People of Other Races Than Ever Before)

Do you really think a black person, Asian, or Hispanic person who is married to a 100% white person is going to stand idly by while you send his or her spouse off to a killing camp?

Here are some links about liberals calling for the killing of white people, or arguing for non-white spaces, and other related subjects:

(Link):  Police Tell Prof He’s in Danger for Not Participating in Evergreen State College’s Campus ‘No Whites’ Day By Tom Knighton [VIDEO]

(Link):  No Campus For Professors Opposed To Anti-White Racism 

(Link):  ‘White people dying has generally worked’: Black professor draws outrage for classroom remarks

(Link):  Professor Argued For ‘Killing White People As Self-Defense’

Professor Thomas Curry presented the case for “killing white people in context” in a 2012 radio interview. He also suggested that black people have to kill white people “as self-defense” on the road to equality, Campus Reform reports.

(Link): Student Mob Demands Professor Resign for Questioning No-Whites ‘Day of Absence’…

(Link):  Evergreen College closed for 3rd day after receiving ‘new threat information’ (Update) – June 5, 2017

About Trinity College:

(Link):  Trinity College Faces Threats After Professor’s Social Media Post

(Link):  Professor plays victim after publishing ‘#LetThemF**KingDie’ post about white people (editorial)

(Link):  Professor’s profane, anti-white messages cause campus controversy

(Link):  Outrage at college professor for calling white people who are proud of their race ‘inhuman’, and writing ‘let them f**king die’ after baseball gun attack on Republican lawmakers

(Link): Trinity College Faces Threats After Professor’s Social Media Post

(Link): Trinity College Professor Flees State Amid Death Threats Over Inflammatory Social Media Posts

June 22, 2017, by Katie Reilly

A professor at Trinity College in Connecticut has fled the state after receiving death threats over inflammatory social media statements that he says were taken out of context.

Johnny Williams, who has been a sociology professor at Trinity since 1996, recently shared a (Link): Medium article by an author known as “Son of Baldwin” that ended in a “call to show indifference to the lives of bigots,” Trinity President Joanne Berger-Sweeney said.

The article included an accusation that House Majority Whip Steve Scalise — who was shot last week during a congressional baseball practice and saved by Capitol Police officers who are black — holds racist views. “What does it mean, in general, when victims of bigotry save the lives of bigots?” the article said.

“Saving the life of those that would kill you is the opposite of virtuous,” it added. “Let. Them. F—ing. Die.”

Williams shared the article on his personal Facebook and Twitter accounts and used the hashtag #LetThemF—Die, including the expletive, prompting an outcry as the posts spread on social media.

What would liberals do about this baby:

(Link):  ‘I can’t let them do this to another family’: White lesbian mother who was inseminated with black man’s semen ‘after sperm bank mixup’ says she wanted blonde-hair blue-eyed baby

Or this:

(Link):  What Adopting a White Girl Taught One Black Family

Continue reading “Liberals and White People”

The Left Can Be Just as Bad as the Right – The SCCL Pence Post

The Left Can Be Just as Bad as the Right – The SCCL Pence Post

(June 7, 2017 edit farther below –
Drury posted a link to this at her SCCL group. Most of her readers have missed the point of the post. Some of them incorrectly assume I am an evangelical, that I voted for Trump, or am a member of the GOP – I am not.

This post has been modified several times to add new information

Some of the more frequent criticisms I’ve received in regards to this post I have addressed in edits below)

Over at Liberal- to Ex- Christian (and sometimes atheist) SCCL Facebook group, Stephanie Drury linked to an editorial (her link),

“I Was Trained for the Culture Wars in Home School, Awaiting Someone Like Mike Pence as a Messiah”

“”Christofascists have been wanting someone like Pence in the White House and, until now, didn’t have a way to get one in.”

Posted by Kieryn Darkwater on January 26, 2017
–end quote–

My main point is that groups such as Drury’s, many left wingers, many Ex Christians, are just as bad as those they criticize.

Depending on the topic, they can be just as hateful, rude, or harbor as many blind spots and double standards as those they criticize, whether we’re talking about Republicans, conservative Christians, and Donald Trump (or V.P. Pence) or LGBT causes, or abortion, or whatever the issue.

By the way – Drury’s SCCL Facebook group has largely nose-dived into being an anti-Trump type group over the last few months.

She used to cover spiritual abuse by churches and the like, but politics seem to be over-taking her group a bit.

It seems like every 4th to 5th post at the SCCL group pertains to criticizing Trump.
Continue reading “The Left Can Be Just as Bad as the Right – The SCCL Pence Post”

Transgender SJW Liberal Person: Biological, Lesbian Women Should Want to Date People Who Have Penises

Transgender SJW Liberal Person: Biological, Lesbian Women Should Want to Date People Who Have Penises

I am posting about this not so much because this is a Transgender person featured, or because he (she) is talking about how “women have penises too,” but to comment upon this attitude that people are wrong to be attracted to whomever they wish.

Continue reading “Transgender SJW Liberal Person: Biological, Lesbian Women Should Want to Date People Who Have Penises”

Online Dating Soared by 35 Percent After Trump Was Elected – Also: Dating Site For Trump Supporters

Online Dating Soared by 35 Percent After Trump Was Elected – Also: Dating Site For Trump Supporters

(Link):   Make Dating Great Again: Trump Singles matchmaking site is for President-elect  [Trump] supporters only 

According to this article (next one below), most Democrats would be unwilling to date Republicans.

How stupid. You should be able to look past the person’s political views, unless they are obnoxious about them and insult you over yours or something like that.

(I’m a right winger but would feel perfectly fine dating a left wing guy, so long as he’s not a rude jackass towards me over our political differences.

And, by the way, as a right wing woman, I’d like to say, right wing men should NOT be sending insulting messages to left wing women on dating sites over their political views, as this site says some men are – that is so very rude).

(Link): Online Dating Soared by 35 Percent After Trump Was Elected – Also: Dating Site For Trump Supporters by N. Spector

Excerpts:

If you’re single and actively dating, this year’s Valentine’s Day may have been your crummiest yet. And not for the usual reasons like lack of chemistry or the person being nothing like their profile promised — but because of whom they voted for, and what political positions they support.

Earlier this month, the dating service Coffee Meets Bagel surveyed 1,320 users and found that the majority of singles say politics are impacting their quest for love.

Continue reading “Online Dating Soared by 35 Percent After Trump Was Elected – Also: Dating Site For Trump Supporters”

The Non-Stop Trump- Bashing by Liberal Sites Makes Formerly Semi- Useful Liberal Sites Totally Useless To Me Now

The Non-Stop Trump- Bashing by Liberal Sites Makes Formerly Semi- Useful Liberal Sites Totally Useless To Me Now

I am a right winger who never- the- less started following a lot of left wing news social media accounts, left wing opinion accounts, and left wing individual Twitter accounts over the last couple of years.

I used to find these left wing sites good sources of information for topics such as dating, singleness, marriage, divorce, spiritual abuse by churches, and so forth.

However, as the 2016 American Presidential campaign kicked into high gear in the fall of 2016, and now that Donald Trump is the 45th President of the United States, all the left wing sites I used to follow for stories about dating, divorce, wedding trends, feminism, sexism, the intersection of religion and politics, etc. and so on, have all turned into “Anti Trump All Day Every Day” channels. It is so annoying.

These left wing sites have become useless to me now.

If all these liberal sites are going to do for the next 4 (to 8) years is complain and whine about Trump non-stop and just nit pick at the guy

(seriously, check (Link): this incredibly Petty anti-Trump Tweet by left wing site Jezebel, in which they snark that he wore scotch tape on his tie on his inauguration day – who gives a crap if he did so, Jezebel?

And left wing site Raw Story (Link): cackles in glee that Obama supposedly had more of an inauguration audience than Trump –

More stupidity from Raw Story: (Link): mocking POTUS dance with his wife during inauguration ball, (Link): mocking the first lady’s jewelry line being mentioned on White House site),

-if these liberal sites are going to resort to this nonsense non-stop for the next 4 years, they are totally useless to me.

I don’t tune into these types of sites and Twitter accounts to see nothing but non-stop Trump bashing.

If these left wing sites don’t get with the program and start covering other topics besides “How Much Trump Has Cooties,” I will probably be un-following them.

The constant Trump bashing that renders these sites useless for my purposes is so incredibly annoying. 


Related:

(Link):  The Left Can Be Just as Bad as the Right – The SCCL Pence Post

Pew Report: Religion Plummeted During Obama Era

Pew Report: Religion Plummeted During Obama Era

(Link): Pew Report: Religion Plummeted During Obama Era by T D Williams

Excerpts

January 2017

In a new study of President Obama’s legacy, the Pew Research Center found that religious affiliation and practice dropped off dramatically during his two terms in the White House.

“When it comes to the nation’s religious identity, the biggest trend during Obama’s presidency is the rise of those who claim no religion at all,” Pew notes in a report released this week titled “How America Changed During Barack Obama’s Presidency.”

When Barack Obama took office, those who identified as atheists or agnostics along with those who said their religion was “nothing in particular” totaled only 16 percent of the U.S. adult population. On leaving office 8 years later, the non-religious in America now make up nearly a quarter of the population.

On the contrary, the percentage of Americans who say they believe in God, consider religion to be very important in their lives, pray daily and attend religious services at least monthly have all dropped during the Obama years, Pew found.

Continue reading “Pew Report: Religion Plummeted During Obama Era”

American Christians, Liberals, Liberal Pet Groups, and Persecution

American Christians, Liberals, Liberal Pet Groups, and Persecution

(This post has been edited and updated, especially towards the bottom, to add more commentary or links)


For about the past year, I have thinking about blogging about this topic but put it off until now.

I have seen liberal Christians, ex-Christians, left wing Non-Christians, and moderately conservative Christians complain or mock American Christians who claim that American Christians are being persecuted in the United States due to being  Christian.

In the past, I’ve seen liberal Christian blogger RHE (Rachel Held Evans) comment on this subject on her blog, on her Twitter account, as well as the Liberal, quasi- Christian, Stephanie Drury bring this up on her (Link): “Stuff Christian Culture Likes” Facebook group from time to time.

bakecake
Above: Accurate Visual Representation of How Some Pro-LGBT Groups Treat Christians. (Artist Unknown.)

I’ve also seen moderately conservative Christians I am acquainted with discuss this in Tweets or on their blogs.

To reiterate a point I’ve made before, I do sometimes agree with SCCL’s Drury on some issues, and I even periodically Tweet her links to news stories I think she may want to share on her Twitter account or on her SCCL Facebook group.

However, I totally part ways with Drury on some topics – like this one.

The view of liberal Christians, ex-Christians, liberal Non-Christians, and even some moderately conservative Christians, is that American Christians are not under persecution in the U.S.A. for being Christian, or for practicing Christian beliefs.

I am not sure if the liberal or moderate conservative disagreement on this issue pertains to semantics (the terminology involved), or if they are actually blind and oblivious to the harassment that Christians, especially conservative, or traditional valued, Christians, face in American culture.

It is my position that American Christians do in fact face harassment – especially from the left wing – in the United States for being Christian, for wanting to practice their faith and carry it out in public, and for defending it in public.

If you are a liberal who objects to the term “persecution,” how about, instead, the words or phrases, “harassment,” “bullying,” “picking on,” “hounding,” or other terms?

I do not see American Christians getting a free pass in the United States to hold certain views or to practice their beliefs.

The left (and I’d include severe anti-theist atheists here, on this point, regardless of their political standing) insist that Christians keep their Christian faith walled off, private, and separate from all other areas of their lives.

Continue reading “American Christians, Liberals, Liberal Pet Groups, and Persecution”

Did Hell Freeze Over?: Liberal Rag Promotes Idea that Celibacy is Acceptable, and a Valid Life Choice / Re: 2016 Study Says Millennials Aren’t Having Much Sex

Did Hell Freeze Over?: Liberal Rag Promotes Idea that Celibacy is Acceptable, and a Valid Life Choice / Re: 2016 Study Says Millennials Aren’t Having Much Sex

The following editorial comes from left wing site Salon, known for publishing pieces by left wing feminist Marcotte, who likes to insist everyone respect women’s sexual choices except for virginity and celibacy – she thinks it’s okay to mock those (see this link and this link for more on that).

Most of the time, liberals are loathe to admit that it’s okay for adults (or kids) to be virgins or celibates. They often portray the state of being abstinent as being sexually repressed or weird. They get all judgey-judgemental about it, but at the same time ask us not to “slut shame” the people, especially women, who boink around like dogs in heat.

So, I was quite surprised to see this liberal editorial defending the idea that it’s okay for people to be chaste, and that people need to stop pressuring everyone to have sex. This sort of editorial from a left wing site is very, very rare.

(Link):   Millennial Sex Panic! Why are we so worried they aren’t getting enough action? by R K Bussel

Excerpts:

Everyone calm down and stop judging young adults for “missing out on a good time”

….While the study’s findings are of cultural interest about changing sexual practices, an unfortunate side effect is the concurrent media sex panic. To wit: a Washington Post headline asked if this means “(Link): the end of sex?” while (Link): The Cut touted “Millennials Confirm That Sex Is No Longer Cool.”

Continue reading “Did Hell Freeze Over?: Liberal Rag Promotes Idea that Celibacy is Acceptable, and a Valid Life Choice / Re: 2016 Study Says Millennials Aren’t Having Much Sex”

WashPost Columnist: ‘Ghostbusters’ Haters Are ‘Virgin Losers’ – (via NewsBusters Site); Both the Right and Left Wing Get Some things Wrong About This

WashPost Columnist: ‘Ghostbusters’ Haters Are ‘Virgin Losers’ – (via NewsBusters Site); Both the Right and Left Wing Get Some things Wrong About This

This story comes from NewsBusters, which is discussing a column written for Washington Post newspaper by columnist Kristen Page-Kirby about the new Ghostbusters movie.

The original Ghostbusters movie, released in the 1980s, contained four male leads. The reboot version of the movie, which was released July 15, 2016, contains four women leads instead.

Unfortunately, over a year or more ago, when news came out that there would be four women leads in the film, some of the sexist jerkwads who inhabit the internet started lambasting the movie all over You Tube, Twitter, and where ever else – not because the move was bad (it wasn’t even released yet), but because they were incensed that Hollywood was cramming some form of feminism down their throats.

Interestingly, I didn’t see as much backlash over the main character of the new Star Wars film, “Star Wars: The Force Awakens” being a woman – Rey.

gbLogo
Ghostbusters Logo

At any rate, I will be discussing two or three different topics in this post that are related to this new film, or mentioned by the conservative essayist at the NewsBusters site.

This is another story where I am in the middle. I can’t say as though I’m completely on one side or another in regards to some aspects of this story, depending on what is under discussion.

I am currently a moderate right-winger (I used to be more to the right than I am currently. In the last few years, I’ve been reconsidering if some of my former political and Christian beliefs are wrong.)

I’ve been more open the last few years to hearing the criticisms and views of liberals and Non-Christians – which is not to say I agree with everything I see left wingers and Non-Christians espousing or arguing in favor of.

I sometimes think secular, liberal feminists have good points on some topics, but I normally disagree with them.

As far as the Ghostbusters film reboot is concerned, I do think some of the backlash against the movie does in fact stem from sexism. But then, I do think some people may honestly feel that the movie is genuinely bad due to having a poor story line, or what have you.

I have not seen the movie yet. I don’t go to movie theaters that much anymore.

I usually wait until movies air on cable television; I’m willing to bet that this Ghostbusters reboot will probably be shown on F/X channel, or SyFy, or some other cable network in the next two years, and I have cable television, so I don’t know if I want to invest my time and cash into driving down to a theater to see this, since it will eventually be on television.

I saw the original Ghostbusters in a movie theater when it was in theaters in the 1980s. I was a kid at the time.

The original was okay, it was quite enjoyable and plenty of fun, but it was no movie masterpiece, so to all the men online who were griping about the reboot featuring all women leads: get the hell over it already.

And yes, you were, or are, being sexist douche bags about it. I don’t buy for a moment that ALL male griping about the film is based on non-sexist reasons, like shoddy trailers, or supposed poor CG work.

The vast majority of the professional reviews (and I have read a ton of them) for the new Ghostbusters film have deemed it “okay.” -Not terrible. Not great. But just “meh.” It’s so-so, most reviews have said.

What I don’t appreciate is that the columnist for WaPo who was discussing male backlash about the movie is using virginity as an insult.

Continue reading “WashPost Columnist: ‘Ghostbusters’ Haters Are ‘Virgin Losers’ – (via NewsBusters Site); Both the Right and Left Wing Get Some things Wrong About This”