JUST IN: California State Assembly has just passed a bill allowing parents to lose custody of their children if they refuse to accept their child’s gender transition.
They want your kids.
“California lawmakers send Gov. Gavin Newsom a proposed law that would require judges to… pic.twitter.com/At37QC4jZy
— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) September 8, 2023
This bill is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
What it would actually mean is that if you disagree with the other parent about sterilizing your child, you lose custody.
Utter madness! https://t.co/Mn2KcXCwUL
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 8, 2023
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 9, 2023
This man @Scott_Wiener sponsored a bill in California that would force parents to relinquish custody of their child to the state if they don’t affirm their “gender” aka mutilate and sterilize their child.
The bill just passed.
The government is coming for your kids. pic.twitter.com/W5lZ66lX5F
— David Leatherwood 🇺🇸 (@brokebackUSA) September 8, 2023
I hate to say I told you so.
But I told you so.
I always say “I don’t make predictions,” because I think it is grossly hackneyed when journalists/analysts try to gain clout by making predictions about future events. These people who make predictions make huge numbers of them, and then when some of them are inevitably right (just as a matter of statistics), they celebrate those while ignoring all the times they were wrong.
If you don’t have insider information, and you don’t have wizard powers, you can’t make predictions about events in a serious manner, so it is really dumb that this “forecaster” phenomenon that is typically associated with pop economists like Jim Cramer or Paul Krugman has come to dominate right-wing politics.
I guess The McLaughlin Group would do it as a bit at the end of the show, and Pat Buchanan would give general predictions, but now it seems like the entire right-wing space is dominated by very specific kinds of predictions, and people try to win clout by being the best guesser.
Obviously, a big part of political commentary is considering the likely outcomes of certain events and policies, but I’m interested in just looking at the data, and figuring out probabilities.
However, I did tell you as a matter of fact that the state would eventually start seizing children from their parents if the parents refused to allow them to become trannies. This was not a prediction, but merely an obvious fact.
You can just work through the basic logic:
- They are saying that transgenderism is a real thing – that it is some kind of biological reality. (They are not explaining how it works, scientifically – ostensibly, these people do not believe in souls, so the idea of a soul being trapped in the wrong body does not make sense within an atheist-materialist worldview. But they are nonetheless claiming it is a scientific reality.)
- If you believe in transgenderism, and establish that it is a scientific fact that any child who says he is transgender has his or her soul trapped in the wrong body, then it is a basic human right to allow the child to “transition.”
- Obviously, the best time to “transition” is before puberty. Puberty is a hormonal process. If you take these injections to prevent the natural puberty, and override the hormones with artificial hormones, you can cause a boy to go through female puberty, or vice versa. (That is to say, you can cause the bones and fat deposits to develop in line with the opposite sex.)
- The state has in place various policies to seize children if the parents are denying the children certain “human rights.”
- Therefore, it is in-line with existing legal precedent that a child who declares he/she is transgender has an absolute right to do this transition, and if the parents are preventing it, they are engaged in child abuse, and the child can be seized by the state to protect him or her.
This was very obvious.
This also points to how insane it is that conservatives are saying “I’m not against transgenders, I just don’t want the kids doing it.” If you admit that transgenderism is real, then you actually are committing child abuse by disallowing kids to “transition.” That is just the reality. The reason they claim that so many trannies kill themselves is that they don’t “pass” for the opposite sex (this might actually be partially true). If you “transition” them pre-puberty, they are going to pass. (I have actually warned that this new generation of trannies are going to be more attractive than real women.)
We’re now already here. There are cases all over the country of kids being taken by the state from parents that don’t allow them to go tranny.
Now, California has put this into law.
The California State Assembly passed legislation Friday that would require judges in child custody cases to consider whether a parent has affirmed a child’s belief that they are transgender.
AB 957 originally proposed that courts deciding custody cases must consider whether each parent were gender-affirming of the child in question. An amendment in June added to the state’s standard of what constitutes parental responsibility for child welfare, requiring that parents must be affirming of a child’s gender identity if they are to be judged fit for providing for “the health, safety, and welfare of the child” in a court of law.
This is technically just saying that the parent who “affirms the gender” (i.e., the mother) gets the kid de facto in family court. But as stated, in June they already included “affirming gender” as a part of child welfare. And again: various states have already started seizing kids whose parents don’t “affirm.”
Presumably, these kids are going to be placed in homosexual homes, where they will be sodomized.
This bill was co-sponsored by the homosexual Jew State Senator Scott Wiener, who has been behind a myriad of extremist homosexual laws, including legalizing pederasty in California.
The co-sponsor was a fat bald black woman.
This is California State Rep. Lori Wilson, who wrote AB 957: “Parents affirm their children. Typically it happens when their gender identity matches their biological gender. But when it doesn’t, the affirmation starts to wane… Our duty as parents is to affirm our children.” pic.twitter.com/KP2Z9sksmp
— Greg Price (@greg_price11) September 8, 2023
Very often these aggressive negresses are tools of the Jews. You’d expect them to be against stuff like trannies, but many of them just take the money and go out there and scream at anyone who is opposing what they’re getting paid to promote. Like all women, they are a serious weapon for the Jews.
If the Jews didn’t have women, it would be only Jews promoting this stuff, and it would be very obvious. They use women as shields to make it look like this is something other than a purely Jewish agenda.
One might suppose, however, that the ADL support for the child tranny agenda (except in Israel) proves that child trannies are a Jewish agenda.
One of the upshots of the Keith Woods/Elon Musk campaign against the ADL might well be that people start to grasp the fact that child trannies are a Jewish agenda. The ADL is openly saying that they are a Jewish group and that child trannies are a Jewish agenda.
I think the veil is slipping. When you have people stealing your kids from you, the niceties of not offending the Jews start to fall away. At least I would hope that would be the case.
Anyone who protects the Jews is protecting the child tranny agenda. There is no room to support the Jews and oppose this agenda.
Obviously, not every Jew supports the tranny agenda. The account “Libs of TikTok” is one of the biggest anti-tranny accounts on the internet and it is run by a Jew woman (though I suspect she would say “trannies are real but just not for kids,” like DeSantis and so many other conservatives say).
I think Ben Shapiro is literally a plant, just scamming conservatives for money (a lot, lot, lot of money) by being the only “conservative” still allowed to have big deals with YouTube, Facebook, iTunes, and so on. Maybe he really doesn’t like gays or whatever, but he is primarily running a money scam, while also keeping “conservatives” believing that the Jews are on their side, and convincing them to support Israel.
“And by the way, I don’t give a good damn about the so-called ‘browning of America.’ I can always just move to Israel”
— Sam Parker 🇺🇲 (@SamParkerSenate) September 7, 2023
However, when it comes to “Libs of TikTok,” I think she is probably being earnest in her opposition to trannies in the schools. Then you have Jews like Norman Finkelstein or Glenn Greenwald who are more explicit about this whole thing. So when we say “the Jews,” we mean “the Jewish agenda,” which obviously not every single individual Jew is on board with.
The best comparison is how some young black males are not criminals. Nearly 40% of black males have felony convictions, and some of them don’t get caught or don’t get convicted. An overwhelming majority of young black males (in America) are involved in some type of crime. However, some of them are good guys. It’s similar with the Jews. In the same way we are allowed to talk about “black crime” (or we were before George Floyd, and some, like Tucker Carlson, will still talk about “black crime”), we need to be able to talk about “the Jewish agenda.”
If you talk to a non-criminal black male, or an older black male (who is no longer a criminal – they tend to calm down after 35 or so), they don’t have a problem talking about “black crime.” Just so, Jews who are not supportive of the Jewish agenda should not be accusing people of “anti-Semitism” for talking about the “Jewish agenda.” If conservative Jews like “Libs of TikTok” do talk about “anti-Semitism,” however, it really doesn’t mean anything.
If we want to solve any problem, we have to be able to talk about the issue.
Just to be clear: I’m not going to say that everyone who doesn’t say “Jewish agenda” is necessarily an enemy. However, I will say that anyone who defends the Jews is an enemy. (I would exclude Donald Trump, basically, for complex reasons I won’t go into now – but on the whole, anyone who voices support for the Jews is an enemy of the people, and an enabler of the total destruction of the earth.)
Here is what @J_GallagherAD3 was allowed to say before he was cut off.
He was making the point that social transition might not always be the best solution for kids struggling with gender identity and that most identify with their biological sex as they became adults. pic.twitter.com/COIDl1T1Tr
— Jonathan Zachreson (@JZachreson) September 9, 2023