Show post

Selwyn Duke thenewamerican.com

This could only happen in the age of “transgender” ideology. In Brazil, a woman and her lesbian partner removed her nine-year-old son’s penis, claiming that he “wanted to be a girl.” A year later they murdered him, with the mother stating that she hated her son because he reminded her of her father.
As the Pluralist reports:
Rosana Auri da Silva Candido and Kacyla Priscyla Santiago Damasceno Pessoa on May 31 stabbed the boy to death in his sleep, cut him into pieces and tried to burn the body party [sic] on a grill at their home, Metropoles reported last week, citing the police. Candido is the biological mother of the boy, whose name was Rhuan Maycon da Silva Castro.
Witnesses called police after noticing the couple walking through a soccer field with a suitcase containing Rhuan’s corpse. When officers responded to the family’s home, they found the women there with Pessoa’s 8-year-old daughter.
Authorities later located Rhuan’s remains in two backpacks in the area: one on the lot where the couple resided and the other in front of a nearby day care center.
The couple, who remain in police custody, showed no remorse for their actions while being interrogated.
According to Metropolis, the boy was also beheaded while still alive.
Providing more detail, Fat reports that the boy was separated in 2015 from his father, and the women didn’t have custody of either Rhuan or the eight-year-old girl. (Note: Most sources identify the boy’s age as nine; however, Fat states that he was seven in 2015.)
For the father’s part, he’d “desperately been trying to save his son from the clutches of the boy’s deranged LGBTQP mother and her partner, who reportedly moved ‘across states and around the country’ to avoid being caught,” reports Natural News.
“‘We tried to save Rhuan,’ Rhuan’s father told the press. ‘We published messages on the social media, [sic] we contacted police and the Child Protective Services. No one helped us.’”
Unsurprisingly, sources say Rhuan was tortured and had been a victim of rape (they don’t indicate by whom). Candido also confessed that the penectomy was performed with “rudimentary tools,” Pluralist further relates. “After removing his penis, the women said they sewed an improvised version of the female organ onto the mutilated area.”
“The wom[e]n did not detail how they treated the boy for such a procedure and its possible consequences, such as infections and pains,” Fat tells us (auto-translated from Portuguese). “Asked about the reason for this act, Rosângela stated that for her and her companion, the boy wanted to become a girl. That’s one of the reasons they keep Rhuan with long hair — he was like that when he died.”
As stated earlier, Candido also admitted that she hated her son because he reminded her of her father, who allegedly had abused her.
Since the two women obviously are quite deranged, poor Rhuan’s treatment would have been shoddy regardless. Yet it’s hard to imagine this story unfolding as it did absent “transgender” ideology. After all, where does a person get the idea that a “boy can become a girl” and that superficial mutilation effects this change in being? Making ideas part of the public consciousness has consequences.
Of course, maybe Rhuan “wanted to become a girl,” or perhaps it was just that his two lesbian caretakers wanted him to. But the mother’s claim rings true, as I’ve seen this phenomenon before.
Some of you may remember Renee Richards. That’s the name assumed by Dr. Richard Raskind, the tennis player who made news in the late 1970s after having a so-called sex-change operation and, at age 43, beginning to play in women’s tournaments. (Note: I’ve met Richards. He lives in the county next to mine.) I mention him because an aspect of his story is relevant here.
Writing of his upbringing, Tennis.com related last year that “young Richard was dominated by his [psychiatrist] mother and his older sister, who dressed him as a girl. By 9, he had begun to dress himself that way.”
Is this at all surprising? A theory for your consideration: Tiny Rhuan and Richard both got the message that their mothers didn’t love them for who and what they were, boys, that, in fact, their maleness was an impediment to their receiving this love. Of course, a little boy wants and needs his mother’s love more than anything in the world. So is it hard to imagine that such a boy might want to “become a girl”? Note here Candido’s statement that Rhuan was doing it “for her and her companion.”
Yet there’s more. If a boy is confronted with this maleness-oriented maternal rejection when extremely young, might he not so assume a female character as a coping mechanism that he would actually begin to feel like a girl, deep down?
This would explain Richards’ and other men’s “gender dysphoria”: the sense that one really is member of the opposite sex on the inside, to put it simply. Of course, since this psychological phenomenon begins at an age before the person can remember, it makes sense that he would say he has “always felt this way,” which is something you hear from men thus afflicted.
The point? Though quack psychiatrists may today claim that gender dysphoria is a biologically induced phenomenon — an assertion for which they have no proof whatsoever — reason suggests that it’s a psychological one. And it wasn’t Candido and Pessoa who originated the idea of treating a psychological issue with a biological “remedy” (removing genitalia). It was “respected” people with medical degrees, and their enablers in and out of the media, who did that.

Show post

aCultureWarrior #conspiracy thenewamerican.com

I did the boycott thing (Starbucks on it's pro homosexual stance on marriage, Target on opening up it's restrooms to transgenders, etc.) for a while and then decided to focus on putting my energy into educating people about the destructive homosexual lifestyle and the ever so evil 'gay' agenda. I do it in an internet blog that appears to have reached quite a few people. Just remember Jim, every corporation from the cereal you eat to the car you drive is working with the homosexual movement to destroy our once great nation.

Show post

Walter E. Williams #fundie thenewamerican.com

[From "Were Confederate Generals Traitors?"]

My "Rewriting American History" column of a fortnight ago, about the dismantling of Confederate monuments, generated considerable mail. Some argued there should not be statues honoring traitors such as Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson and Jefferson Davis, who fought against the Union. Victors of wars get to write the history, and the history they write often does not reflect the facts. Let's look at some of the facts and ask: Did the South have a right to secede from the Union? If it did, we can't label Confederate generals as traitors.

Article 1 of the Treaty of Paris (1783), which ended the war between the Colonies and Great Britain, held "New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and Independent States." Representatives of these states came together in Philadelphia in 1787 to write a constitution and form a union.

During the ratification debates, Virginia's delegates said, "The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression." The ratification documents of New York and Rhode Island expressed similar sentiments.
At the Constitutional Convention, a proposal was made to allow the federal government to suppress a seceding state. James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," rejected it. The minutes from the debate paraphrased his opinion: "A union of the states containing such an ingredient (would) provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a state would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound."

America's first secessionist movement started in New England after the Louisiana Purchase in 1803. Many were infuriated by what they saw as an unconstitutional act by President Thomas Jefferson. The movement was led by Timothy Pickering of Massachusetts, George Washington's secretary of war and secretary of state. He later became a congressman and senator. "The principles of our Revolution point to the remedy — a separation," Pickering wrote to George Cabot in 1803, for "the people of the East cannot reconcile their habits, views, and interests with those of the South and West." His Senate colleague James Hillhouse of Connecticut agreed, saying, "The Eastern states must and will dissolve the union and form a separate government." This call for secession was shared by other prominent Americans, such as John Quincy Adams, Elbridge Gerry, Fisher Ames, Josiah Quincy III and Joseph Story. The call failed to garner support at the 1814-15 Hartford Convention.

The U.S. Constitution would have never been ratified -- and a union never created — if the people of those 13 "free sovereign and Independent States" did not believe that they had the right to secede. Even on the eve of the War of 1861, unionist politicians saw secession as a right that states had. Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel of Maryland said, "Any attempt to preserve the union between the states of this Confederacy by force would be impractical and destructive of republican liberty." The Northern Democratic and Republican parties favored allowing the South to secede in peace.

Northern newspapers editorialized in favor of the South's right to secede. New-York Tribune (Feb. 5, 1860): "If tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861." The Detroit Free Press (Feb. 19, 1861): "An attempt to subjugate the seceded States, even if successful, could produce nothing but evil — evil unmitigated in character and appalling in extent." The New-York Times (March 21, 1861): "There is a growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go."

Confederate generals were fighting for independence from the Union just as George Washington and other generals fought for independence from Great Britain. Those who'd label Gen. Robert E. Lee as a traitor might also label George Washington as a traitor. I'm sure Great Britain's King George III would have agreed.

Show post

Selwyn Duke and J. Christian Adams #conspiracy thenewamerican.com

[All formatting from the original source]

It’s not enough that American academia has been indoctrinating native-born youth with leftism, reinforced by the media and entertainment. Nor is it sufficient that our immigration regime has, since 1965, ensured that 85 percent of our immigrants would come from the Third World and Asia, bringing us people who vote overwhelmingly Democrat upon being naturalized. Barack Obama promised “fundamental change.”

And fundamental change he will deliver — fast — by hook or by crook.

So says J. Christian Adams, a former Department of Justice attorney and whistleblower, claiming that the effort to fast-track illegal aliens to voter status is already underway.

[...]

Adams also writes that “PJ Media has obtained an internal ‘Dear Colleague’ letter written by Leon Rodriguez, the ‘director and co-chair of the Task Force on New Americans,’” that refers to a White House report called “‘Strengthening Communities by Welcoming All Residents’” and states, “This report outlines an immigrant integration plan that will … ensure that the people who live in this country can fully participate in their communities.”

Adams, who worked voting-rights cases while at the DOJ, then points out that “‘full participation’ is a term commonly used to include voting rights.” He then says that in order to achieve this “participation,” the DHS — which ostensibly was created to increase our country’s security — has been mounting a full-court press to grant citizenship to as many aliens as possible before next November’s election. As Adams puts it, “Multiple sources at DHS confirm that political appointees are prioritizing naturalization ahead of the 2016 presidential election.”

Adams also reports that groups such as La Raza (Spanish for “The Race”) and the American Immigration Lawyers Association have been helping forge Obama administration immigration policy. Moreover, he relates that an anonymous DHS official told him that DHS “intends to ‘recapture’ ‘unused’ visas from years past to grant more visas and LPR [green card] status.” In other words, if you’re a warm body (and sometimes cold will do) with socialist leanings, Uncle Sam wants you.

And now that this demographic-warfare tactic has brought America to a tipping point, leftists are becoming more forthcoming about their aims and rightists are finally waking up. As the Daily Caller put it in a February title, Obama is “‘Hopeful’ Immigration Will Drown Conservatism”; and WND.com recently reported, “Expected surge of immigrants to push U.S. to 'European model of state control.’”

[...]

This explains why the Obama administration has been feverishly shipping illegal migrants to various communities nationwide. Note that this isn’t unprecedented, as Marxist governments did precisely the same thing, transferring populations and intermixing religious and ethnic groups. It’s the divide-and-conquer strategy: Sufficiently break down an area’s cohesiveness — create division with “diversity” — and it’s unlikely it will be able to successfully rebel against the central government.