RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://nypost.com/2023/09/05/im-being-professionally-canceled-for-my-moral-stance-on-trans-butchery/

Recently, the College of Psychologists in Ontario ordered Jordan B. Peterson — a clinical psychologist, professor of Psychology at the University of Toronto and best-selling author — to undergo “professional coaching.” His sin? Tweeting opinions the college deemed “unbecoming of a psychologist.” Here, Peterson explains to The Post what he said, why he was right — and why it was imperative he speak out.

I am likely to soon lose my license to practice as a clinical psychologist in my home province of Ontario, in the Canada whose historically prosaic internal politics should by all reasonable standards still be off the international radar.

Why? A variety of charges have been brought against me by the administrative board granted government mandate to protect the public from misbehavior on the part of the practitioners of my profession.

What are those charges — pertaining to attitudes and actions that have caused unproven harm to others and brought hypothetical disgrace upon the practice of psychotherapy itself — all brought forward, by the way, by individuals who were never my clients?

Two stem from criticisms I levied directly against the current leader of Canada, one Justin Trudeau, now recognized by a majority of the inhabitants of this frigid and sparsely inhabited land as the worst Prime Minister in this country’s history.

Psychologist Jordan Peterson was ordered to undergo “professional coaching” by the College of Psychologists in Ontario due to public statements that he has made.
Photo by Chris Williamson/Getty Images
The complaints against Peterson include tweets he wrote criticizing Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Elliot Page’s “gender affirmation” surgery.
Photo by Romy Arroyo Fernandez/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Four were a consequence of other arguably political opinions: a judgemental comment I directed toward Trudeau’s former chief of staff, who resigned under a cloud of controversy some years ago; an ironic comment about the diverse “identity” claimed by an Ottawa city councillor whose attitude toward the Canadian Trucker Convoy raised my hackles; and the entire transcript (I kid you not) of a three-hour public discussion with podcaster Joe Rogan, where I criticized the unreliable climate and economic “models” upon which we are now predicating our increasingly tyrannical international order.

One indicated my refusal to accede to the hypocritical woke insistence that an obese cover model was in fact a fit and beautiful athlete.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2023/09/actually_joe_biden_has_doubled_the_deficit.html

Over the past two years, President Joe Biden has made numerous statements suggesting that he is a deficit hawk on par with past presidents such as Calvin Coolidge or Andrew Jackson. For instance, earlier this year, Biden claimed, “In my first two years, I reduced the debt by $1.7 trillion. No President has ever done that.”

In reality, Biden was half right. No president, including Biden, has ever done anything close to reducing the national debt by such a gigantic amount in his first two years or any two-year period, for that matter.

Here are the facts. When Biden entered the White House, the national debt stood at $27.7 trillion. Two years later, the national debt stands at $32.9 trillion. Using simple arithmetic, the national debt has increased by $5.2 trillion under Biden. That is a big difference from a $1.7 trillion reduction.

However, I’ll do Joe a favor and give him the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps he was referring to the deficit, not the debt.

So, let’s take a peek at annual deficits under the Biden administration. In fiscal year 2021, the federal deficit registered at $2.8 trillion. In fiscal year 2022, the deficit was $1.4 trillion. And, in fiscal year 2023, the deficit is expected to surpass the $2 trillion threshold, again.

Before analyzing these figures, I must mention that fiscal years (FY) are different from calendar years because fiscal years encompass the period from October 1 through September 30. This matters quite a bit because fiscal year 2021 included a $920 billion COVID-19 relief package signed into law by President Donald Trump in late December of 2020. In other words, days before Biden entered the Oval Office, another $1 trillion was added to the deficit under the Trump administration, which basically accounts for the deficit reduction from FY 2021 to FY 2022 that Biden takes credit for.

Interestingly, as Biden takes victory laps for the deficit reduction that occurred from FY 2021 to FY 2022, we must not forget that this hollow triumph took place despite Biden, not because of him. By this, I am referring to the fact that immediately upon taking office, Biden signed into law the massive $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan, which completely obliterated any deficit reduction that would have come to fruition once the previous COVID-19 spending bills came off the books.

https://amgreatness.com/2023/09/06/california-bills-would-remove-visitation-rights-for-parents-who-dont-affirm-childs-gender-identity/

Democrats in the state of California continue to double down on their support for transgenderism, and have now introduced legislation that would forbid parents from even seeing their child if they do not support the child’s “gender identity.”

As reported by the Washington Free Beacon, Democrats in the state legislature have introduced two new bills, both of which would change California family law by making “gender affirmation” a part of children’s health, safety, and welfare. The first bill would grant judges the authority to take away custody from parents who do not “affirm” their child’s gender identity, while the second bill would force judges who are considering granting custody rights to take into consideration “a parent’s affirmation of the child’s gender identity or gender expression.”

Neither bill provides any clear definition for the term “affirmation,” nor do they give a specific age by which a child’s identity should be “affirmed” by their parents. Both pieces of legislation will be up for approval by the State Assembly and State Senate by September 14th.

“In the unfortunate event that parents are negotiating visitation rights for their children in a custody dispute, it makes sense for a judge to consider if the children are in legitimate danger,” said Lance Christensen, a spokesman for the California Policy Center. “However, classifying a parent who does not affirm a child’s gender dysphoria should not be in the same category as an abuser.”

The bills were introduced by State Senator Anna Caballero (D-Calif.) and co-authored by State Senator Scott Wiener (D-Calif.), the latter of whom is notorious for introducing numerous pro-LGBT bills that have garnered widespread backlash; his legislation has included a bill that decriminalized the act of knowingly infecting someone with HIV, as well as a bill decriminalizing homosexual acts with minors.

Wiener has repeatedly defended his outlandish legislation, blaming the most recent backlash on “a pretty massive misinformation campaign about this bill by the right-wing media.”

https://issuesinsights.com/2023/09/07/is-biden-national-security-threat-majority-says-yes-ii-tipp-poll/

Across the globe, the U.S. faces a growing list of dangerous foreign policy challenges. But is the 80-year-old President Joe Biden, with growing signs of age-related mental issues, up to the task? A large majority of Americans, including Democrats, say no, according to the latest I&I/TIPP Poll.

Global dangers abound. China’s engaged in a massive military buildup and poised to attack Taiwan. Meanwhile, Russia wages a bloody war with U.S.-supported Ukraine. In the Mideast, Iran’s nuclear program nears completion, and the U.S.’ 2021 Afghanistan departure has left a power vacuum across the region. This is just a partial list of growing threats.

With these in mind and a looming presidential election, the online I&I/TIPP Poll asked 1,351 adults around the country: “How concerned are you that Biden’s age and mental capacity pose a national security threat?” The poll, taken from Aug. 30-Sept. 1, has a margin of error of +/-2.7 percentage points.

The response was clear: After rounding the data, 70% of all respondents said they were either “very concerned” (44%) or “somewhat concerned” (25%). Just 15% answered “not very concerned,” while 13% said “not at all concerned,” for a total of 28%.