Peter LaBarbera praises Ben Carson’s queer idea

Anti-LGBT activist Peter LaBarbera praises queer idea

by Don Hank


Bruce / Caitlin Jenner is a confused man. So is Peter LaBarbera. Back in June, LaBarbera  plainly stated in public that transgenders like Jenner are promoting evil.

But now LaBarbera is praising Ben Carson for wanting to introduce transgender bathrooms! Of course, recall that promoting a top GOP candidate is a way to make money.

Oddly, out of the clear blue sky, LaBarbera, the head of anti-LGBT organization AFTAH, once accused me of pursuing my activism for money (from the Kremlin no less! Sure, Peter), and I quickly slapped him down with this scathing piece, showing which of us was REALLY after the buck. Providentially, I didn’t hear much from him after that.

But Peter is still saying queer things, promoting the GOP favorite candidate whose campaign is flush with money and needs support from “Christian” groups. These banquets that LaBarbera’s AFTAH holds bring in donors and, including wealthy Ben Car$on backers.

Peter LaBarbera is supposedly generally opposed to the LGBT agenda, but wouldn’t a transgender bathroom be a way to promote their agenda among impressionable children? I mean, suppose all public buildings had a third bathroom for freaks like Caitlyn Bruce Jenner who bask in the limelight in a major effort to encourage young people to change their sex because it’s the cool thing to do. A few years into Carson’s presidency, suppose your kid and you pass the 3d BR and says “why are there 3 kinds of bathrooms, Dad?”

And you live in a PC America where you can lose your job if you fail to enthusiastically cheer queer. So you’re forced to pretend this is perfectly normal for some men to become women and some women to become men (hey, but wouldn’t that mandate FOUR kinds of bathrooms?). You then become a carrier for an idea you — and Peter, when the price is right — think is dangerous and immoral.

Thanks to good old Peter LaBarbera pushing Ben Carter’s really stupid idea (that is what Trump would correctly call it), this idea is now a reality and you are forced to corrupt your own child or face the PC police and judge.

Does Carson care about this unfortunate aspect of his queer idea? And does he really think that this idea could be implemented without a law mandating it — a law that he would presumably cheerfully sign if president?

But beyond the immorality of the idea, if the government forced the owners and operators of all public buildings to add a third bathroom, the prices of goods and services would have to be increased to build and maintain these.

Sorry, Folks, Carson is being sold by the GOP because they know he is malleable and will do their bidding. Unlike Trump, he can be bought. This transgender bathroom idea shows that he is out of touch in terms of economics and social issues and is even out of touch with his own ideas on morality, simply because he wants to be president.

Compare this with the way Trump responds to social issues questions. He just says he is a traditional kind of person, period. No hemming and hawing and no compromise.

Trump is in touch with the hearts and minds of the average American. Carson is in touch with his campaign fund.

So Peter, what are you doing promoting a candidate who opposes not only the things you have been supporting for years and also the way we as Americans think?

And aren’t you afraid your supporters will see through you and drop you like a hot potato when you waffle like this in a thinly veiled effort to make a buck?

Don Hank


White men can’t negotiate / Parent-induced transgender disorder

Comments by Don Hank:

White men can’t negotiate

In the article linked below (and here), Joan Battey is right as usual. US economic woes most certainly are not all China’s fault, not by a long shot.

The US has 2 problems when dealing with foreign powers:

We hurt ourselves by giving away far too much and we hurt other nations through unintended consequences.

Our rush to grant China Most Favored Nation status with no meaningful checks and balances destroyed American industry, sabotaged our trade balance and now is also starting to hurt China.

I have been hearing for years from my China sources that poor Chinese are groaning under the high prices of real estate and staple goods. These sources now also tell me that many of China’s factories are closing due to rising labor and other costs. This is partly due to neurotic US policies, which while promising the Chinese juicy manufacturing contracts, also pressure China to offer above-slave wages and more benefits to workers.

On the simplest level, Americans are lousy at negotiating, while Chinese are masters of the art.

Back in the 80s, I once gave English lessons to a man who headed the Taiwanese trade delegation to the US. Being Chinese he was a natural negotiator. The Chinese principle of negotiating for anything is to ask for everything and promise nothing in return, and then “compromise” until an agreement is reached that gives the Chinese the lion’s share and the other side the scraps. The US side never seems to notice this, let alone learn from it.

For as long as I can remember, the US negotiation method has been just the opposite: We offer and promise everything and ask nothing in return, assuming that the other side will be just as fairminded as we are. The fact that this fails every time never deters us from proceeding with the same policy each subsequent time.

Our trade deficit problem with China is due almost entirely to this masochistic negotiating principle.

Jimmy Carter and his Panama Canal deal are a perfect example: In negotiations with then Panama President Omar Torrijos, he listened to the latter’s argument that Panama is a sovereign country and that the US needs to respect that. Instead of mentioning the obvious, namely, that without US intervention, there would have been no Panama in the first place, and without American ingenuity and the sacrifice of American lives and labor, there would never have been a Panama Canal, the pathologically naïve Jimmy rushed to sign the most self-immolating treaty in American history, giving the Canal to the “Panamanian people” (read: the Panamanian oligarchy) with virtually no strings attached, except the right to intervene should the canal be attacked. Thus Americans get to risk their lives to save someone else’s property.

If America does not learn to negotiate like a business person soon, we will be out of bargaining chips altogether!

Click here for: Passing the “depression?” blame buck: Note entirely China’s fault

By Joan Battey

Parent-induced “transgender disorder”

In the following article, an “expert” on transgender disorder tells us “All I know is that when I see preadolescents [with transgender disorder], they have been dressing in the underwear of the other sex for years. These kids are almost certainly transgendered.”

This doctor is missing the obvious: no child would be able to wear underwear of the opposite sex unless an adult parent or guardian, provided the child with that underwear. If my wife caught our daughter with her brother’s underwear after her morning shower, or if she saw boy’s underpants in her hamper, that would sound an alarm and we would immediately tell our daughter that that underwear is not hers, and that she needs to wear girls’ underwear. That would end the “confusion” in the child’s mind. (Of course, in a few years, that kind of common-sense behavior on the part of parents may well be considered child abuse! Parents may soon have to defend their right to tell their daughter she is a girl or their son he is a boy! California’s laws may have paved the way for this madness).

Clearly, “transgender disorder” is something facilitated by parents who, motivated perhaps by a pathological desire for publicity, want their kids to be transgendered. Through the subtlest suggestion, or by collaborating with the child’s illogical whims, parents are the ones responsible for this “disorder,” and it is they who need treatment.

Thus, it is all up to parents how children see themselves. But ever since Dr. Spock wrote his first toxic parenting texts, we have taught parents that it is wrong to discipline children because this may cause them trauma, when in fact, being truthful and providing guidance-such as the loving admonition “you are a boy and this is how boys behave”-is what children desperately need, now more than ever, and for some, their insistence on identifying with the other sex is certainly a cry for parental help that more and more often fails to materialize.

Even Dr. Spock himself, the prime mover of the bad parenting we have seen everywhere since the 60s, was honest enough to admit, when he was older and wiser, that he was wrong in advising parents to refrain from disciplining children.

Yet our society proceeds like a herd of troglodytes, pursuing a failed doctrine out of political correctness. But why be surprised at this when millions are voting for politicians whose ideologies reflect a system that failed in the Soviet Union and China? Failed policy is all the rage.

Will Dr. Spack, the transgender facilitator with the sound-alike name, also some day grow up and admit to his tragic mistake? Not likely, because this would be an admission of the criminal nature of deliberately deforming young bodies at the whim of youngsters already diagnosed as disturbed. Sort of like pushing a man off a bridge when he threatens suicide.

What the world needs now is a lawsuit against such doctors who deliberately maim children under the pretext of protecting them from suicide, a pretext based on nothing but the flimsiest anecdotal evidence supplied by a doctor with a vested interest in perpetuating the myth that children’s gender is a construct of their own making.

Absent such a lawsuit, bad parenting may soon be enforced by a ravingly insane government in the name of “protecting the children.”

Click here for the news article.

Divorce and unwed motherhood cost US taxpayer $1 trillion per decade.

“Public” school supports religion (it’s ok: this school is Islamic)

40-60% of Mass teachers flunk

DVDs you need if you have kids