Archive | April 13, 2015

Cash Banned in Louisianna*

Cash Banned in Louisianna*

By Kenneth Schortgen Jr

If you thought that your dollar bill was recognized legal tender, then think again as the state of Louisiana has passed a new bill that will outlaw the use of cash for purchases of used goods, and will summarily make it illegal to use cash for things like private auto sales and garage sales.  Bill LA HB 195 is an updated version of a bill passed originally in 2011 which now expands the purview of legislation outlawing the use of cash in transactions involving used goods such as in private sales or even for Goodwill retailers.

Every person in this state engaged in the business of buying, selling, trading in, or otherwise acquiring or disposing of junk or used or secondhand property, including but not limited to jewellery, silverware, diamonds, precious metals, ferrous materials, catalytic converters, auto hulks, copper, copper wire, copper alloy,  bronze, zinc, aluminium other than in the form of cans, stainless steel, nickel alloys, or brass, whether in the form of bars, cable, ingots, rods, tubing, wire, wire scraps, 10 clamps or connectors, railroad track materials, water utility materials, furniture, pictures, objects of art, clothing, mechanic’s tools, carpenter’s tools, automobile hubcaps, automotive batteries, automotive sound equipment such as radios, CB radios, stereos, speakers, cassettes, compact disc players, and similar automotive audio supplies, used building components, and items defined as cemetery artefacts  is a second-hand dealer.

Anyone, other than a non-profit entity, who buys, sells, trades in, or otherwise acquires or disposes of junk or used or second-hand property more frequently than once per month from any other person, other than a nonprofit entity, shall be deemed as being engaged in the business of a second-hand dealer.

A second-hand dealer shall not enter into any cash transactions in payment for the purchase of junk or used or second-hand property. Payment shall be made in the form of check, electronic transfers, or money order issued to the seller of the junk or used or second-hand property and made payable to the name and address of the seller.  All payments made by check, electronic transfers, or money order shall be reported 16 separately in the daily reports required by R.S. 37:1866. – Silver Doctors

There are three reasons why a municipality, state, or government would outlaw the use of cash in private or secondhand transactions:

  • To ensure tax collection
  • Eliminate barter
  • Monitor and record every sale made by an individual or business

When cash is no longer accepted as legal tender for debts public and private, then that script or currency can no longer be considered money.  And as the State continues to push for a completely electronic monetary system, this is just one more step on the road to removing freedoms and liberties from the common citizen, and controlling all commerce done between one person to another.

Source*

Related Topics:

You Pay more while Banks Profiteer in a Cashless Society…that’s the Convenience*

NWO: France Clamping Down on Cash in the Name of Terror*

Ten Reasons Why I Don’t Have a Credit Card*

Iceland Wizens to Banksters Game with Plan to Remove Power of Commercial Banks to Create Money*

$45 Million Stolen from Banks Worldwide Shows How Easy It is in a Cashless Society*

Cashless Society: Push of a Button can Empty Your Credit Card Account*

Hurricane Sandy Challenges a Cashless Society!

Alternative Currencies Building Prosperity from London to Kenya*

Cashless Society: Use Credit Cards at Your Peril*

More Banks Preventing Cash Withdrawals*

Replace the Gospel of Money*

Canada: The Effect of Homosexual Parenting on One Child*

Canada: The Effect of Homosexual Parenting on One Child*

By Dawn Stefanowicz

It took me decades to come to my views on same-sex “marriage” in light of my personal experiences.

2_wolves_shadow_sideFrom infancy, I was unwittingly identified under the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transsexual (GLBT) umbrella. During the first 30 years of my life, I garnered many personal, social and professional experiences with my father, whom I always loved, and his partners. My father, a successful executive recruiter, taught me a strong business ethic.

My Childhood

I was exposed to a lot of expressed sexuality in the home and subcultures. I experienced uncountable losses. Gender was supposed to be boundless; yet, I did not see my father and his partners valuing, loving and affirming women. My father’s preference for one gender (male) created an inner sense of inequality for me.

As a dependent child and teen, I was not allowed to say anything that would hurt the feelings of the adults around me. If I did, I could face ostracism or worse. During my twenties, I achieved both academic and career goals, but for a long while, I denied the impact my childhood had had and lied to protect my father and his partners.

In 1991, my father died of AIDS. None of my father’s partners/ex-partners are still alive.

I did not have all the words to express my thoughts and feelings until my late twenties and early thirties, so it took a while before I went public, but I knew that my father never would have supported same-sex “marriage.” Naturally, he knew that every child is created from both a father and a mother. He never required me to call any of his sexual partners “dad;” instead I called each of them by first name. My father told me that he always wanted children.

genderThe Push to Quiet Me and Others

Due to media silencing, political correctness, GLBT lobbying efforts and loss of freedom of speech, it is very hard to tell my story.

But I am not alone. Over 50 adult children from alternative households, plus ex-spouses with children, and parents who have left the “gay” lifestyle have contacted me. Very few children will share their stories publicly.

For many of us adult children of gay parents, we have come to the conclusion that same-sex marriage is more about promoting adults’ ” “desires” than about safeguarding children’s rights to know and be raised by their biological parents.

I feel so strongly about this issue that I have testified before lawmakers in Canada, regarding hate crime legislation, same-sex marriage and age of consent laws, and I have testified in nine U.S. states, to the 5th Circuit and to the Supreme Court, and in other countries.

How Same-Sex Marriage Has Changed Canada

Statements like this are lies: “Permitting same-sex couples (now also throuples) access to the designation of marriage will not deprive anyone of any rights.”

When same-sex marriage passed in Canada in July 2005, parenting was immediately redefined, removing parentage from its biological origins. Canada’s gay marriage law, Bill C-38, included a provision to erase the term “natural parent” and replace it across the board with gender-neutral “legal parent” in federal law. Now, all children have “legal parents,” as defined by the state, which means parental rights have been usurped by the government.

In effect, same-sex marriage permits state powers to override the autonomy of biological parents. Necessary parental rights to teach children your beliefs, express your opinions, and practice your personal faith are infringed upon by the state when your beliefs, opinions and or faith practices are in opposition to what is taught and promoted at school. In fact, in Ontario, Canada, the Human Rights Commission regulations permeate and surround all public education.

March for Marriage 2013 (Photo: Pete Marovich/ZUMA Press/Newscom)

For example, if you teach your children that same-sex sexual relationships are wrong and that every child has a father and a mother, and that only man-woman sex in marriage is allowed, you run the risk of thought police questioning your beliefs, especially if your children discuss these subjects in the classroom.

Consequently, parents experience state interference when it comes to moral values and teachings about family, parenting and sex education in schools. Also, children are deprived of knowing and being raised by both their biological father and mother since same-sex marriage allows for children to have same-sex parents where at least one parent is unrelated to the child.

Additionally, since the undefined term “sexual orientation” was added as a protected category under Canada’s hate crime law in 2004 and same-sex marriage became legalized in 2005, guaranteed fundamental freedoms of the Canadian Constitution have been reinterpreted, eroded and/or nullified by activist courts and quasi-courts with no real juries, also known as the Human Rights Commissions. The federal Human Rights Commission (HRC) has had a three-decade 100 percent conviction rate for hate speech.

Though Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act was repealed in 2013, which came into effect in 2014, many people believe that a similar act will be proposed soon after the 2015 federal election. At the same time, many of the Canadian provinces have similar hate speech codes with high conviction rates which effectively restrict speech and blogging freedoms. Activists and special interest groups have long supported censorship of speech and internet communications in Canada.

Human Rights Tribunals/Commissions in Canada police speech, and penalize upstanding citizens for their speech and expressions in opposition to particular sexual behaviours. It takes only one complaint against a person to be brought before the tribunal, costing the defendant tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees. The Commissions have the power to enter private residences and remove all items pertinent to their investigations, checking for hate speech.

Yet the plaintiff making the complaint has his legal fees completely paid for by the government. Even if the defendant is found innocent, he cannot recover his legal costs. If he is found guilty, he must pay fines to the person(s) who brought forth the complaint.

Religious Freedoms Under Attack in Canada

Under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which forms the first part of the Constitution Act 1982, everyone was to have been guaranteed the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d) freedom of association

In reality, these freedoms have been restricted. Businesses must provide goods and services to all customers, without regard to business owners’ conscience rights. Employers’ hiring practices cannot discriminate, even if a potential employee’s sexual practices and relationships are frowned upon. (For example, a religious college couldn’t refuse to hire someone who didn’t share the college’s views on sexuality without risking a Human Rights Commission complaint.)

Freedom to assemble and speak freely about man-woman marriage, family and sexuality are restricted. Activists often sit in on religious assemblies, listening for anything discriminatory towards GLBT, so a complaint can be made to the Human Rights Commission. Most faith communities have become politically correct to avoid fines and loss of charitable status.

Canadian media is restricted by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, the media censoring arm of government and similar to the Federal Communications Commission. If the media air anything considered discriminatory towards GLBT, broadcasting licenses can be revoked, and Human Rights Commissions can charge fines and restrict future airings.

I am a witness and I don’t want America to lose her hard-won freedoms as my fellow Canadians have. Marriage must remain between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others.

Source*

Related Topics:

Woman Raised by Lesbians Testifies Gay Marriage Top of the List of Bad Marriages*

Ontario Teacher Disciplined for Criticizing Child Sex Ed. – Paedophilia Program*

Medically Kidnapped Family Reunite by Escaping Canada*

Why is the Legalization of Gay Marriage so Important to the Queen?*

British Children as Young as 3 Referred for Transgender Treatment*

Religious Schools Face Closure if they don’t Promote Homosexuality*

Gay Activist Admits our Goal is to Indoctrinate Children*

Kids in Same-sex Households at Greater Risk of Mental Health Problems*

Parents Attacked for Protesting against the Sexualization of their Children*

UN’s Heterophobic Agenda*

Sexual Liberation a Tool of Mass Control*

Why the West Destroys and Humiliate Peoples

Mexican Study: Lower Mother Mortality and Violence against Women in Less ‘Liberal’ States*

Gay Commissioner Cracks Down on Churches*

And One Ring to Bind Them All*

Indigenous Hawai’ians Growing Fight for Independence*

Indigenous Hawai’ians Growing Fight for Independence*

By Gale Courey Toensing

In 1993, President Bill Clinton signed Public Law 103-150 – an apology to the Hawai’ian people for overthrowing their government and stealing their land 100 years earlier. The apology acknowledges the illegality of the U.S. government’s military-backed regime change of ”the sovereign Hawai’i nation” in 1893 and its support for the illegally created ”provisional government” in violation of treaties and international law. There’s been a Native Hawaiian sovereignty movement ever since.

The late Sen. Daniel Inouye and former Sen. Daniel Akaka tried unsuccessfully for a dozen years to pass legislation granting federal recognition to Native Hawai’ians – even though they aren’t an American Indian tribe. Now, in the face of a growing sovereignty movement of Native Hawai’ians who want their country back, the Interior Department is exploring whether to establish a government-to-government relationship with “the Native Hawai’ian community.”

ICTMN interviewed J. Kēhaulani Kauanui for some insight into the thinking behind the Hawai’ian sovereignty movement. A longtime critic of federal recognition in the Hawaiian context, Kauanui is an Associate Professor of American Studies and Anthropology at Wesleyan University whose research specialty is on Native Hawai’ian sovereignty, indigenous politics and decolonization. She is the author of Hawai’ian Blood: Colonialism and the Politics of Sovereignty and Indigeneity (Duke University Press, 2008).

How does the Interior Department initiative through the executive branch look in light of the 14 years of the Akaka bill that failed through the legislative branch?

This seems to be a last ditch effort driven by the trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) to go the executive route since the legislative path did not work out for those wanting federal recognition. [According to the OHA website, the state government created the OHA in 1979 and funds it. Its mission is to “protect Hawai’i’s people and environmental resources and OHA’s assets, toward ensuring the perpetuation of the culture, the enhancement of lifestyle and the protection of entitlements of Native Hawaiians, while enabling the building of a strong and healthy Hawai’ian people and nation, recognized nationally and internationally.” In fiscal year 2012 its total assets were $609,513,307.]

Without the late Senator Daniel K. Inouye’s seniority in the U.S. Senate, and now retired Senator Daniel Akaka’s political and symbolic clout as initial sponsor of the legislative proposal, it seems that officials of the “50th state” are pushing to go this alternative route, which could be facilitated given the possible changes to the regulations.

Who among the Hawaiian people support this initiative and why?

Many Native Hawai’ians support this effort because they have been told that it is the only thing politically feasible. From 2000-2012 when the Akaka bill was on and off the table, and repeatedly revised to suit both conservatives in the U.S. Congress and “50th state” officials, those driving the proposal repeatedly misrepresented the legislation as one that would offer parity with federally recognized Indian tribes.

This was a farce since the dividing wedge over the last bill was when the state insisted that the sovereignty of any recognized Native Hawai’ian governing entity would be “delegated” rather than recognized as “inherent.” But even if regarded as “inherent,” fed-rec would not resolve the contradiction between the existence of the Hawai’ian Kingdom as an independent state and the push to convert that entity into a domestic dependent nation within U.S. federal policy. What’s more, the legislative proposal made it clear that the 50th state would have both civil and criminal jurisdiction over that “Native Hawai’ian governing entity”! Why? With no territory, there’s no allowance for even limited jurisdiction over civil and criminal jurisdiction like most tribal nations exercise.

What about the growing number of Hawaiians who consider their country illegally occupied according to international law?

Like the Akaka bill that was reintroduced time and again from 2000-2012, federal recognition – whether through the legislative branch or the executive branch – is an effort by the U.S. government and its subsidiary, “the 50th state,” to extinguish the outstanding sovereignty claims to national sovereignty under international law since if a substantial proportion of the Hawai’ian people go the domestic route, their participation in the legal fiction could be used as evidence of acquiescence.

Source*

Related Topics:

The Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement

Hawaii Bans Biotech Companies, and their GMO Crops*

Hawaiian Victory over Monsanto*

Nuclear Tests: South Pacific Islands to Sue France for $1billion*

Ecuadorian President Correa on the Final Independence of our Americas*

Ecuadorian President Correa on the Final Independence of our Americas*

At the 7th Summit of the Americas

“Prosperity with equity? I would rather say equity for prosperity, but also sovereignty and dignity. The time has come for the second and final independence of our Americas”.said the Ecuadorean leader.

Obama succeeded in preventing any agreement..

By Wayne Madsen

U.S. President Barack Obama had a number of awkward encounters with Latin American and Caribbean leaders at the Caribbean Community and Common Market (CARICOM) summit in Jamaica and the Summit of the Americas in Panama. Present in Jamaica were leaders like Dominica’s Prime Minister Roosevelt Skerrit. Skerrit had denounced Obama’s policy of sanctions against Dominica’s ally Venezuela and Washington’s calling the government headed by President Nicolas Maduro a threat to U.S. national security. Obama and his advisers were awkwardly forced to «walk back» the national security threat charge against Venezuela during both summit venues.

Many of Venezuela’s friends at the CARICOM Summit were equally disturbed by the Obama administration’s «bullying» of not only Venezuela but that nation’s Caribbean allies in the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA), the alternate Latin American/Caribbean alliance formed by the late Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez to provide the hemisphere with a counterweight to the U.S.-dominated Organization of American States (OAS). ALBA includes as members many of the nations whose leaders met with Obama at the CARICOM summit. These included the prime ministers of Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, Grenada, St. Kitts-Nevis, St. Lucia, and St. Vincent and the Grenadines.

However, America’s chief bullying target in Jamaica and Panama was not Venezuela’s president but Suriname’s president Desi Bouterse, the current chairman of the Guyana-based CARICOM, a position that rotates between leaders of the member states every six months. Although Bouterse temporarily chairs CARICOM, he decided at the last minute to forgo travelling to Jamaica for the leaders’ summit between Obama and CARICOM, an organization for which Bouterse remains the titular head until June 2015. It is certain that Obama, who disinvited Bouterse from a U.S. mission reception for heads of state and government at the United Nations General Assembly annual meeting in 2010, let it be known to CARICOM that he did not want the Surinamese leader present at the Montego Bay, Jamaica summit venue.

Bouterse’s sudden change of plans was because the United States began proffering to certain media outlets the idea that Bouterse could be arrested in Jamaica on a Europol arrest warrant that was issued for cocaine trafficking before he was elected president in 2010. Bouterse was charged with illegally shipping 474 kilograms of cocaine to South Holland. In 2000, a Dutch court sentenced Bouterse to 11 years in prison in absentia. Until he became president of Suriname and gained diplomatic immunity, Bouterse refrained from travelling internationally. The American charge that Bouterse and his son have used Suriname as a narcotics transit point was put to shame when just prior to the Jamaica and Panama summits, the Suriname police destroyed 109 kilograms of cocaine. That came after the police destroyed 430 kilograms of cocaine in January. However, the charge of narcotics smuggling is a familiar U.S. strategy used to undermine foreign, especially Western Hemisphere leaders. Similar charges were levelled by Washington against Bolivian President Evo Morales, Venezuela’s Maduro and Chavez, Nicaragua’s Daniel Ortega, and Ecuador’s Rafael Correa. All the charges were rank propaganda and were totally without merit.

Maduro, Ortega, and Correa were all present with Obama at the Panama summit. However, Suriname was forced to be represented by its permanent representative to the OAS in Washington, Niermala Badrising. In Jamaica, Suriname, instead of being represented by the current chairman Bouterse, the country’s seat was occupied by Suriname’s «special ambassador» to the United States, Subhas Mungra.

Bouterse’s attorneys in the Netherlands claim that the narcotics indictment and arrest warrant for Bouterse were based on trumped up charges resulting from false evidence and perjury. The lawyers claim that the drug charge against Bouterse was politically-motivated because the then-Dutch Prime Minister, Ruud Lubbers, and his top officials, including Justice Ministers Winnie Sorgdrager and Ernst Hirsch Ballin and former Attorney General Joan de Wijk, wanted to please the United States and its Central Intelligence Agency by abusing the Dutch criminal system. It is noteworthy that one of the Dutch government’s chief prosecution witnesses against Bouterse, Belgian drug lord Patrick van Loon, later recanted his testimony upon which the Bouterse guilty verdict was largely based.

Nevertheless, Bouterse has reason to fear the United States, and, in particular, Obama. Obama’s brief Bouterse includes the efforts on behalf of the CIA that Stanley Ann Dunham, Obama’s mother, took in trying to overthrow Bouterse in the 1980s. Bouterse had overthrown the previous civilian government in a coup and he steered his nation into the pro-Cuba and socialist Third World camp. Mrs. Dunham, then an employee of the CIA-linked Ford Foundation in New York and a fluent speaker of Javanese, which is, other than Dutch, the main commercial language of Suriname, worked closely with the Surinamese expatriate community in New York to undermine Bouterse.

In 2013, Bouterse’s son, Dino Bouterse, was indicted and imprisoned in New York after being literally kidnapped by U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents in Panama. The possibility that Obama and the host nation, Panama, may stage another arrest, that of President Bouterse, at the summit caused his cancellation, even though Suriname’s capital of Paramaribo is to host the next Summit of the Americas in 2018.

The kidnapping of Dino Bouterse was similar to the entrapment operations by DEA used against Russian weapons merchant Viktor Bout who was similarly «shanghaied» from Thailand to the United States in 2010 after being arrested in a DEA sting in Bangkok in 2008. The same tactic was used to kidnap Russian pilot Konstantin Yaroshenko from Liberia to the United States. Dino Bouterse was the head of the Suriname Anti-Terrorist Unit and was charged by the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Manhattan, an office where Israel maintains undue influence, of trying to set up a Hezbollah «terrorism» network in Suriname and Latin America and being engaged in drug smuggling. Connecting progressive Latin American governments to aiding terrorism is an old Israeli trick that has been used by Jerusalem as a disincentive for Latin American support for the national sovereignty of Palestine and Lebanon.

As far as calls for President Bouterse’s arrest on an international warrant are concerned, those demands mostly emanate from the Netherlands’s far-right wing leaders like Geert Wilders and Raymond De Roon. They wanted Bouterse arrested in South Africa while he was attending the 2013 funeral for Nelson Mandela. Wilders is also Israel’s chief anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant cheerleader in the Dutch parliament.

General John F. Kelly, the chief of the U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) based in Miami, has charged that Suriname is a source for guerrillas fighting for the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) in the Middle East. Not content with going after the Bouterse family, the Obama administration and its Pentagon lackeys want to paint Suriname as a centre for Islamist terrorism in the Western Hemisphere. This same tactic has been used by the U.S. and Israel with regard to Venezuela and the Tri-Border region of Brazil, Argentina, and Paraguay. Responding to the spurious charge by Kelly that Suriname citizens have joined ISIL training camps in the Middle East, Melvin Linscheer, the director of the Bureau for National Security (BNV), said, «As far as we know there are no Surinamers there». Linscheer said that if Dutch citizens of Surinamese background were travelling to ISIL camps, «that is a problem that concerns the Netherlands, not us».

The U.S. ambassador to Suriname, Jay Anania, has been caught by the Desi Bouterse government of providing material assistance to Bouterse’s political enemies in the country. Anania is yet another interventionist U.S. ambassador who sees themselves more as Roman-style pro-consuls than diplomatic envoys.

After Dino Bouterse’s kidnapping from Panama and rendition to New York, the ever-dubious U.S. attorney for Manhattan, Preet Bharara, sought and received a 16-year prison sentence for Bouterse. One could imagine the tenseness of an Obama-Bouterse encounter if the tables were turned and Bouterse’s government held Malia Obama, the president’s oldest daughter, in a Surinamese prison for a 16-year sentence based on bogus drug charges after being renditioned from a third country, like Aruba or Trinidad, while on a spring break holiday.

Obama’s hostile attitude toward Suriname, in part, arises from the Israeli government’s two major influence peddlers within the White House Latin America policy apparatus, deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes and Roberta Jacobson, the Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs. When it comes to sullying the reputations of Western Hemisphere leaders from Bouterse to Argentina’s Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner and Ortega to Brazil’s Dilma Rousseff, Rhodes has a powerful ally in the chief of CBS News, his brother, David Rhodes. In the New York-Washington media axis that abides by the concept of «monkey see, monkey do,» anything misreported by CBS News about the two summits in Jamaica and Panama was eagerly echoed by its media counterparts at NBC, ABC, CNN, and Fox, as well as by the U.S. bureaus of the BBC, Al Jazeera, and France 24.

Obama capped off his remarks in Panama by saying America’s «days of meddling» in Latin America are over. That will come as a surprise to Suriname, Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Paraguay, Honduras, Haiti, Brazil, Argentina, Guatemala, El Salvador, Costa Rica, Colombia, and Nicaragua, all of which have seen more than their fair share of meddling from the CIA, the DEA, and the Pentagon during the Obama administration.

Related Topics:

Obama Visit to Jamaica, an Attempt to Break-up the Regional Alliance*

Occupy World: Chilean Farmer Wins Case against Monsanto*

Chile Rejects $8bn Dam Project, Again*

Chile Defends Earth and Halts Gold-Copper Mine*

Argentina: Activists Brings Monsanto Plant to a Halt*

Argentina Refuses to be Dragged to its Knees by the U.S.*

The Whys Behind the How of Officials Investigating Charlie Hebdo and Argentina Committed ‘Suicide’*

This is what TPP Looks Like: World Bank Demands Argentina Pay French Company*

Bolivia Bans Partnerships with Multinationals*

Bolivian Boycott Forces McDonalds out of Business*

Not in the West: Bolivian Economy Grew $34 Billion in 2014*

Bolivia Revokes Visa Agreement with Israel*

Bolivia: Morales Third Term Breaks the Mould of Control by Wealthy Settlers*

Guatemala Suspends U.S. ‘Monsanto Law’*

The U.S. Coup against Venezuela has Served to Strengthen Caribbean Unity

Venezuela Bans ‘Terrorists’ Bush, and Cheney *

British Children as Young as 3 Referred for Transgender Treatment*

 

British Children as Young as 3 Referred for Transgender Treatment*

Psychiatric eugenics gave birth to the psychological arm of genetic eugenics, psychology, and all three with great dedication were birthed by the British psychological warfare unit at the Tavistock Institute involving the Scottish Rite, the CIA, US, Canadian and UN agencies in 1947..

Dr. John Coleman who worked with the Tavistock exposed their workings stated boldly:

“Without Tavistock, there would have been no WWI and WWII, no Bolshevik Revolution, Korea, Vietnam, Serbia and Iraq wars.”

The number of young children – some as young as three – being referred to the UK’s National Health Service for transgender treatments has quadrupled in the last six years, according to the Tavistock and Portman Trust, a NHS centre that specializes in gender issues for children under 18.

The mental health clinic reported that 77 children under 11 years old had been referred to its Gender Identity Development Service in 2014. Of those, 20 were only three or four years old.

In 2009-10 the centre said it had 19 such referrals total.

A spokesperson for Tavistock and Portman Trust said that while gender dysphoria in children is a “complex and rare condition” which is “frequently associated with distress which may increase at puberty…there is not one straightforward explanation for the increase in referrals.”

He added that “it’s important to note that gender expression is diversifying, which makes it all the more important that young people have the opportunity to explore and develop their own path with the support of specialist services.”

Noting this trend, British media reported the story of eight-year-old “Jessica,” a biological boy, who told the BBC that he is so happy now that he can live as though he were a female. “I really didn’t want to be a boy,” he said. “It was really frustrating for me. It feels like I’m in the wrong body.”

The boy’s mother, who is in a lesbian relationship, was accused by a relative of “conditioning” her son to want to be female. She reportedly dismissed this claim as “absurd.”

However, not everyone is celebrating.

Columnist and commentator Carole Malone wonders why health care money is being “wasted” on transgender treatments for three-year-olds who “can’t decide whether he wants fish fingers or baked beans for tea.”

“How on earth would he know he was born in the wrong body?” she asked.

“And how would such a young child be able to express that kind of emotion?”

She warned, in an editorial in the Mirror, that,

“My fear in all this is that if a child is put into a state-funded ‘transgender’ monitoring system at three – they might never get out of it. They might never be able to – or be allowed to – think independently, and be steered into believing they’re something they are not.”

Dr. Rick Fitzgibbons, a psychiatrist and the director of Comprehensive Counseling Services near Philadelphia, shares Malone’s concern.

In an article published earlier this year in Aleteia, Dr. Fitzgibbons said that “important medical and psychological issues need to be considered before the educational, medical, political and judicial systems rush headlong into a process of affirming in youth and in their parents a fixed false belief that a person can be a sex that is not consistent with their biological and genetic identity and that such individuals have the right to transgender surgery. Fixed false beliefs are identified in the mental health field as manifestations of a serious thinking disorder, specifically a delusion.”

“Today youth with gender confusion are being encouraged to consider sexual reassignment surgery without being warned of the severe risks associated with such surgery or being given informed consent about other treatment that could resolve their confusion,” he said.

“For example,” Dr. Fitzgibbons continued, “a 2011 follow up of SRS [sexual reassignment surgery] from Sweden demonstrated that persons after sex reassignment, have considerably higher risks for mortality, suicidal behaviour, and psychiatric morbidity than the general population.”

Dr. Paul McHugh, the former chair of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins, wrote in the Wall St. Journal about finding such evidence in his research.

Dr. McHugh said, “Most shockingly, their suicide mortality rose almost 20-fold above the comparable non-transgender population. This disturbing result has as yet no explanation but probably reflects the growing sense of isolation reported by the aging transgendered after surgery. The high suicide rate certainly challenges the surgery prescription.”

McHugh observed that,

“When children who reported transgender feelings were tracked without medical or surgical treatment at both Vanderbilt University and London’s Portman Clinic, 70 – 80% of them spontaneously lost those feelings.”

Dr. Fitzgibbons also points to the dissemination of “gender theory” in the education system as a cause of the perceived increase in gender identity disorder (GID) in children and youth.

“Today,” Fitzgibbons wrote, “another important motivational factor related to transgender identity is the exposure of youth to gender theory in college, which can result in their embrace of postmodern philosophies focused on freedom as an end in itself.”

He said that such ideas came from sources including the writings of Friedrich Nietzsche and Jean-Paul Sartre.

If freedom (some would call it license) is the greatest good in the world, then why should anyone be constrained by biology?” he asked.

“One’s sex as male and female is seen not as a gift but as a constraint that must be overcome, so if technology can alter one’s body, then so be it.”

Dr. Fitzgibbons said that information about the serious medical and psychiatric issues associated with transgender treatments must be made available to youth who are confused about their gender.

“Paediatricians, mental health professionals, physicians, nurses and school counselors have a clear legal responsibility to do so and parents, family members, educators, politicians and clergy have a moral responsibility to protect youth,” Fitzgibbons concluded.

Source*

The means by which a child may be referred was highlighted by the Daily Mail in the following case:

“This escalating nightmare began when Megan was referred to an NHS counsellor last summer for nothing more than help in dealing with her teenage mood swings and her desire to ‘fit in,’” writes Isabel Robinson.

“Against my will and with alarming rapidity, my daughter was referred to the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust clinic in North London, the UK’s only specialist centre for youngsters diagnosed with gender dysphoria.”

Related Topics:

Religious Schools Face Closure if they don’t Promote Homosexuality*

U.K. Free School to Close for Allowing God into the Curriculum*

****Up Nature: Sex change for Nine-year-olds*

DNA Editors Forget it, as Another Code is Discovered*

Why is the Legalization of Gay Marriage so Important to the Queen?*

Sex Education, the Key to Social Engineering*

Sexual Liberation a Tool of Mass Control*

Kids in Same-sex Households at Greater Risk of Mental Health Problems*

Conscientious Scientists want a Ban on Editing the Human Genome*

Ontario Teacher Disciplined for Criticizing Child Sex Ed. – Paedophilia Program*

You, Social Engineering and The Tavistock Institute