Donate to help Jeffrey Younger save his son James from forced gender “transition”!
July 16, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – Texas father Jeffrey Younger has been locked in a bitter court battle with his ex-wife, Dr. Anne Georgulas, over the right to protect their son from being forced into “gender transition” therapy by Georgulas, the boy’s mother, and a new LifeFunder campaign has been established to aid his legal efforts.
James Younger is the nine-year-old Texas boy caught in the middle of the raging legal battle over the permission of his mother, who is a pediatrician, to impose “gender transitioning” on him, even though James presents himself as a boy when staying with his father and introduces himself by the name James.
Georgulas, on the other hand, treats her son James as though he was a girl, dressing him in female attire and addressing him by the fabricated appellation “Luna,” with the accompanying female pronouns. Georgulas admitted in 2019 that she is not the biological mother of James and his twin brother Jude, but that the boys were conceived through in vitro fertilization using a donor egg.
James’ father Jeffrey has been fighting heroically to protect his son from the “transgender” designs of his ex-wife since at least 2018, when she petitioned the court to have full custody over James and his twin Jude, including full rights over decisions regarding “gender-affirming” surgical procedures for James when he was just six years old.
A number of years ago, Georgulas enrolled James in school as a girl, beginning in kindergarten, where she dressed him as a girl with makeup. James is referred to as “Luna” by his teachers and classmates, and he uses the girls’ bathroom. Younger was unable to stop Georgulas from enrolling James as a girl, though he had a court order at the time allowing him a 50/50 share in such decisions.
As part of ongoing court proceedings, Georgulas petitioned to have Younger banned from “coming within 500 feet of the child’s school … talking to or having any contact with any third party related to the school (parents, students, teachers, administrators, etc.) … taking any action to notify any third party related to the school (parents, students, teachers, administrators, etc) that the gender of Luna is different than a girl named Luna.” The full extent of Georgulas’ request was pared back in a 2019 ruling, when both parents had gag orders placed on them, preventing them from speaking out on the ordeal and from confirming whether their son is a boy or a girl, even to James himself.
Donate to help Jeffrey Younger save his son James from forced gender “transition”!
Although restricted in what he can say about his son’s biological identity, Younger was granted joint conservatorship over James by a judge in October 2019, giving him some authority over medical decisions made on James’ behalf. Georgulas recently sued to have this right stripped from Younger, seeking a complete transfer of “medical and psychological decision making” to her alone.
Earlier this month, that request was altered to be less restrictive on Younger and his influence over James. A decision from the court is expected at a later date.
Pushing back against Georgulas’ relentless LGBT-driven impositions, Younger has been fighting not only to stop James’ mother from forcing chemical castration on him but also to have laws passed in the state of Texas that protect all children from the barbaric practice.
Younger explained in an interview with LifeSiteNews co-founder and editor-in-chief John-Henry Westen that the puberty blockers that could be given to his son if Georgulas acquires full custody would “block the normal growth of the skeleton, that’s one of the first major problems.” He added that in Scandinavia, where puberty blockers have been in use for decades, adults who had used the drugs as children are now experiencing “life-threatening osteoporosis.”
Defining puberty as “a set of physical, psychological, and social changes that occur in a specific order, at a specific time in a child’s development,” Younger described how halting this process, even if one was to start it up again after a long period of time, means that normal development “is not recoverable.”
In addition to the irreparable damage caused by interfering with the natural course of puberty, Younger explained that cross-sex hormones, often prescribed to children on puberty blockers, “permanently sterilize the child.”
“Rights are concomitant with duties,” Younger asserted. Consequently, with his right to free speech, Younger said he has a fatherly duty to “inform citizens of what the government is doing to children, what the courts are doing to children, and to press the government to change these laws” which allow life-altering “gender transition surgeries.”
“There’s no way I’m ever going to stop doing that and there is no legitimate government that can stop me from doing that,” he added.
“In order to exercise my parental rights prudently … it’s not possible for me to set an example of a moral father without me following the moral law, which is higher than the statutory law or any illegal order from a judge,” Younger declared, breaking his gag-ordered silence in the process.
Younger is a proud proponent of leading by example, upholding that “it is the only way you can lead children.”
“They will do what you do, not what you say. If I don’t stand up and do the right thing now, my sons will learn to be cowards from me. That is not going to happen,” he said. “There is no possible way in which I can follow this gag order and let other children across this country suffer.”
“I’m going to use all of my power to make [child gender transitioning] not only illegal but socially unacceptable, morally reprehensible, and to cast this out of our culture altogether.”
“I am not going to rest until it happens,” Younger concluded.
LifeFunder is LifeSite’s Christian, pro-life, and pro-family crowdfunding alternative to GoFundMe. Please prayerfully consider supporting Jeffrey Younger in his ongoing court case to maintain his parental rights over his son and to be able to stop his ex-wife from mutilating their son’s body through “gender transition therapy.” Donations can be made to Younger’s LifeFunder campaign here.
“They are psychologically damaged by puberty blockers, and then made even more confused, depressed and even psychotic by cross-sex hormones”
Dr. Laidlaw along with a growing number of doctors, both in the US and abroad, are questioning claims by their professional medical associations that puberty-blocking drugs are helpful in treating children who are confused about their gender.
Just last week, the Pediatric Endocrine Society released a statement saying chemical puberty suppression is a “reversible treatment that decreases the distress of having the wrong puberty.”
Dr. Michael Laidlaw, an endocrinologist based in Rocklin, California, says those claims are patently false with no real scientific evidence to back them up.
“What these medical societies have created is an institutionalized childhood pathway toward sterility,” Laidlaw warned in an interview with The Christian Post.
According to Laidlaw, the puberty blockers are just the first step for gender-confused children in this so-called “gender-affirming” treatment. The next step is giving them opposite-sex hormones, and finally, surgery to remove or alter genitalia.
These children used to be treated with counseling.
“Until very recently, these children and adolescents were supported and cared for with counseling,” endocrinologist Dr. William Malone told The Christian Post. “With counseling, or even watchful waiting, an average of 85% of these children would have a resolution of their distress by early adulthood. There are currently 10 studies in the medical literature demonstrating this.”
Yet in recent years, a radical shift has occurred from counseling to what is called “gender affirmative care.” In fact, the World Health Organization no longer considers gender dysphoria a “mental disorder.” In May of this year, the WHO removed “gender identity disorder” from its list of diagnoses.
Dr. Laidlaw told the Post the Endocrine Society, Pediatric Endocrine Society, and the American Academy of Pediatrics have been taken over by the most radical elements of the profession.
“These radical trans activists were involved in writing the Endocrine Society guidelines in 2009 and 2017. These are low to no quality evidence guidelines, and anyone can read for themselves the poor evidence they have for these treatments for children and adolescents. There is no long-term evidence for benefits for these treatments,” Laidlaw stressed.
A similar controversy over the long-term effects of hormone treatment for children is brewing in Great Britain.
In March, The Telegraph reported that Oxford University professor, Dr. Michael Biggs, accused the National Health Service’s clinic for transgender children of hiding negative evidence about the effects of puberty blockers on children. Instead, Biggs claimed, the clinic is continuing experimental treatment on adolescents without solid evidence of its long-term effects.
Dr. Biggs’ own research suggests that after a year of treatment “a significant increase” was found in patients who had been born female telling staff that they “deliberately try to hurt or kill myself,” according to the Telegraph.
According to Biggs, evidence showed that “Puberty blockers exacerbated gender dysphoria. Yet the study has been used to justify rolling out this drug regime to several hundred children aged under 16.”
Dr. Laidlaw equates the “gender affirmative” treatment with brainwashing young children. They are psychologically damaged by puberty blockers, he believes, and then made even more confused, depressed and even psychotic by cross-sex hormones, according to the CP.
“The puberty blockers are a drug-induced model of not only blocking essential aspects of development but also solidifying the belief that they must take wrong sex hormones to escape from their situation. These wrong sex hormones are very dangerous and have blood clots, cardiovascular, and cancer risks.”
Dr. John McHugh, a distinguished professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, calls this chemical treatment of minors who are uncomfortable with their birth sex “reckless and irresponsible.”
CBN News previously reported about Dr. McHugh’s grave concern.
“Many people are doing what amounts to an experiment on these young people without telling them it’s an experiment…You need evidence for that, and this is a very serious treatment. It is comparable to doing frontal lobotomies.”
McHugh believes there could be a link between feelings of transgenderism and a lack of mental wellness.
“I think their mental problems, often depression, discouragement, are the things that need treatment,” he said. “I’m not positive about this. It’s a hypothesis, but it is a very plausible hypothesis, and it would explain why many of the people who go on to have treatment of their body discover they are just as depressed, discouraged, and live just as problematic lives as they did before, because they did not address the primary problem.”
Additionally, McHugh referenced the results of a 2018 study that would indicate a cautious approach to treatment is a better option. The study was reportedly censored by Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, after the survey’s lead researcher, professor Lisa Littman, discovered a “contagion effect” when it comes to transgenderism among children.
“In on-line forums, parents have been reporting that their children are experiencing what is described here as ‘rapid-onset gender dysphoria,’ appearing for the first time during puberty or even after its completion,” wrote Littman, an assistant professor of behavioral sciences at Brown. “The onset of gender dysphoria seemed to occur in the context of belonging to a peer group where one, multiple, or even all of the friends have become gender dysphoric and transgender-identified during the same timeframe.”
Gender confusion among young people, McHugh said, is “mostly being driven by psychological and psychosocial problems these people have,” which, he added, “explains the rapid onset gender dysphoria Lisa Littman has spelled out.”
Dr. Malone told the CP that professional medical associations like the Endocrine Society have inexplicably adopted a scientifically unsupported, highly risky approach to treating gender dysphoric children and adolescents, with harmful consequences.
“We are beginning to see many young adults begin attempts to reverse the damage that has been done by hormonal and surgical treatments. As a result, investigations into gender clinic practices have begun in the U.K., and are being considered in Australia and Sweden,” he said.
“Highly respected doctors from these countries are stating that we are in the midst of a medical scandal of unparalleled significance.”
The following is a transcription of a video presentation given by Dr. Brisson. She is a is a Consultant Neurologist and Neurophysiologist with a PhD in Pharmacology, with special interest in neurotoxicology, environmental medicine, neuroregeneration and neuroplasticity. Here are some of her thoughts, experiences, and professional warnings regarding the decision of whether or not we should mask ourselves or our children.
“I do not wear a mask, I need my brain to think. I want to have a clear head when I deal with my patients, and not be in a carbon dioxide induced anaesthesia.
“There is no unfounded medical exemption from face masks because oxygen deprivation is dangerous for every single brain. It must be the free decision of every human being whether they want to wear a mask that is absolutely ineffective to protect themselves from a virus.
“To deprive a child’s or an adolescent’s brain from oxygen, or to restrict it in any way, is not only dangerous to their health, it is absolutely criminal”.
“For children and adolescents, masks are an absolute no-no. Children and adolescents have an extremely active and adaptive immune system and they need a constant interaction with the microbiome of the Earth. Their brain is also incredibly active, as it is has so much to learn. The child’s brain, or the youth’s brain is thirsting for oxygen! The more metabolically active the organ is, the more oxygen it requires. In children and adolescents every organ is metabolically active. “To deprive a child’s or an adolescent’s brain from oxygen, or to restrict it in any way, is not only dangerous to their health, it is absolutely criminal.
Oxygen deficiency inhibits the development of the brain, and the damage that has taken place as a result CANNOT be reversed. “The child needs the brain to learn, and the brain needs oxygen to function. We don’t need a clinical study for that. This is simple, indisputable physiology. Conscious and purposely induced oxygen deficiency is an absolutely deliberate health hazard, and an absolute medical contraindication.”
On the heels of a lawsuit from the American Civil liberties union, Attorney General Steve Marshall issued an amicus brief yesterday to stop treatments like puberty blockers and surgery for minors who believe they are a different gender than the one they were born with (otherwise known as “transgenderism”.)
Gender dysphoria, a condition in which someone feels trapped in the body of the wrong gender, is a classifiable mental illness. Bradley “Chelsea” Manning claimed to have this condition and maintained that it was this reason for the crimes he committed against our country.
However, rather than treating this mental illness through therapy, and bringing the patient into alignment with reality, gender reassignment surgery (sex change surgery) seeks to support the patient’s fantasy rather than cure them of their delusion.
This latest way of bringing political correctness into mental health has know found it’s way into pediatrics; children who don’t even know what sexual intercourse is, are allowed to say that they are a boy or girl when they are the opposite. Rather than explaining their gender to them and affirming it, very young children are being encouraged to be whatever they feel like.
This really is concerning. I have a 16 year old who maintained she was a dog up until age 8. She was adamant! And she insisted we address her as a dog. And no, I am not joking. The transgender crowd seems to feel mocked when I mention this, but it is the absolute truth. All of my family members will attest to it. Did I damage her by not playing along with this absurdity? Following the Trangenz crowd’s philosophy, she should have been labeled “trans-species’ and had a tail sewn on her!
If you are sick and tired of this ridiculous crap, call your senator and demand some common sense from them. Urge them to join the other 17 states in supporting laws which protect our youth.
HAMILTON, Ontario, July 15, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — Children and teens do not need COVID-19 vaccines and can be harmed by them, argues Dr. Paul Elias Alexander, a former senior adviser to COVID pandemic policy in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). In a new testimony signed also by his colleagues, Dr. Howard Tenenbaum of the University of Toronto and Dr. Parvez Dara, Alexander argues that only certain groups — which do not include healthy young people — were ever at risk during the coronavirus pandemic.
“For parents, the question is really one of risk-management. Do I subject my child, who is healthy and well, to a vaccine that confers no benefit, yet carries the potential for serious harm”
How did we arrive at the insane and dangerous idea to mass vaccinate our children with a vaccine that is not tested for safety when they have a near statistical zero risk of severe illness or death from the disease it allegedly prevents?
Let me begin by arguing that this COVID-19 pandemic was not the emergency many claimed it was. This was an illness devastating to elderly high-risk persons, and we cannot discount this. However, we knew very early on who the high-risk groups were, and we created devastation with failed lockdown policies when a focused age-and-risk targeted approach was needed.
Illogically, we locked down the healthy people and failed to protect the vulnerable. In effect, global COVID-19 Task Forces, the medical advisors, and all the television medical experts were flat wrong in all their positions and policies. The lockdowns, the school closures, the masks, the mask mandates, the shelter-in-place, and all of the COVID policies (the so-called ‘non-pharmaceutical interventions’) were catastrophic failures and caused more harm and deaths than anything. The Task Forces and their governments, the bureaucrats, the technocrats, and the now famous media medical doctors: they all failed. Why? Why did our governments continue these punitive unsound lockdown policies when there was clear evidence from summer 2020 that they were very harmful?
We knew very early on, in May or even April 2020, that COVID-19 exploited risk factors and that the virus was amenable to risk stratification. We knew that one’s baseline risk, determined by such factors as age, obesity, renal disease or heart disease, predicted whether or not one would suffer severe illness or death from the virus, and we quickly knew how to manage COVID patients. We have also discovered that children, especially poorer children, have fared badly as a result of the COVID lockdown and school closure polices. Children in the United States and elsewhere have committed suicide, not due to the virus, but due to the lockdown policies. The collateral damage has been devastating.
If a vaccine takes approximately 10 to 12 years to completion with a follow-up for safety as a key component, and we did not do this for these vaccines, then how can we ever say that they are safe?
There is zero benefit to children from the vaccine. If children are infected with the virus, they are typically asymptomatic, and the disease is very mild and non-consequential. However, the potential harm from vaccines is severe. Just look at the cases of myocarditis and pericarditis that have emerged in our teens, especially boys, due to the vaccines.
My position is that there must be no mass-vaccination of our children, teenagers, and young adults with these vaccines. The vaccine roll-out must be stopped immediately.
It is not that the relative benefits versus risks for the young and healthy remain unclear. No, there are no benefits, and the risks are serious if they materialize. We are witnessing this now with daily reports of adverse effects and deaths due to the temporal links to the vaccines (blood clots, bleeding disorders, myocarditis, and deaths). The balance (and trade-offs) of benefits versus risks differs between children and adults. The potential for serious adverse effects is real, and we cannot rule this out because we did not study it and “excluded” this in the clinical trials. The testing of these vaccines was not followed for the correct duration for such a study. When it comes to studies on the vaccine and children, the same will apply, and this is a major problem. We cannot sidestep the safety data, and I am afraid we did just that. If a vaccine takes approximately 10 to 12 years to completion with a follow-up for safety as a key component, and we did not do this for these vaccines, then how can we ever say that they are safe? This is illogical, irrational, absurd, unscientific, duplicitous, and reckless. It is a lie.
Based on the CDC’s own risk estimates, if a given person is 70 years old or younger and of reasonable health, the risk of survival if infected with the virus is 99.95%. Recent modelling by John Ioannidis of Stanford suggests that the general IFR [infection fatality rate] is 0.15%, and for persons less than 70 years, it is 0.05%.
For parents, the question is really one of risk-management. Do I subject my child, who is healthy and well, to a vaccine that confers no benefit, yet carries the potential for serious harm? Why subject my child to this when vaccine developers like AstraZeneca, public health agencies like the CDC, and regulators like the FDA have not done their due diligence? Moreover, the argument that we need child vaccination to help arrive at population level ‘herd’ immunity is duplicitous, misguided, and actually false. If you decide to disregard cross protection (T-cell cross-reactivity) that exists from prior common cold coronavirus exposures (even in adults), and even pretend that there is no existing immunity from persons who had COVID-19 infection and recovered, then you can make that claim. But it would be a falsehood, and thus there is no need to vaccinate children to achieve herd immunity. Children are not needed to “help protect the adults.” We have never ever placed our children at risk to protect adults; it is supposed to be the other way around. We have never asked our children to risk their lives for adults’ health.
Our position, based on both the initial and the accumulated evidence, has always been that in response to this pandemic we
i) first protect the elderly in their private homes and nursing homes (assisted living and long-term facilities), principally by preventing staff from bringing infection to them);
ii) use early outpatient treatment, including background nutraceuticals such as Vitamin D, Vitamin C, and zinc along with hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin as the anti-viral backbone, budesonide, methylprednisolone, high-dose aspirin, enoxaparin (lovenox), low molecular weight heparin etc. (see Risch, McCullough, Zelenko, Ladapo, Kory etc.), to address the three phases of COVID-19 (i.e., the viral replication phase, the ARDS ‘florid pneumonia’ hyper-immune inflammatory phase, and the vascular blood clotting phase);
iii) publicize the need to get sunlight and/or Vitamin D supplements; and
iv) publicize the need for body weight control.
At the same time, we encourage improved hand-washing hygiene, and we quarantine/isolate and test only people with symptoms of COVID-19.
We never isolate or test asymptomatic people as neither confers a benefit. Isolation is actually very harmful to the person and to society at large. At the same time, we allow the low-risk “healthy” and “well” in our society to live largely unfettered lives with limited disturbance and restrictions, taking only reasonable precautions, so that they can become infected ‘naturally’ and ‘harmlessly’. We never mean to deliberately infect people; we mean only to allow life to go on unimpeded and allow the ‘well’ who are best able to face the pathogen with their robust immune systems to develop immunity naturally. This would, in turn, protect the elderly and other high-risk people. Natural exposure immunity is far more optimal, robust, durable, and long-lasting than any immunity conferred by a vaccine with a very narrow “spike-specific” immunity with a very narrow immune library of antibodies.
We never lock down schools; there was, in fact, no basis for this. We harmed our children by doing this, and it will take decades to recover the losses. In fact, poor children have been extensively harmed due to the school closures, for they often get their only meals at school, and that is where they get their sight and hearing tested. The school offers a level of protection from abuse. Abuse is often brought to the attention for the first time in the school setting. The safest place, in terms of being at very low risk, for both children and teachers is the school setting.
The most up-to-date data by the American Academy of Pediatrics showed that “Children were 0.00%-0.19% of all COVID-19 deaths, and 10 [US] states reported zero child deaths. In states reporting, 0.00%-0.03% of all child COVID-19 cases resulted in death.” This is the data.
Based on the reporting of CDC data, 266 children aged 0 to 17 years in the US have died of COVID-19, and we mourn each death. We cannot even imagine the pain for the grieving parents and family. Each death of a child is devastating. But let us put this in perspective to yearly seasonal influenza. During the 2018-2019 influenza season, 477 children aged 0 to 17 died of the regular flu, and we did not mask the nation, close schools, or seek to mass- vaccinate children. The science is stable and settled globally: children are at near statistical zero risk of dying from COVID-19.
We note also that neither vaccine developers nor anyone involved in advocacy for the vaccines is liable. But without liability, how then can parents trust them? Why would the vaccine developers (Moderna et al.), the FDA, CDC, NIH, Dr. Fauci, Dr. Walensky, and Dr. Collins not put liability protection on the table? We ask, “Come on, you are smart people, very intelligent we are told, so if you people believe that the vaccine is safe for our children, and given their near zero risk of illness, then put liability protection on the table. Allow yourselves to be held legally responsible. If you believe the vaccines are safe enough for our children to be subjected to them, then put liability protection on the table and offer to give it up completely. Then parents will trust you.”
We hope the vaccines are successful and safe — we really do, but we have no confidence in them at this time given what has transpired in the roll-out. We are stepping up here to defend our children. We are outraged and shocked by government leaders and public health officials calling for mass vaccination when there is no need. We support vaccinations in general but not these COVID-19 vaccines in our children, not for this level of near non-existent risk from the virus. The vaccines were sub-optimally developed, and this raises serious questions as their effectiveness and, critically, their safety. Several questions emerge that the CDC, NIH, FDA, and vaccine developers must answer publicly before we proceed. To date, they have provided no case. They have failed to present any case to argue why children must be vaccinated, and we will not poke needles into the arms of our precious children just because a Dr. Fauci or Dr. Walensky says with a smile to do so. They are dangerous and pose a severe threat to our children. We caution these people to act in our children’s best interests.
“COVID-19 spares our children”
What do we know? Well, we know conclusively that COVID-19 spares our children, unlike the seasonal influenza which is far more lethal to children than COVID 19. We know the following points:
i) Children do not acquire the infection readily, e.g. studies show fewer ACE-2 receptors expressed in their nasal epithelia, and we argue this confers a natural form of protection for children and that a vaccine in the deltoid will bypass this natural protection and potentially place children at levels of risk we have seen in adults since the roll-out began; we refer to the emerging reports of the spike protein being itself a pathogen and deleterious to the vascular endothelium;and we insist this cannot be discounted but studied and clarified urgently.
ii) Children do not readily spread the infection to other children.
iii) Children do not spread it readily to adults; it is the other way around.
iv) Children do not readily take it home; infection arises mainly from adults in home clusters.
v) Children do not become severely ill from it.
vi) Children do not die from it.
vii) MISC (multi-symptom inflammatory syndrome), which has been linked by some to COVID infections in children, is very rare, very treatable, and almost all who suffer from it leave the hospital. It is serious, but children rarely die of MISC.
We also wish to draw attention to the issue of informed consent. Although it has not yet been addressed, it really is, along with vaccine safety, the core issue at hand. Children are in no position to give informed consent, and thus their vaccination with an experimental vaccine is highly unethical. Moreover, there are people administering the vaccine who do not properly obtain meaningful consent even from adults, for they do not know their medical history, nor do they explain the benefits or risks of the vaccines. Informed consent is not saying “Hey, roll up your sleeve.” It is far more than that, for there are serious consequences from a vaccine, and the person getting the shot must be informed of them. The upsides and downsides of the vaccine must be fully explained. We argue not one person who has been inoculated in this COVID vaccine roll-out has consented according to ethical guidelines.
In conclusion, we again argue that it is dangerous to rush to vaccinate low-risk children with vaccines untested for safety. This recklessness could result in our children enduring decades of severe disabilities. We are for vaccines and see the need when properly developed; they save lives. But they must be appropriately developed, and the emerging adverse effects and the lack of safety data for these COVID-19 vaccines raise serious concerns about their impact upon children. The benefits just do not outweigh the risks, and to claim that we need kids taking the vaccine is in our view very irresponsible. We conclude that our children must be fully exempt from any of the existing COVID-19 vaccines, at least until proper studies are conducted to collect the proper safety data. But, in fact, the vast majority of children are not appropriate candidates for any of these vaccines, given their low statistical zero risk from COVID-19. Not now, not in the future.
There is no urgency. There is no basis for the vaccine in children, and those advocating for it have presented no evidence to support this. It must not be allowed in any manner, even if shown to be “effective.” There is no need, and there are serious safety concerns. Parents must take the time now to think this through carefully and be prepared to step up and say “no.” Be prepared to fight. This is the cause. This is the hill we are willing to die on. Our children are depending on us now to protect them and wage this battle for them.
A radio talk-show host has revealed that organizers of a black “pride” event at a public park in Seattle are insisting that white people pay a “reparations” fee of up to $50 in order to enter in a race-based manipulation that has the endorsement of mayoral candidate Lorena Gonzalez.
Jason Rantz at his MyNorthwest site explains that those organizing what they are calling the “Taking b[l]ack pride” events have stated that, for their event, “All are free to attend HOWEVER this is a BLACK AND BROWN QUEER TRANS CENTERED, PRIORITIZED, VALUED, EVENT. White allies and accomplices are welcome to attend but will be charged a $10 to $50 reparations fee that will be used to keep this event free of cost for BLACK AND BROWN Trans and Queer Community.”
Rantz pointed out that Seattle Municipal Code (18.12,280) requires, “It is unlawful for any person occupying or using any park or recreation facilities for any event, activity or exhibition open to the public, whether or not under a permit and whether or not an admission or entrance fee is charged, to deny to any other person the full use and enjoyment of such park and recreation facility because of race…”
Rantz reported that Charlette LeFevre and Philip Lipson, who are supporting their Capitol Hill Pride, complained of the “reverse discrimination” to the Seattle Human Rights Commission, an activist group that advises the city on human rights issues, but the organization rejected their concerns.
In its response, the commission said, “Black trans and queer peoples are among the most marginalized and persecuted peoples within the LGBTQIA2S+ community. They often face shame not only from the cis-heteronormative community, but within the queer community at large as well. In making the event free for the Black Queer community, the organizers of this event are extending a courtesy so rarely extended; by providing a free and safe space to express joy, share story, and be in community.”
Gonzalez was so offended by the questions about the race-based discrimination and she canceled her appearance at Capitol Hill Pride, the report said.
Those who announced the racist actions defended their plans, with, “Our allies, supporters, and accomplices, pay our sliding scale donation ‘reparations’ because they are able to understand that as folks with privilege, equity can start with making sure that people who possess various levels of marginalization are able to have spaces that center their needs, safety, identities, and contributions to LGBTQI culture.”
Apparently being offered, the report said, are performances, commentators, healing spaces, prizes and a vaccination clinic.
Seattle parks managers did not respond to Rantz’ request for comment.
The executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, wants to know why there aren’t more autopsies being done on victims of the Covid-19 vaccination.
Dr. Jane M. Orient says,
“If a person dies after a COVID jab, I would like to know whether there are spike proteins in the tissues and blood vessels, and whether there was an immunological reaction that was damaging those tissues. If a mother loses a baby, I would like to see a thorough examination of the placenta. Was the baby’s oxygen and nutrition cut off because of damaged blood vessels?”
Tens of thousands of patients died of COVID…but I have seen a report of just one autopsy.
“I find it shocking that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Joint Commission that accredits hospitals are not demanding autopsies or testing of vaccine samples. It is not possible to declare a product safe and effective without obtaining direct evidence from potential victims.
Finally, Dr. has this admonishment for her readers:
“If someone you love dies unexpectedly, call the medical examiner, and demand a forensic autopsy”.