The Lost Horizons Forum

A meeting place for the CtC-empowered.
It is currently Fri Jan 27, 2023 11:10 am

All times are UTC - 4 hours

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1 post ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Aug 29, 2022 4:42 pm 

Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2012 11:49 am
Posts: 172
The August 29, 2022 Lost Horizons Newsletter
...where real knowledge-- and actual solutions-- intersect with real Americans!

A Legislative Agenda For The Protection Of Our Children And Our Culture
...from grotesque medical and judicial malpractice, and from a dangerously arrogant technocratic governmental apparatus.

I WAS SHOCKED AND DISMAYED the other day... I saw a report that a three-judge panel of the 8th federal Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of Arkansas's 2021 ban on the mutilation of children with the chemical and surgical destruction of perfectly healthy body parts and functions under the influence of so-called "trans health care" madness issued by a federal district court judge in a suit against the ban brought by the ACLU.

The ban was enacted with a super-majority of the Arkansas legislature-- the gold-standard of the people's expression of their sovereign will-- but is thwarted (for the moment, and for so long as the people of Arkansas are willing to let their sovereignty hinge on approval by judges appointed for life by those with their own political agenda and who reside 1500 miles away). The judicial reasoning for the interference by these arrogant judges, as reported by, is that the Arkansas act,

"prohibits medical treatment that conforms with 'the recognized standard of care for adolescent gender dysphoria,' that such treatment 'is supported by medical evidence that has been subject to rigorous study,' and that the purpose of the Act is 'not to ban a treatment [but] to ban an outcome that the State deems undesirable.'"

LET'S START BY OBSERVING THAT "ban[ning] an outcome[s] that the State deems undesirable" is the very point of a state's police power. Any judge that doesn't understand this-- and the federalism that leaves such matters solely in the hands of the individual states-- should be removed from the bench. It may be little known in this ill-educated day and age, but the notion of federal veto power over state legislation was proposed in the Constitutional Convention in 1787 and was defeated.

The Fourteenth Amendment, often cited as a justification for federal interference in state sovereignty of the sort to which Arkansas is now being subjected, merely obliges states to apply their laws even-handedly, employ due process before depriving anyone of life, liberty or property, and (perhaps redundantly) respect the "privileges and immunities" of citizens of the United States. Nothing in these provisions can reasonably be construed to thwart a state's authority to prohibit the mutilation of children, as long as the mutilation of ALL children is prohibited, not just the mutilation of Asian children, for example, or just the mutilation of left-handed children.

Almost amusingly, the once-respectable, now clownish ACLU, recognizing the problem for judicial interference outlined above, tries to spin its way out by turning the inconvenient truth sideways and applying a ridiculous tautology. The Union argues that because the "treatments" involved are related to "gender transition", the Arkansas law targets only "transgender patients" (while risibly suggesting that "transgender patients" are a distinct and protected class of individuals), and therefore:

"discriminates on the basis of sex and transgender status by prohibiting certain medical treatments only for transgender patients and only when the care is 'related to gender transition.'"

But the Arkansas law does no such thing. As suggested above, the Arkansas act prohibits the "treatments" involved from being inflicted upon anyone below the age of 18:

(a) A physician or other healthcare professional shall not provide gender transition procedures to any individual under eighteen (18) years of age.

(b) A physician, or other healthcare professional shall not refer any individual under eighteen (18) years of age to any healthcare professional for gender transition procedures.

Pages and pages are devoted to defining and explaining "gender transition procedures", so as to leave no doubt as to what is prohibited, but "any individual under eighteen (18) years of age" stands on its own and means just what it says.

PAST THE FEDERALISM PROBLEM (which is enough by itself to invalidate this judicial interference in Arkansas's exercise of its People's will) let's look at these prohibited "treatments" which the court (and the ACLU) choose to describe as "medical" (in an effort to stigmatize the Arkansas act as though it equates to a prohibition of chemotherapy for cancer patients).

Cutting off (or chemically destroying) perfectly healthy and functional body parts, such as "top surgery" where the healthy breasts of (in cases relevant to this issue) adolescent girls are lopped off, or "bottom surgery" in which existing, healthy primary sex organs (penises and vaginas) are cut off (usually followed by grotesque and inevitably futile attempts to recreate in their place the organs of the opposite sex) are not "medical treatments". Nor is the chemical neutering of children by way of puberty blockers and massive doses of opposite-sex hormones.

Instead, these are evil acts inflicted, for lots of money, upon pathetic victims who are obviously not of sound mind-- often due in part to the encouragement of delusions, confusions, and deeply-harmful self-loathing by the very parties profiting from the procedures-- and who are, in any event, below the age at which they are legally and mentally capable of informed consent.



Pictures Worth A Thousand Words
...and a few hundred words on something that has been bugging me lately.

I'M PLEASED TO BE ABLE TO GIVE A WIDER AUDIENCE to these three outstanding examples of thoughtful and productive activism (shared with me by the excellent Dr. Richard Jones):



Other Voices (followed by an important afterword)

Mike Pompeo and CIA Sued for Illegal Surveillance of Assange's Visitors
by Marjorie Cohn

Attorneys and journalists whom the CIA spied on when they visited WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London have filed a lawsuit against the CIA, its former director Mike Pompeo, UC Global and its director, David Morales, in U.S. District Court.

Assange is in a London prison fighting extradition to the United States. He is charged with violating the Espionage Act for exposing U.S. war crimes and faces 175 years imprisonment. During the seven years he lived in the Ecuadorian Embassy under a grant of asylum, Assange was visited by more than 100 attorneys, journalists and doctors. They included Assange’s criminal defense attorneys in the United States, international human rights lawyers, national security journalists whose sources could be jeopardized if exposed, and physicians and medical professionals.

The CIA commissioned Undercover Global (UC Global), a private Spanish security company, to send images from Assange’s visitors’ cellphones and laptops as well as video streamed from their meetings to the CIA.

“Unbeknownst to anyone there, they actually put recording devices and cameras in the rooms where Mr. Assange was, which essentially live streamed what he was doing and saying back to Washington,” attorney Richard Roth, who filed the lawsuit, told me and my co-host Michael Smith on Law and Disorder radio. “I think that there was clearly a desire to bring down Julian Assange any way possible.”

Defendant Morales announced to his employees that UC Global would be operating “in the big league” and on the “dark side” with the CIA, the complaint says. Former employees of UC Global said the deal included selling information gathered as a result of the illegal surveillance.

The four plaintiffs, all U.S. citizens, allege that the defendants violated their Fourth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. They are requesting compensatory and punitive damages, an injunction to prevent the CIA from revealing their private communications, and the purging of CIA files of this information.

One of the plaintiffs is Deborah Hrbek, a media attorney who visited Assange several times in the embassy. Speaking at an online news conference, Hrbek noted:



Illuminating Anniversaries For This Week!


"I confidently trust that the American people will prove themselves...too wise not to detect the false pride or the dangerous ambitions or the selfish schemes which so often hide themselves under that deceptive cry of mock patriotism: 'Our country, right or wrong!' They will not fail to recognize that our dignity, our free institutions and the peace and welfare of this and coming generations of Americans will be secure only as we cling to the watchword of true patriotism: 'Our country--when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right.'"
-Senator Carl Schurz, October 17, 1899

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1 post ] 

All times are UTC - 4 hours

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group