Hunter Biden is a lot of things, but it looks like we can add “deadbeat father” to that list.
Not only is the president’s son fighting tooth and nail in the court system to lower the amount of child support he will have to remit to Lunden Roberts, a former Washington D.C.-based exotic dancer with whom Hunter Biden had a child, but he’s also exhausting all possible legal maneuver to prevent the child from bearing the family surname.
According to the New York Post, Hunter Biden told an Arkansas court that his 4-year-old daughter, Navy Joan Roberts, would be robbed of “peaceful existence” if she were to take the Biden family name. That’s an interesting angle. It’s almost as if he’s admitting that the Biden name brings trouble.
He’s never even met his daughter.
But as a December New York Post report noted, Hunter Biden hasn’t even met his young daughter yet, and it was only in 2020 that he was finally forced to admit that he fathered the girl after DNA tests confirmed it. President Joe Biden, the young girl’s grandfather, also remains estranged.
Hunter Biden’s attorneys doubled down, arguing that the girl should have the power to make that decision on her own once “the disparagement of the Biden name is not at its height.”
Roberts, however, had a contrasting view of the Biden surname.
In late December, Roberts argued to Circuit Court Judge Holly Meyer that her daughter should be afforded the right to carry the prestigious last name, saying it would benefit the young girl because the last name is “now synonymous with being well educated, successful, financially acute and politically powerful.”
Why doesn’t Hunter Biden want to let the child have his last name, given that he’s the father? Anyone even remotely familiar with political optics can answer that question quickly. It’s an elitist PR issue, plain and simple.
The Biden family, as corrupt and shady as they come across, presumably can’t fathom the thought of a child born out of wedlock to a former D.C. stripper sharing the same last name.
Hunter Biden’s excuses to the court as to why he doesn’t believe the child deserves to carry the family name are weak, at best, and sound more like a sneaky way of complying with the wishes of others in his family who won’t tolerate young Navy Joan taking the Biden name, as it would ultimately draw negative media attention that the Biden’s can’t afford at the moment.
But the strategy seems to have backfired spectacularly because now the headlines read as though Hunter Biden is a candidate for “worst father of the decade.”
Among many others, Shapiro Chair of Public Interest Law at George Washington University Jonathan Turley tore into Hunter Biden’s attempts to block his daughter from taking his name.
“It is awful to think of this child learning that her father fought recognition of paternity, fought child support, and then fought her using his name. Fortunately, she has the law on her side and, despite her father’s disgraceful efforts, she is a Biden,” Turley tweeted.
It is awful to think of this child learning that her father fought recognition of paternity, fought child support, and then fought her using his name. Fortunately, she has the law on her side and, despite her father’s disgraceful efforts, she is a Biden.https://t.co/wYCVfq30KA
“What a thoroughly rotten thing to do to a child. Just consider that Hunter had all the privileges of life. He wants to deny all of those privileges to his own child and fought to avoid his responsibility every step of the way,” one Twitter user wrote.
What a thoroughly rotten thing to do to a child. Just consider that Hunter had all the privileges of life. He wants to deny all of those privileges to his own child and fought to avoid his responsibility every step of the way.
If Hunter Biden wants to avoid further scandal and negative press, this is one issue he should probably let go of as soon as possible. Not attempting to weasel out of child support payments would also be an excellent first step.
Left wishing abortion up to birth. SEBASTIAN KAULITZKI/SCIENCE PHOTO LIBRARY/ iStock/Getty
The left wants you to think that an abortion is just a in and out five minute procedure. Boogie out and dance to some Smokey Robinson tune.
See what you think after reading this.
National Public Radio’s (NPR) airing of a woman getting an abortion has sparked outrage amongst pro-life activists, while some say the audio may have the opposite effect than intended.
The graphic audio of the suction abortion on an 11-week-old unborn child was aired Thursday by the taxpayer-funded radio outlet by reporter Katie Wells. During the clip, a woman can be heard crying and moaning during the procedure, saying at one point, “I can’t,” before one of the workers says, “Yes, you can,” according to Wells.
I almost didn't want to tweet this but it's something everyone needs to know. NPR on the radio this morning played audio of a woman getting an abortion. You can hear the vacuum turning on, crying, moaning, and the doctor telling her it's done.
While the audio angered and saddened pro-life activists on social media, others pointed out that the audio shows the public the “gruesome reality” of an abortion procedure.
“It is horrifying and inappropriate for a taxpayer funded outlet to air the excruciating moments for child and mother of an abortion,” Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America president Marjorie Dannenfelser told Fox News.
“It strikes me that by sharing the audio of a woman getting an abortion, NPR broke one of the foremost rules of abortion advocacy: Never admit or even hint at what happens in an abortion procedure,” tweeted Alexandra DeSanctis Marr of National Review. “The truth is far too awful to look at, particularly if you support abortion.”
“This is what Hell sounds like,” tweeted Lila Rose, President of Live Action.
“NPR thinks they’ve done the abortion industry a favor by highlighting the gruesome reality of undergoing an abortion. Instead, they’ve revealed exactly what the pro-life movement has always known: abortions hurt women and kill babies,” tweeted pro-life organization 40 Days for Life.
Breitbart News previously reported that NPR’s style guide urges its staff not to humanize abortion, which states, “a baby is not a baby until it is born.” The far-left outlet also uses the euphemism “aborting a pregnancy” instead of using “fetus” or “child.”
First off, this is not a hit piece on individual gays or lesbians. They have both good and bad people in their group, just like everybody else. Second, what knowledgeably consenting adults do behind closed doors is nobody else’s business. Third, being in a close relationship with someone of the same gender need not have anything to do with sexual activities. One obvious example: Frodo Baggins and Samwise Gangee. Another example: the Lone Ranger and Tonto.
That said, predators and groomers (of any sexual preference) deserve any backlash and/or punishment they receive for their unjust and immoral behavior in their treatment of others. Especially those too young to give informed consent.
Finally, what is objectionable is putting on a public show and demanding that everyone else should kowtow to your viewpoint. Again, this applies to ANY group, no matter what they profess to. This goes for BLM/Antifa, the KKK and other racist groups, ISIS, other rabid ‘religious’ groups, and so on.
While this article comes mainly from a Christian denomination’s article on the subject, it almost bends over backward to counter any accusations of bigotry or bias. It is about morals. Morality is a separate issue from religious dogma, as many atheists will attest to.
Originally by Charles Melear in Beyond Today – a United Church of God publication.
The startling shift in American attitudes toward gays and same-sex marriage is not the result of chance or random events. More than a quarter century ago, gay strategists laid out a plan to transform the nation—with astounding success.
Do you consider yourself an independent thinker? What is the source of your conclusions regarding right or wrong? How do you determine your opinions regarding the news and political events?
Professional marketers develop strategies to influence and persuade potential customers to purchase their products. Some are very successful, as you can probably hum or sing dozens of pithy jingles or recognize the logos of many companies.
But you should also realize that people are affecting our culture who you’ve probably never heard of. How about Dan Wieden, co-founder of the advertising agency Wieden+Kennedy? Have you ever repeated the Nike slogan “Just do it”? Wieden developed that in 1988.
How abouter used the expression, “Where’s the beef?” Wendy’s hamburger chain profited from that slogan’s creator, Cliff Freeman, around 1984. You’ve probably never heard of him either.
You’ve also likely never heard of Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen. Nevertheless, these men have directly affected your life and American culture—strategically, gradually, subtly and definitely intentionally.
In the November 1987 edition of Guide, a magazine for homosexuals, the two men authored an article titled “The Overhauling of Straight America.” There Kirk, a researcher in neuropsychiatry, and Madsen, a public relations consultant, laid out a blueprint to fundamentally change Americans’ attitudes toward homosexuals and homosexuality. In 1989 they expanded that blueprint into a 398-page book titled After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90s.
The “bible” of the homosexual agenda
Their goal was to make homosexuality acceptable and to forge negative opinions of any who disagree. The article began by stating: “The first order of business is desensitization of the American public concerning gays and gay rights. To desensitize the public is to help it view homosexuality with indifference . . . She likes strawberry and I like vanilla; he follows baseball and I follow football. No big deal.” (We quote from the Guide article rather than the book, which at times is quite vulgar and graphic. Interested readers can find the article in whole or in part online.) Full text for THE OVERHAULING OF STRAIGHT AMERICA
One person described “The Overhauling of Straight America” as the “bible” of the homosexual agenda. It is quite a contrast to the Bible of Christianity.
The authors, relating to the culture of the late 1980s, were realistic. They continued: At least in the beginning we are seeking public desensitization and nothing more. We do not need and cannot expect a full ‘appreciation’ or ‘understanding’ of homosexuality from the average American. You can forget about trying to persuade the masses that homosexuality is a good thing. But if you can only get them to think that is just another thing . . . , then your battle for legal and social rights is virtually won.
To understand how startlingly successful their blueprint proved to be, consider this: In 1987, the year that article was published, Gallup polls showed that only 33 percent of those polled thought that same-sex relations between consenting adults should be legal, while 55 percent thought such action should be outlawed (numbers don’t total 100 percent because some offered no opinion). By 2015, the numbers were more than reversed—68 percent believed such sexual relations should be legal and only 28 percent were opposed.
Same-sex marriage was so off the radar that it wasn’t even asked about in Gallup polls until 1996, when only 27 percent approved and 68 percent were opposed. Today, Gallup polls show that 58 percent approve and 40 percent disapprove—another startling turnaround in attitudes.
Gallup polls in 1989 showed that only 19 percent of Americans believed people were born homosexual, with 48 percent believing it was due to environmental factors such as upbringing. By 2015 those numbers had dramatically shifted to 51 percent believing homosexuals were born that way and only 30 percent attributing it to other factors. (This is in spite of the fact that extensive genetic research and many studies of identical twins where only one was homosexual have disproven genetic determinism.)
Well-researched surveys (as opposed to some with markedly skewed samples and/or methodology) have consistently placed the homosexual population of America at around 2 to 3 percent—yet the influence of homosexuals on American culture is vastly out of proportion with their actual numbers. How did this come to be?
For those who remember what American culture was like in 1987 when the blueprint was first published, you can easily evaluate whether the six strategies they outlined have been successful. For those too young to remember the late 80s, consider how pervasive these things are in the culture you experience today.
What was their blueprint for overhauling American attitudes? Following are the six steps they advocated a quarter-century ago.
Step 1: “Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible.”
Authors Kirk and Madsen say thatalmost any behavior begins to look normal if you are exposed to enough of it . . . The way to benumb raw sensitivities about homosexuality is to have a lot of people talk a great deal about the subject in a neutral or supportive way . . . Constant talk builds the impression that public opinion is at least divided on the subject, and that a sizable segment accepts or even practices homosexuality.
Consider this quote: And when we say talk about homosexuality, we mean just that. In the early stages of any campaign to reach straight America, the masses should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself. Instead, the imagery of sex should be downplayed . . . First let the camel get his nose inside the tent—only later his unsightly derriere!
When we are exposed to anything repeatedly, it becomes routine and normal. What initially might shock someone eventually can become acceptable. And acceptability is the ultimate goal. What at one time was highly offensive to the vast majority of Americans is now no big deal. They’ve been lulled into complacency.
Where we talk is important, wrote Kirk and Madsen. . . . The average American household watches over seven hours of TV daily. Those hours open up a gateway into the private world of straights, through which a Trojan horse might be passed . . .
So far, gay Hollywood has provided our best covert weapon in the battle to desensitize the mainstream.
So far, gay Hollywood has provided our best covert weapon in the battle to desensitize the mainstream. Bit by bit over the past ten years, gay characters and gay themes have been introduced into TV programs and films . . . On the whole the impact has been encouraging.
Have you noticed the number of homosexual characters appearing in TV programs and how they are overwhelmingly depicted positively? From a rarity on TV in the 1980s, such characters are now almost inescapable. A USA Today article last year reported 32 regularly appearing bisexual or homosexual characters in primetime network scripted series for the 2014-15 television season, with another 64 appearing in cable TV shows (Bill Keveney, “Yes, You Really Are Seeing More LGBT Characters on TV,” Oct. 1, 2014).
If a child grows up hearing about the gay lifestyle and seeing it portrayed positively his entire life, won’t that make it seem normal?
Kirk and Madsen also described a strategy by which the homosexual movement could counter and largely nullify opposition from America’s churches. They wrote:When conservative churches condemn gays, there are only two things we can do to confound the homophobia of true believers. First, we can use talk to muddy the moral waters. This means publicizing support for gays by more moderate churches, raising theological objections of our own about conservative interpretations of biblical teachings, and exposing hatred and inconsistency.
This they have certainly accomplished—enlisting liberal scholars to explain away biblical teachings about homosexual practices, reinterpreting their plain meaning.
They continued: “Second, we can undermine the moral authority of homophobic churches by portraying them as antiquated backwaters, badly out of step with the times and with the latest findings of psychology.”
Again, their strategy has succeeded remarkably well. Those who hold to biblical teachings about homosexuality and marriage are condemned as bigots, homophobes and backward thinkers who are a threat to progress.
Some who have stood up have been fined, ordered to attend pro-homosexual “sensitivity training,” lost jobs or had their businesses sued out of existence by government agents and agencies that support the homosexual agenda.
The next step in their stated strategy similarly turns truth on its head.
Step 2: “Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers.”
In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be cast as victims in need of protection,” Kirk and Madsen wrote. Of course this does not address the issue of whether the gay lifestyle is right or wrong. It is an attempt to emotionally manipulate others with the motive of getting them to accept values they otherwise wouldn’t agree with.
If gays are presented, instead, as a strong and prideful tribe promoting a rigidly nonconformist and deviant lifestyle, they are more likely to be seen as a public menace that justifies resistance and oppression. For that reason, we must forego the temptation to strut our ‘gay pride’ publicly when it conflicts with the Gay Victim image, they wrote.
. . . This means that jaunty mustachioed musclemen would keep very low profile in gay commercials and other public presentations, while sympathetic figures of nice young people, old people, and attractive women would be featured.
They then add this caution for those who would want to push the gay agenda too far:It almost goes without saying that groups on the farthest margin of acceptability such as NAMBLA [the North American Man-Boy Love Association, which as its name suggests promotes adult-child homosexual sex] must play no part at all in such a campaign: suspected child-molesters will never look like victims . . .
Straight viewers must be able to identify with gays as victims . . . To this end, the persons featured in the public campaign should be decent and upright, appealing and admirable by straight standards . . . they should be indistinguishable from the straights we would like to reach.
It should be obvious that we are beyond this strategy today. The gay community should no longer be considered victims in the United States—and in reality those in the gay movement have become aggressive challengers of traditional values and biblical beliefs on many fronts.
This brings us to the next step in their strategic blueprint.
Step 3: “Give protectors a just cause.”
A media campaign that casts gays as society’s victims and encourages straights to be their protectors must make it easier for those to respond to assert and explain their new protectiveness. Few straight women, and even fewer straight men, will want to defend homosexuality boldly as such . . . Our campaign should not demand direct support for homosexual practices, [but] should instead take anti-discrimination as its theme.
The right to free speech, freedom of beliefs, freedom of association, due process and equal protection of laws—these should be the concerns brought to mind by our campaign.”
Again, this tactic is antiquated now. Law and due process should’ve always protected all citizens equally. The real issue is whether there is a true Creator God who authored the Bible and if that God has the right to determine right and wrong and what is best for those He’s created.
Step 4: “Make gays look good.”
“n order to make a Gay Victim sympathetic to straights you have to portray him as Everyman. But an additional theme of the campaign should be more aggressive and upbeat: to offset the increasingly bad press that these times have brought to homosexual men and women, the campaign should paint gays as superior pillars of society.
This approach can be considered mission accomplished. Kirk and Madsen also pointed out the benefits of “the celebrity endorsement.” It doesn’t matter whether the celebrity is straight or gay, the important thing is the endorsement of homosexuality as normal.
Of course, most celebrities are part of the entertainment world, where values are overwhelmingly liberal and opposed to biblical standards. Is it any wonder that so many celebrities have “come out of the closet” in recent years or proclaimed their support for gays?
Step 5: “Make the victimizers look bad.”
Kirk and Madsen continued: At a later stage of the media campaign for gay rights . . . it will be time to get tough with remaining opponents. To be blunt, they must be vilified . . . Our goal here is twofold. First, we seek to replace the mainstream’s self-righteous pride about its homophobia with shame and guilt. Second, we intend to make the anti-gays look so nasty that average Americans will want to dissociate themselves from such types. (emphasis added throughout).
The public should be shown images of ranting homophobes whose secondary traits and beliefs disgust middle America, Kirk and Madsen wrote. To this end, they then suggested that those who oppose the homosexual agenda be linked with images such as the Ku Klux Klan, “bigoted southern ministers drooling with hysterical hatred,” thugs and convicts, and Nazi concentration camps.
This strategy—aided and abetted by sympathetic news media and government agencies—has led to us entering a stage of aggressive attacks by some in the gay community against those who sincerely believe that homosexual behavior violates the laws, instructions and principles of God. Bible-believing Christians are indeed “vilified” and branded as bigots and homophobes.
Do rights of freedom of speech, freedom of religious beliefs and freedom of association work both ways? We’re seeing a time in which constitutionally guaranteed citizens’ rights are being stripped away to accommodate new supposed rights invented by various court rulings and government policy.
Step 6: “Solicit funds: The buck stops here.”
Any massive campaign of this kind would require unprecedented expenditures for months or even years—an unprecedented fundraising drive, they acknowledged.
Yet at the same time, they made a statement showing that gays really aren’t the oppressed, victimized group Kirk and Madsen advocate they be portrayed as:“Because those gays not supporting families usually have more discretionary income than average, they could afford to contribute much more.”
If you’ve ever wondered why so many American businesses cater to a gay clientele, donate money to support homosexual causes and celebrated the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling legalizing same-sex marriage, it’s because they recognize this simple fact: Homosexual couples, who typically don’t have children, have substantially more discretionary income than families who do.
The impact of this is also being felt in the political arena, where wealthy gays help bankroll campaigns for sympathetic candidates who will advance their interests and fund ads attacking those who stand for traditional and biblical values.
Kirk and Madsen go on to praise the fact that homosexuals have been able to infiltrate American news media to advance the cause of issues important to them.Because most straightforward appeals are impossible, the National Gay Task Force has had to cultivate quiet backroom liaisons with broadcast companies and newsrooms in order to make sure that issues important to the gay community receive some coverage.
In the 26 years since they wrote that, most U.S. media has tilted even more to the left, so proponents of the homosexual agenda are usually assured of favorable coverage and free publicity for their cause.
What is the right Christian response?
Those who believe the Bible and care about the future of America should be aware that today’s issues regarding the gay lifestyle have been orchestrated by activists for more than 25 years. This was no accident or chance course of events.
A gay person should not be afraid of a Christian as some hate-monger. True followers of Jesus Christ are to always show love toward others (Matthew 5:44), recognizing that all have sinned and need God’s mercy and forgiveness (Romans 3:23). But this does not mean excusing and accepting sin.
Recall that Jesus didn’t condemn a woman who was caught in adultery and brought before Him (John 8:2-11). But He didn’t say that what she was doing was acceptable either. He told her to “go and sin no more” (John 8:11). Moreover, He had to die to pay the penalty of her sin—and ours.
We should call sin what it is. And the Bible clearly labels homosexual activity a sin (Leviticus 18:22; Leviticus 20:13; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10). Of course, we must have compassion for those who don’t understand—and for those who do who struggle with this sin.
In communicating with others, Christians should be wise enough not to be trapped by phrases mislabeling the Christian approach. “Are you anti-gay?” can be a very misleading question. Understanding the definitions of someone you are having a discussion with is important. Acceptance, tolerance and inclusivity can be controversial and emotionally charged words.
Our culture has accepted two huge lies
Speaking on the issue of tolerance, mega-church pastor and bestselling author Rick Warren observed that our culture has accepted two huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someone’s lifestyle, you must fear them or hate them. The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do.
Both notions are nonsense. You don’t have to compromise convictions to be compassionate. Disapproval is not hate. Disapproval of what is wrong and harmful is a part of godly love.
Don’t let your life be controlled by the clever marketing of evil as good and good as evil.
In the years since this was first posted (almost seven years to the day), we can see how other groups have adopted the same strategies to foist their <s>opinions</s> demands on the rest of the population. Those that doesn’t agree with them are smeared as various ‘-phobes’ and ‘-ists’ because they dare to disapprove of the group’s agenda.
As the article correctly points out, the far-leftists (true liberals are just as concerned about individual’s right to live their own lives as are conservatives) whole-heartedly support this agenda as one more tool to take over the freedoms of others. They talk about promoting a “live and let live” attitude — but only if that phrase is defined as “let me do whatever the Hell I want, no matter who else gets hurt in the process!”
Again, this isn’t about religious dogma, it’s about what as morally just.
It’s our time to bat. The chance to convene a Grand Jury investigation against the CDC is finally here as Dr. Henry Ealy, and the team behind beyondthecon.com finally received a late response from the defendants on August 27.
We “now have only until September 12 to respond and urge the court, on behalf of freedom-loving Americans, to rule in our favor and get our petition before a Grand Jury to investigate our allegations against the defendants.”
So what is the CDC being accused of?
Willful misconduct and criminal data fraud.
But let’s focus on death certificates, as Dr. Henry Ealy eloquently explains the abhorrent actions taken by the CDC to inflate the COVID death count.
“We’ve all heard out there that the death certificates are wrong; people got hit by a bus and called COVID death and so forth, right? We’ve all heard that. We’ve even seen with a new filing by one of our colleagues, John Beaudoin, in Massachusetts. He got all the death certificates in Massachusetts, and he’s showing — he’s showing that people who died from the shot were counted as COVID deaths and not adverse event deaths.”
Dr. Naomi Wolf almost jumped out of her seat.
“People who died from the shot are counted as COVID deaths?!”
Ealy confirms.
“We are seeing this everywhere, Naomi. People who died from the shot are being counted as COVID deaths.”
Naomi asks, “What’s the evidence in the records that they died from the shot? Shortly after the injection or —”
Ealy: “There was one that died within five minutes of getting the injection, but they called it a COVID death.”
Naomi: “That’s the worst thing I’ve ever heard.”
Ealy: “Right? So this was a little girl. This is a little girl.”
Naomi: “Oh, my God. Oh, my God.”
Ealy: “So John [Beaudoin] got all this. Some angel behind the scenes gave him access to all of the death certificates. His team broke everything down. We’re actually going to use some of his work to corroborate what we’re saying in our response to their most recent motion to dismiss.”
“They made a little sleight of hand and said, ‘If you had pre-existing conditions and got COVID, or we think you got COVID, we’re going to ignore the pre-existing conditions — those aren’t going to be considered the cause of death — it’s always going to be COVID. And that’s the exact opposite thing that they do with every other cause of death.
And what it allowed them to do, Naomi, was to hyperinflate the death count so it looks like an emergency, when in fact, what the people really should have been listed as dying of is diabetes, or of heart failure or hypertension, or the pre-existing condition because it’s always been that your oldest known pre-existing condition is the cause of death. And infection is what is termed as an initiating factor but not a cause. And it’s a little subtle distinction, but it’s crucial when we talk about the death count for COVID.”
“So what we’re saying is that we have evidence to support a Grand Jury investigation, because what’s happened thanks to Robert Redfield did, Alex Azar did, what Xavier Becerra and Rochelle Walensky continue to do. They’ve just adopted all of those early policies, so that makes them culpable.
And what a little-known man by the name of Brian Moyer, with the head of the National Vital Statistics systems — what they all did, was they changed how death certificates were reported, violated three federal laws in the process, did not open up public comment, did not seek oversight by the Office of Management and Budget, which sits under the President’s jurisdiction, and therefore, went rogue.
And in doing that — this is where it gets crazy, Naomi. In doing that simultaneously, what they did, was the HHS erected a structure for Medicare-Medicaid insurance fraud. That led to the misappropriation of $3.5 TRILLION of U.S. taxpayer money throughout this supposed ‘crisis,’ all based upon the sleight of hand of a death certificate.”
If you’re as mad as I am and want to see these criminals behind bars, please sign this petition at beyondthecon.com. DEMAND a Grand jury investigation and share this website with all receptive family and friends. The goal is 1 million signatures before September 12.
Part 2: Ivermectin vindicated – 2 years too late
“Horse Paste” Has Been Listed as an Antiviral COVID Treatment on the NIH’s Website
The suppression of this drug “is one of the greatest stories of our lifetime, and we’re not going to let it go.”
Believe it or not, after two years of censorship, suppression, threatening of doctors’ licenses, and relentless smear campaigns as being a “horse dewormer,” the HUMAN drug of ivermectin has risen from the ashes and quietly made its way to the antiviral COVID therapy list on the NIH’s website.
Now, the description has still not changed, but it wasn’t even included in the same list as these pictured drugs before per OAN. So, baby steps. But progress.
Not too long ago, it was one of NIH’s studies that piled on a “mountain of evidence showing ivermectin is not effective at treating COVID-19.”
This was done on a controlled population of 88,102 subjects, which is a gigantic sample size for a scientific study.
Here’s the quick rundown.
Among 223,128 subjects from the city of Itajaí, 159,560 were 18 years old or up and were not infected by COVID-19 until July 7, 2020, from which 45,716 (28.7%) did not use and 113,844 (71.3%) used ivermectin. Among ivermectin users, 33,971 (29.8%) used irregularly (up to 60 mg) and 8,325 (7.3%) used regularly (more than 180 mg).
So what they were looking for here was a dose-dependent enhanced effect. As the dose increases, do we see a greater and stronger effect? That is the greatest evidence that ivermectin is not an anomaly — that it actually works, and that’s exactly what they saw in this study.
And here’s the conclusion.
“Mortality rate was 92% lower in regular users than non-users…”
“Non-use of ivermectin was associated with a 12.5-fold increase in mortality rate and a seven-fold increased risk of dying from COVID-19 compared to the regular use of ivermectin. This dose-response efficacy reinforces the prophylactic effects of ivermectin against COVID-19.”
Now think about this…
Del Bigtree, asks.
“You have Francis Collins at the head of the NIH.”
“You have Tony Fauci at NIH inside of NIAID.”
“And so, these two guys have come out strongly against ivermectin; they were pushing the vaccine. And as we pointed out many times, you could not get the emergency use authorization to rush the vaccine out if there was a product that could protect you from this illness, which this [study] shows prophylactically, it completely does.
And so they needed to squash it. So now, when we look at really one of the only studies found on the planet Earth that show that ivermectin was not effective, it goes and is led by the two guys who literally could go to jail if we prove that their denial of ivermectin got a half a million people killed in the United States of America, got doctors fired for no reason, whatsoever, and then put their patients who would have been saved in peril.
Do you realize how massive this story actually is?
I’ve been thinking about this. We keep watching these headlines go by. You keep tuning into the Highwire, and we’re really getting numb to what are horrific stories, outrageous stories of government interference when it comes to living humans in the United States of America. Is it possible Tony Fauci is responsible for over a half a million deaths within two years in the United States of America? Do you realize where that will put him in human history amongst perhaps the dictators of the world?”
“And then how many people around the world followed our mandates? How many millions didn’t use ivermectin because of this study done at the NIH? Now, I’m not saying the study is fraudulent. But what I am saying is there’s no way that we can use that as the only study, especially given the fact that we recognize the sheer bias that has to be taking place at NIH to protect their own butts.
So that against the mountain of evidence that has come up against ivermectin. This is one of the greatest stories of our lifetime, and we’re not going to let it go.”
Exactly, Del. We CAN’T let it go. Because if their actions — their negligence (at best) or deliberate suppression of ivermectin to push a vaccine agenda (at worst) gets brushed to the side and called a “whoopsie,” what precedent is that going to set?
That you can get away with deliberately squashing life-saving medications in order to serve the interests of the pharmaceutical industry? That is no world that I want anyone to live in, but sadly, that is the world we seem to be in, and it has to change.
If you want justice — if you want accountability for these criminals, please sign the petition below. Dr. Henry Ealy and his team are hoping to raise 1 million signatures to bring forth to a judge to demand a Grand Jury investigation against the CDC.
And if that goes through, it opens the door for Fauci & Friends. Please sign the petition below and share it with all receptive family and friends.
Most of the people responding are women with just a few men. Just like anybody can learn to be a wonderful, kind, and caring person, everybody has the potential to be an awful, cruel, and malicious individual. Being a horrible human being who spreads negativity and misery isn’t restricted by gender, age, race, or culture.
However, the internet usually tends to hyper-focus on toxic masculinity, suggesting that it’s mainly only guys who have the potential to be terrible human beings. That’s not the case. This time, we’re shining a light on some honest examples of what toxic femininity looks like, as shared by internet users in this candid and blunt r/AskReddit thread.
redditor u/imogen2797 who was kind enough to answer our questions and share her insights about toxic femininity. “I think a lot of toxic femininity is caused by jealousy, the need for a hierarchy and similarly, in a way, to feel empowered by bringing down other women,” she said.
British psychotherapist Silva Neves shared his thoughts about toxic behaviors. He stressed that it’s very important to highlight that “people are not toxic as and of themselves.” In other words, it’s the ideas and belief systems that are at fault, not necessarily the people themselves. Read on for his insights as well.
Illegals in DC
#1
I hate the whole “oh if you hold a baby you’ll want one” or “baby smell is the best” or my least favorite “you’re so good with kids, you’ll be a great mom!” comments. NOT EVERY WOMAN WANTS TO BE A MOM, NOT EVERY WOMAN EVEN LIKES KIDS! The fact that I’m a decent human being to my friends kids doesn’t mean I’ll be a good mom. You know what I love? My current lifestyle. I didn’t work today and you know what I did? I sat in bed, ate chocolate, watched Ice Cold Killers, and now I’m gonna take a nice long nap at 3 in the afternoon! How in gods name would a child enhance my life in any way? I’m 26 and the constant barrage of “you’re not getting any younger” comments are starting to get under my skin.
Redditor u/imogen2797, who created the thread on r/AskReddit in the first place, told Bored Panda that she personally believes that jealousy and bullying lie at the core of toxic femininity, not manipulation and passive aggression.
“Unfortunately, both toxic femininity and toxic masculinity seem to have their roots deep in our society at this current stage. For someone who is in the firing line of this, I would suggest seeking support from like-minded women, as well as calling out toxic behaviors as they happen,” she shared her thoughts on what someone should do if they find themselves a victim of toxic femininity. It’s vital to have firm boundaries, as well as the courage to cut toxic people out of your life.
“People can (mostly) choose the people they surround themselves with, and if something isn’t serving you in a positive way, cut it out.”
#2
Assuming men are never the victim of physical abuse or intimidation.
Meanwhile, for someone who recently figured out that they are a toxic individual, this sense of recognition is a good start. “I think 99% of women will at some point hold toxic views about other women in some way or another, but it is so important to value body autonomy and the rights that women have to choose what they want to do with their bodies and lives. In a world that is ruled by men, we need to lift up other women instead of tearing them down,” the redditor said.
The author of the thread also opened up about the inspiration for the question. “I first heard the term ‘toxic femininity’ when I was scrolling through Instagram and saw a post that read, ‘When are we gonna start talking about toxic femininity for a change?’ To be honest, at first, I thought it was a cop-out written by men to deflect an issue that faces that community so heavily, back onto women. I posted to Reddit to get opinions on both sides and I realized that toxic femininity is actually a really prevalent issue that women face,” she shared with us.
“On the one hand, I’m glad that the post got so much attention because it brings light to an issue that isn’t talked about very much. On the other hand, I did notice a lot of the comments were from men using the term ‘toxic femininity’ as a mask to hate on women and be sexist in general, e.g ‘acting as if men are put on earth to serve women,’ ‘most feminists,’ and ‘forever victimhood,’ ‘wanting the same wages as men but less work,’” the redditor stressed that some people have a very subjective understanding of toxicity and use it to further their own goals.
Meanwhile, for someone who recently figured out that they are a toxic individual, this sense of recognition is a good start. “I think 99% of women will at some point hold toxic views about other women in some way or another, but it is so important to value body autonomy and the rights that women have to choose what they want to do with their bodies and lives. In a world that is ruled by men, we need to lift up other women instead of tearing them down,” the redditor said.
The author of the thread also opened up about the inspiration for the question. “I first heard the term ‘toxic femininity’ when I was scrolling through Instagram and saw a post that read, ‘When are we gonna start talking about toxic femininity for a change?’ To be honest, at first, I thought it was a cop-out written by men to deflect an issue that faces that community so heavily, back onto women. I posted to Reddit to get opinions on both sides and I realized that toxic femininity is actually a really prevalent issue that women face,” she shared with us.
“On the one hand, I’m glad that the post got so much attention because it brings light to an issue that isn’t talked about very much. On the other hand, I did notice a lot of the comments were from men using the term ‘toxic femininity’ as a mask to hate on women and be sexist in general, e.g ‘acting as if men are put on earth to serve women,’ ‘most feminists,’ and ‘forever victimhood,’ ‘wanting the same wages as men but less work,’” the redditor stressed that some people have a very subjective understanding of toxicity and use it to further their own goals.
#3 (See also #21)
Don’t you dare hit me back! I’m a lady!
Girls who hit guys because they know the guy won’t hit them back
“I think it is very important to highlight that people are not toxic as and of themselves. When we describe toxic masculinity, we do not mean that some men are toxic, we mean that the ideas and belief systems that promote strict and unrealistic ideals of masculinity are toxic—the beliefs are, not the men themselves,” psychotherapist Silva said.
“These beliefs may encourage unpleasant behaviors—behaviors can be challenged and changed too, but we don’t need to change who they are, just what they believe and how they act upon those beliefs. The same goes for toxic femininity. Being kinder, more tolerant, and more caring involves talking and connecting to a diversity of people, rather than staying in the echo chamber of only interacting with the people sharing the same beliefs.”
The expert pointed out that everyone is flawed, whether they have toxic beliefs or not. “If you are aware that you have some flaws that get in the way of living a good life, you can see a therapist to make sense of it, learn to live with it, be kinder to yourself and also learn to challenge and change some of your thought and behavioral patterns to learn to live with your own integrity and values and not against them,” Silva said that reaching out to a professional for help can be a very important step in growing as a person.
#4
Putting women down for choosing not to have children. As if the only reason we were put on earth was to be baby makers
#5
“Real women have meat on their bones.” No. No no. Real women exist regardless of size.
#6
I see a lot of body positive women that shit on my girlfriend for working out and keeping her body hairless. They always say she should be more loving of her body and embrace her body hair.
It’s annoying. She does it cause SHE likes it. She goes to the gym and does deadlifts cause it empowers her and makes her feel AMAZING. Like, we all have different ideals and visions for our life. And after moisturizing herself and shaving she likes to rub her legs together like a cricket, and nobody should be taking that little slice of heaven from her.
“Heterosexual men do not need to fight for their rights because traditionally they are the ones making the rules—which is the very roots of encouraging toxic masculinity. The only time when toxic femininity might be noticed is on social media on forums when women promote the idea that all men are bad, and to its extreme promoting the movement of ‘kill all men’. This is what we call misandry, the hate of men,” Silva said
#7
Woman arrested for making false accusations of rape
Fake domestic violence or rape accusations.
This is why I feel like the phrase “every woman should be believed” should be changed to “every woman should be taken seriously.”
Not every woman is truthful, so we can’t go in with the mindset of “oh, she’s definitely innocent.” At the same time, we can’t let cases of false accusations prevent us from taking a case seriously because “she may be another liar.”
Sadly, people are bound to make decisions on who’s innocent and who’s not without even watching the trial.
#8
Amber Heard
Caro Caro Amber TURD. She not only hurt Johnny but hurt the women struggling for safety, equal rights and justice.
#9
The quote “If you can’t handle me at my worst, you don’t deserve me at my best.”
Basically expecting a partner to put up with your drama as proof of them actually being into you/making them jump through hoops to prove they’re into you.
Toxic women are often called ‘nice girls’ or even ‘Karens.’ They’re often egocentric, arrogant, put others down, and are entitled to the point of looking like Sunday cartoon villains. They firmly believe that the world owes them, and they will manipulate, lie, and cheat their way to whatever goal they have in mind. Everyone else be damned. So, in other words, not all that different from walking paragons of toxic masculinity (aka ‘nice guys’ and ‘Kyles’).
Redditor u/CTFOE_is_Fee, one of the moderators running the r/Nicegirls subreddit about toxic women, explained to Bored Panda during an interview why someone is a ‘nice girl.’
“Some of them are too immature to realize what they’re doing. Others are that manipulative on purpose. Lastly, some do not even realize what they’re doing,” they told us.
#10
Telling mothers that they should “suck it up” and deal with postpartum depression without help because women from previous generations were able to raise children without any complaints.
No, Carol. I’m fucking miserable, and there’s nothing shameful about getting the treatment I need to cope with my depression.
#11
Expecting all the affection and love in the world from their boyfriends and never showing a glimpse of it towards them. Men DO have feelings you know?
#12
Saying that mothers who adopt aren’t real moms. I’m adopted and I got all the love and support I needed from my mom. She continues to put her all into her kids and grandkids. I’ll be damned if anyone says she isn’t a real mom because she didn’t give birth to me and my siblings.
Commander OwO Someone once said a quote, “Mom is a verb, not a noun” meaning one can nourish and care like a mom but not be one in actuality. I think it’s a nice quote.
They shared their opinion on where the line lies between actual, genuine niceness and fake, manipulative ‘niceness’ meant to exploit someone.
“Personally, for me, the line is drawn when you can tell that someone is being passive-aggressive; when you can sense the subdued maliciousness in their words and actions. If your gut is telling you that something is not genuine about the person then they probably are not genuine. I think we’ve all experienced a few relationships like that in our lives. I do not see there being a large grey area between the two. You know when someone is being kind or not,” moderator u/CTFOE_is_Fee said.
According to Forbes, toxic femininity in the workplace revolves around backstabbing others, failing to support other women in their success, as well as being a “tool of the patriarchy to undermine femininity.”
Toxic femininity is often expressed through passive aggression. “It’s when we allow relationships and productivity to suffer because we’re not being honest about our own objectives, or when we are assuming we know best with a ‘caring’ face. It’s being a ‘Karen’ and it’s not a step forward from patriarchal systems of control. It might not involve yelling, but it’s still manipulating other people,” Forbes writes, adding that the antidote to this and to toxic masculinity are good leadership skills.
#13
When we are blind supporters of other women. Like, a woman uninvited slapping another woman’s ass isn’t as bad because it’s a woman. Cardi B drugging and robbing dudes isn’t bad because men have done that to women for ever. We don’t get passes because we’ve been victims.
Also, women who refuse to accept that men can also be victims of the patriarchy. Sure, it fucks us all in different ways to different extents, but still.
#14
The whole “mamma bear” knows better than a medical professional about anything to with their children.
#15
The idea that women should be meek and pretty 24/7, and if you are a loud, tomboyish woman, you’re not a real woman.
As a lifelong tomboy, I’ve been put down a lot for not wearing makeup and doing “manly jobs”. I’ve actually got some internalized misogyny as a result. I have a much harder time trusting other women than I have trusting men, because in my experience, it’s mostly other women who accuse me of not being a woman.
#16
Placing your entire self-worth on being desirable to men, or assuming any woman who dislikes you must be jealous of your desirability. Not knowing who you are without male attention.
#17
Thinking that being in a romantic relationship/marriage or being able to have children makes you inherently better than women who aren’t.
#18 (See also #27)
Defaulting to the female parental figure in all things child-related.
I worked an hour’s drive away, my husband worked 15 minutes away. We clearly listed him as the primary emergency contact on all school forms and even noted that he was closest. We told the kid to specifically request they call Dad.
Every time there was an emergency, guess who got called? I would then instruct them to call my husband because my leaving work to take the kid home means they have to deal with an extra hour or so of projectile vomit (or whatever).
We ended up just listing his number as mine.
Stupid!
#19
Using “feminism” as a shield to justify every shitty thing they do.
Voodoops_13 ANYONE who tries to hijack the term Feminist/Feminism by equating it with being a bitch/ugly/angry/single/childless can fuck all the way off. Male or female, doesn’t matter.
#20
Shitting on stay at home moms or Sex Workers because you don’t understand their choices. Feminism means we all get to choose our own path . Not everyone wants a high powered career and that’s Ok.
#21 (See also #3)
“No man is ever allowed to hit a woman, in any circumstances.”
Uh, hell no. I’m a woman, but I fully expect that if I started punching a guy or trying to kill him, that he would be well within his rights to give me a slap. Being female doesn’t mean you get to start physical fights and face no repercussions.
#22
“If you gave birth through c-section, you’re not a real mom.”
What. The. Fuck? Suddenly 9 months of pregnancy, a terrifying procedure and caring for a newborn doesn’t count because MacDuff from his mother’s womb was untimely ripped? Whose baby is this then, since apparently no mothers are present?
#23
“all other girls are bitches”
If you’re a girl and think that, that’s a you problem
#24
Karens are a prime example (of Toxic Femininity). They show peak entitlement found more often in women then men. Everything must be done for them. They are a mother or they’re a “struggling” woman who should be given everything she wants.
There’s also abusive women. Abusive men will hit you, abusive women will give you several mental and emotional disorders and claim you made it all up while you suffer alone in silence. I know this from personal experience having an abusive biological father and step mother.
If a woman does hit you, you aren’t allowed to hit back. If you defend yourself you’re the aggressor because… men big?
#25
Last week: 3 women admiring my fiancé’s new engagement ring (which is a bit flashy) My fiancé tells them it’s lab-made, which is what she wanted One of them responded with “Oh, that doesn’t count then”
#26
I had an ex who laughed and took advantage of me after I cried in front of her. She told me she didn’t see me as a man and that crying is for girls.
#27 (See also #18)
The expectation of doing emotional labor. If you fall short of being the default caretaker/nurturer in any way, you are a bad woman. If you don’t put your family’s needs before your own all the time, you might be called a bad mom, a bad wife, or a bad daughter or sister, etc. Meanwhile women who sacrifice themselves completely to take care of others are good mothers, good wives, etc
Similarly, the overly glorified societal idea that a woman’s love is supposed to fix her partner. I read a lot of romance novels and wow is hetero romance content overwhelmingly saturated with the idea that even the most broken person (usually a man in the examples I have personally read) can be healed by the true love of the other person (usually a woman in the examples I have read). There’s no therapy, no focus on healthy ways to deal with trauma, just the idea that some woman can walk into some broken man’s life and completely heal him instantly with “true love”.
#28
Using your period as an excuse to be physically or emotionally abusive. Turns out my mom was just a bitch, not PMS’ing.
#29
Being unable to critize another woman for shit she did since “women support each other“. Has the exact same energy as frat guys saying “bro code”.
#30
Mothers who tell their sons that they are less than equal, based on gender alone. “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle” “The future is female, not male.” That type of stuff.
We’re all in this world together and equally capable of greatness and kindness. Please don’t tell your kids otherwise. If you teach someone they’re “less than,” you’re giving them a lifelong hall pass to be a selfish jerk because you don’t need them anyway.
#31
Being all “Claire!! Hiiiii it’s soo good to seee youuuuu oh my goooodddd!!!!” in that obnoxious tone of voice, to every single woman in the group, then turning around and talking the most nasty gossip you can behind their backs or purposely being snaky to the group. This is so toxic, if you don’t like the people you spend time with then drop the mask and stop shoving “positive vibes” down their throats.
#32 (Related to #3 and #21)
Girls who start an argument or fight with a stranger and expect their bf/husband/partner to be the one to handle the fall out.
#33
Just generally assuming men are made of emotional rubber and can bounce back from anything,then accusing a man of “male fragility” if they don’t.
When a guy has an really good platonic male friend who he enjoys spending time with , and a woman thinks it’s odd and says “ you two should get it over with and make out/have sex” as if men only become close if sex is involved.
#34
Believing that its a man’s job to impress her when she’s dating. If you like someone ACT AS THOUGH YOU LIKE THEM. Dating is an equal exchange of time and emotional labour, if she feels like she needs further financial compensation beyond that (paying for the food/show/whatever it is) then maybe she don’t like him enough.
El Dee This one is deeply ingrained. It’s like an internalised form of self sabotage. Now things are beginning to change but I think it will be my grandchildren who benefit.
#35
The “I get along with guys better.”
I cringe because I used to be like this. Don’t discount a whole gender. There’s a lot of awesome women out there, find them and befriend them! Not all guys are awesome so why assume all women aren’t?
Amber Heard 
