Month: December 2022
Parents pay a high price for the privilege of owning their children
By Jerold Levoritz
Yes, parents own their children. Anyone who says differently does not understand anything at all. “He who pays the piper calls the tune”—and children are purchased at the cost of the parents’ living standards. They are like buying an expensive painting to be looked after and cared-for for generations. The idea that women’s labor pains can be disregarded as worthless contributions to the state is ridiculous. That the purchase of a home and an apparently infinite number of toys and games is not considered an investment is outlandish. Who pays these parents to carry these creatures around on their backs? Who compensates them for rising in the middle of the night to comfort the hungry criers?
Listen to the complainers who support abortion, and you will learn the truth. Children are a burden, gladly suffered by some and hated by others. The lost education, the lost liberty, the lost vacations, the lost second home, the lost uninterrupted evenings with Netflix are all the prices parents pay. There are those of us who gladly suffer the conflicts we have with our spouses over raising children as we look for the best paths for them in life. We suffer the lost yacht or rowboat to send our offspring to the best colleges or summer camps or buy them a new shirt.
We note, as well, that in these post-modern times, marriages are more likely to fail in the face of a child’s death due to sickness or accident. This observation clarifies their importance as the glue between people who spent their time, energy, and money to raise them, but whose efforts failed due only to bad luck. The loss is intolerable, the suffering for nothing, the expenses down the drain. Even unsuccessful children, who don’t live up to parental expectations, are better than death since hope is still available—perhaps in the form of grandchildren.
Any play by the government for rights in the nation’s children can only be successful if the government pays for all these real and intangible expenses. In theory, parents who live comfortably only because welfare payments for their children provide an income will be more compliant. In fact, though, those parents who do receive welfare payments will still be unhappy with government overreach.
The state is and always has been a poor substitute for the mother or father who is asleep in the next room. Officialdom will never be there to comfort the crying child. Let us not take an efficient system of raising physically and mentally healthy children and sour the milk that feeds them by adding politics to their diet.
There is one more crucial aspect to be understood about parent-child relations. These relations are delicately balanced and can be spun out of control by people who are intrinsically stupid. This stupidity is part of our existential dilemma and is present in all our activities because no one can foresee the future!
However, one thing we know with certainty is that reducing affectional bonding between people—a leftist revolutionary goal—is naïve. The Russian Revolution and its goal of eliminating the family produced consequences among the Russian people from which they continue to suffer to this very day.
Stalin was able to continue ruining families based on Lenin’s principles of state supremacy. Both men understood that, if the internal mechanisms of caring for a child are reduced or eliminated, anyone can come along and remove children from families if the price is high enough; that is, either enough money to compensate the parents or enough parental suffering to prevent their saving their children from the clutches of the state.
Once that happens— if affection is disdained and crushed— we no longer go to the wall for our children. That betrays the ideal of trust between parents and children. Trust as a concept held between people has been one of the miracles of civilization. As with most mammals, we have readily given our own lives to save our children. We have run back into burning houses to retrieve them or jumped into rivers to keep them from drowning. Do we wish these feelings to disappear from the world so the government can have better control of us?
So yes, parents do own their children. That’s because the most important understanding of the family is that it creates the future. That is the point of having children—to create the future. How much better to have this vision of the future take place in families that are truly invested in children and the future those children will have, rather than at the government level, which is invested only in itself.
Darren Grimes: what conservatism means to young people
Americans demand ex-Twitter Legal Head Vijaya Gadde be sent to prison, accuse her of rigging 2020 US Presidential elections
Afghans marrying off young daughters to avoid forced marriages with Taliban
Since Kabul fell to the Taliban in August 2021, there has been a dramatic increase in early marriages of Afghan girls — a trend activists and human rights campaigners attribute to parents’ belief that securing a spouse for their girls is better than seeing them forced to marry members of the Taliban, a media report said.
Marrying their girls off also provides some sense of security: fewer mouths to feed at a time when Afghan girls have been banned from attending school and face harassment as the country deals with a humanitarian crisis and economic ruin, said the RFE/RL report.
Shukria Sherzai, a women’s rights activist in Ghor province, says the cases of forced and underage marriages have increased exponentially since the Taliban seized power.
She says that many families agree to early unions in the hope of sparing them from being forced to marry Taliban members. But even if the reasoning is based on securing a better life, the effect has been devastating to the family structure, RFE/RL reported.
“Forced and underage marriages have resulted in violence and turmoil within families,” she said.
International rights watchdogs have documented similar trends.
“The rates of child, early, and forced marriage in Afghanistan are surging under Taliban rule,” noted a July report by Amnesty International.
Nicolette Waldman, a researcher for Amnesty International, says that the most common drivers of child, early, and forced marriage since the Taliban’s takeover include the economic and humanitarian crisis and lack of educational and professional prospects for women.
Many are not able to find alternatives to the Taliban.
“Families are forcing women and girls to marry Taliban members, and Taliban members are forcing women and girls to marry them,” Waldman said.
Afghanistan is rife with speculation that the Taliban is contemplating a complete ban on women’s education, work, and mobility in a return to the policies imposed during the extremist group’s infamous first stint in power from 1996 to 2001, RFE/RL reported.
A December 2021 decree by the Taliban’s supreme leader, Mullah Haibatullah Akhundzada, about women’s rights was silent on women’s education and work. But it outlawed forced marriages by requiring women’s consent for marriage.
That requirement is apparently not being enforced.
Marziah Nurzai, a women’s rights activist in the western province of Farah, attributes the rise in forced and underage marriages to the Taliban’s decision to close girls’ schools.
She witnessed one father marrying his daughter to a drug addict in exchange for a dowry worth some $2,500. Another one sold off his 10-year-old for more than $4,000 in cash, RFE/RL reported.
“Think about what will happen to such girls in the future,” Nurzai said. “Since there is no hope for reopening schools, girls are losing hope and self-confidence.”
Planned Parenthood director promotes pornography and declares newborns ‘sexual’ beings
By Olivia Murray
Who is he? Well, he’s Bill Taverner, and he’s the executive director for the Planned Parenthood Center for Sex Education. He’s spoken before Congress, providing his “expert” opinion to influence decisions of public policy regarding issues of sex education, which, unsurprisingly, includes suggestions that you’d only expect from a pedophile.
According to a report published Friday, Taverner stated that “children of a certain age should be taught about pornography in sex education,” adding that the sex education curriculum for which he advocates ought to begin in kindergarten. Lastly, and here’s the crux of the perversion, but per Taverner, “we are all sexual beings from birth until death.” From birth?
Now where have we heard this before? Ahhh, Alfred Kinsey of course!
Kinsey, once lauded by The New York Times as the “Father of the Sexual Revolution” was perhaps the most prolific pedophile in modern history — “Table 34” from Kinsey’s research (government-sanctioned pedophilia), “detailed pedophilic exploits on children as young as five months old[.]” A reportpublished last year stated:
Not only did Kinsey hypothesised [sic] that infants are orgasmic from birth [emphasis added], but he also suggested that incest relationships and paedophilia [sic] benefit children. In his writing, Kinsey asserted that there was no proven medical or other reason to forbid incest or adult-child sex.
Per his voyeurism of the sexual abuse, Kinsey claimed that “All orgasms are ‘outlets’ and equal between husband and wife, boy and dog, man and boy, girl, or baby? For there is no abnormality and no normality.”
(Interestingly, Kinsey hails from New Jersey, which is also home to Planned Parenthood’s Center which employs Taverner.)
In 2021, I had the chance to sit in on a committee hearing in Phoenix for Senate Bill 1456, which sought to protect school children from the type of sex curriculum promoted by people like Taverner. One of the testifying experts was a renowned psychologist who had worked with some of the country’s most notorious pedophiles — she asserted that sexual predators “love” this sort of instruction because it does the grooming for them. (Republican governor Doug Ducey went on to veto the bill when it arrived at his desk.)
Kinsey died in 1956, but he’s been resurrected, and he’s lurking everywhere: at media outlets; in your child’s school; at the pediatrician’s office; in big unions like the National Education Association; and surprise, surprise, at your local abortion mill.
Victory for Iranian women: Iran government to abolish morality police, mandatory hijab law to be reviewed
In a massive victory for Iranian women protesting against the mandatory hijab law and brutal police action for violating it, the Iran government has decided to abolish the morality police which enforces the Hijab law in the country.
According to media reports, the Attorney General of Iran has announced that the country has abolished its morality police. This comes after more than two months of demonstrations sparked by Mahsa Amini’s detention and execution for allegedly breaching the country’s stringent female dress code. In addition, as the nation attempts to calm more than two months of protests tied to the dress code, Iranian officials announced they will reconsider the decades-old legislation requiring women to cover their heads.
“Morality police have no role in the judiciary and have been disbanded”, said Attorney General Mohammad Jafar Montazeri, as cited by the ISNA news agency. He made the remark during a religious conference in response to an attendee who inquired, “Why are the morality police being shut down?”
The declaration came a day after Montazeri stated that “both parliament and the judiciary are working on the issue” of whether the legislation requiring women to cover their heads should be modified. In broadcast statements Saturday, President Ebrahim Raisi stated that Iran’s republican and Islamic roots were legally anchored, but that “there are methods of implementing the constitution that can be flexible.”
According to Iranian law, women and post-pubescent girls must wear head coverings and loose-fitting clothing in public. However, now this law is going to be reviewed.
These remarks are indicative of a victory for the protestors in the Islamic country and across the world who are raising their voices against the government and its hardline stance.
The morality police, the formal name of which is Gasht-e Ershad or “Guidance Patrol”, were established in 2005 under hardline president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to “spread the culture of modesty and hijab.” The police squad consisted of both male and female members that patrolled the streets and public places to monitor women’s attire. The Guidance Patrol teams arrest women they think are not appropriately dressed as per Islamic rules.
The women found violating the morality codes are slapped in the face and beaten with batons on the spot and pushed into police vans. They are taken to a correctional facility or police station, where they are lectured on how to dress appropriately and are released after recording the details. The detained women are also required to destroy their ‘inappropriate’ clothes if applicable. Now, after the morality police is abolished, such draconian measures will be a thing of past.
However, it is not known if some other force with a different name but with a similar purpose will be set up in future after the heat of the protest dies down.
Protests erupted on September 16 following the death of Mahsa Amini, a 22-year-old Iranian of Kurdish descent who had been detained by morality police for allegedly violating sharia law.
According to the reports, the incident is said to have happened on September 13 when Amini, a native of Saghez, Iran, had travelled to Tehran for a pleasure trip. The woman was with her brother Kiarash at the entrance to the Shahid Haghani Expressway when the ‘Morality Police’ arrived and arrested Amini for a one-hour ‘re-education class.’
Following her death, widespread protests erupted in the Islamic nation protesting the Sharia laws and compulsory hijab for women. Women across the world supported the movement by chopping their hair and burning their headscarves.
https://www.opindia.com/2022/12/iran-to-abolish-morality-police-mandatory-hijab-law-to-be-reviewed/
Christianity in the UK is declining because we are too busy ‘chasing societal norms’ Calvin Robinson
We are now on the side of criminals NOT the public, says Mark Dolan
Germany: Iraqi man suffocated his sister four days after marrying her new husband to restore family honour
The Regional Court sentenced the Iraqi Kurd Zairk A. (39) to life imprisonment. Together with his brother Sharhat (31), he had suffocated his own sister Sozan A. (22) with a blanket in her sleep in October 2017, faking her suicide.
Sozan A. had separated from her husband and married someone else. Judge Herbert Pröls (60): “In the eyes of the family this was a disgrace. The brothers were supposed to restore the so-called family honour with the murder.”
The new husband had contacted the police after he had no more face-to-face contact with his wife and had been stalled by the brothers. The police finally opened the flat and found the 22-year-old’s body. The young woman was murdered only four days after her second wedding.
The judge in the verdict: “The accused denied her the right to live according to her own ideas”. The accused did not make any statements in court. But witness statements, driving logs, mobile phone data and DNA traces heavily incriminated Zairk.
The two brothers were not caught until 2021, the verdict against the younger brother is still pending, he was just sentenced to 7 years in prison in Italy for drug trafficking.