Kindergartners to Learn There Are 15 Genders

California wants to teach Kindergartners there are 15 genders and parents will not be notified and are not allowed to opt their children out of the indoctrination sessions.  “According to The California Safe School Coalition, state law provides that “instruction or materials that discuss gender, sexual orientation, or family life and do not discuss human reproductive organs and their functions” are not subject to parental notice and opt-out laws.”

We are talking about five year olds here who have no idea what gender identity is, nor should they even be concerned about it at that age.  A study done by UCLA shows that 25% of kids between the ages of 12 and 17 in California already feel they are gender non-conforming, but apparently 25% is not enough for the LGBT community and the California school system.

The 2019 proposed changes would be implemented under a revision to the state’s “Health Education Framework” to be voted on in May. The guidelines are part of the California Department of Education’s proposed  Health Education Framework.

According to the California Health Framework, which is over 1000 pages, In Chapter 3, Line 1847, the draft recommends the book Who Are You? for pre-K–3rd graders as a “guide” to develop their gender identity.

NEWMANMAINIMAGE151

According to Brenda Lebsack of EDSource, a public educator for twenty (20) years, outlined the 1000 page framework as follows:

“This book introduces young children to the idea that gender is a spectrum. This means genders are unlimited and ever-expanding, rather than confined to two biological genders. In the book, gender is described as, “boy, girl, both, neither, trans, genderqueer, non-binary, gender fluid, transgender, gender neutral, agender, neutrois, bigender, third gender, two spirit…” In Chapter 5, Line 643, the draft introduces sexual orientations as a spectrum as well. LGBTQ+ is defined as an ever-changing spectrum with expanding concepts to include “queer, questioning, intersex, asexual, allies and alternative identities (LGBTQQIAA).” Other sexual orientations introduced in Chapter 6, Line 938 include “pansexual and polysexual.”  To read more of this article, please go to EdSource.

To read more from the source of the video, please go to Freedom Project.

New Movie Will Praise Racist Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger as an “Icon and Hero”

margaret-sanger-840x473

Control, not choice, was Sanger’s key word when it came to matters of reproduction, said Angela Franks, Ph.D., an expert on Sanger who has written several books about her life. Franks said Sanger believed that some of the “unfit” should be forced to not reproduce.”

More and more examples of Sanger’s goals outside of exterminating the Black community, birth control, forced sterilization, population control, medical experiments on people, and the push for euthanasia for such reasons as depression, Aspergers, Down Syndrome, and other handicaps is just a short outline of what this alleged “ICON” and “HERO” stood for.  So many of the reasons given for euthanasia now-a-days are medical problems that can be easily treated with medication and/or therapy.

To read more about this issue and the movie that is coming out, please click on the link below:

https://www.lifenews.com/2016/12/16/new-movie-will-praise-racist-planned-parenthood-founder-margaret-sanger-as-an-icon-and-hero/?fbclid=IwAR2zarRxijPl7pa1WFkgy5DN-04Jgh_576UJjWkXbsNQnbGZGWEeTVulSnM

“Surveys taken in the United States indicate that an estimated 46% of physicians agree that voluntary euthanasia should be allowed for certain situations, with 41% disagreeing altogether and 14% believe it to be circumstantial. “

Euthanasia-Should-Be-a-Right

Below are the “TOP” ten reasons for euthanasia, from those people who think this way, realizing to them these are “Human Rights”.

maxresdefault

https://www.listland.com/top-10-reasons-euthanasia-should-be-legal-everywhere/

1. The Hippocratic oath supports euthanasia.
2. Euthanasia saves lives.
3. Euthanasia does not shorten lifespans by as much as is portrayed.
4. Everyone has a right to a good death, therefore a good death must not be denied to those who want one.
5. Euthanasia is properly regulated.
6. Euthanasia does not harm to others.
7. Euthanasia protects self-hood and human dignity.
8. Euthanasia is not immoral.
9. People have the explicit right to choose.
10. People have the right to die.

 

The Truth About Abortion and Euthanasia

images

Don’t doubt for a moment that abortion and euthanasia aren’t part of a bigger story. The name of the story is “POPULATION CONTROL”, but the real question might be, is there a bigger reason behind that story?

HBO personality Bill Maher: “I’m pro-choice, I’m for assisted suicide, I’m for regular suicide, I’m for whatever gets the freeway moving – that’s what I’m for. It’s too crowded, the planet is too crowded and we need to promote death.” 

CNN Founder Ted Turner: “A total world population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
 
“Dialogue that was begun in Cairo among representatives from among one hundred and eighty (180) nations came to a consensus for the first time: that women’s reproductive health and empowerment are critical to a nation’s sustainability and growth. The world agreed — for the first time — that smaller families and slower population growth are created by choice and opportunity, not control or coercion. And the world agreed that respect for women’s rights must be a part of our efforts to improve the quality of life for all the planet’s citizens.

From the Address by Hillary Rodham Clinton to the Cario Plus Five Forum in 1999, “I also see progress in my own country. With new funding increases, our government has made family planning and reproductive care services available to more women and families nationwide.”

 
population
POPULATION CONTROL FROM WILLIAM CLINTON LIBRARY

(Excerpt from the William Clinton Library)

“Possibly one of the most heinous of Bill Clinton’s foreign policies dealt with population control.

World Population Organizations were requiring that Third World countries accept their population control agenda in order to qualify for financial assistance. The United Nations, International Planned Parenthood Federation, World Health Organization, U.S. Aid, World Bank, and other population control groups used hundreds of millions of U.S. tax dollars to kill babies around the world in the effort of controlling the population and to advance the depopulation agenda of The Club of Rome.

They have stated the priorities of their common agenda:

  • Generalize worldwide sex education among youth.
  • World wide legalization of abortion.
  • World legalization of sterilization.”

To see the names of some of the elite involved, and the truth behind abortion and euthenics, read the following sources, and you will be more than surprised because population control may have more to it than controlling the population!

Right to Life of Michigan Endorsed Candidates

index

Please check out the RTL of Michigan (for people outside of Michigan, please refer to the RTL center in your state) site for election endorsements.  Statistics from the Pew Research Center and the United States Census Bureau, are showing that the pro-choice side of the isle is outweighing the pro-life side in registering and getting out to vote in the primaries.  Please share these facts with your friends and family.  Post the info on your Facebook, Twitter, or personal blogs, and ask your friends to do the same.  The Resource Center at 2010 Eureka,  Wyandotte (inside the small mall at 20th and Eureka) has some great flyers to pass out or to use, itemizing the various views of the candidates on:

  • Views on the Right to Life
  • Views on Coercive Abortion
  • Views on Tax Dollars for Abortion
  • Their voting records
  • Endorsements
  • Euthanasia/Doctor-Prescribed Suicide
  • Confirming Justices
  • Their Supporters

We watched the dirty tricks of deceit, delay and destroy at Judge Kavanaugh’s Hearing yesterday and chances are things are going to even get worse the closer we get to the election.  It is time to stop the insanity, the violence, and the destructive path that the left is leading us into, and the BEST WAY TO DO THAT IS TO GET OUT AND VOTE!!!!


https://election.rtl.org/endorsements


According to the United States Census Bureau, In 2016, 61.4 percent of the citizen voting-age population reported voting, a number not statistically different from the 61.8 percent who reported voting in 2012. Voting rates have historically varied by race and Hispanic origin, and In 2012, voting rates for non-Hispanic blacks (66.6 percent) were higher than non-Hispanic whites (64.1 percent) for the first time since 1980, In 2016, turnout increased to 65.3 percent for non-Hispanic whites, but decreased to 59.6 percent for non-Hispanic blacks, which was only the second election in this series where the share of non-Hispanic black voters decreased, from 12.9 percent in 2012 to 11.9 percent in 2016.

When analyzed together, reported turnout by age, race and Hispanic origin differed in 2016 as well. In comparison to 2012, younger non-Hispanic whites between the ages of 18 to 29 and between the ages of 30 to 44 reported higher turnout in 2016, while voting rates for the two oldest groups of non-Hispanic whites were not statistically different (Figure 5). Meanwhile, for non-Hispanic blacks, turnout rates decreased in 2016 for every age group. For other race non-Hispanics and Hispanics of any race, voting rates between 2012 and 2016 were not statistically different for any age groups.

According to the Pew Research Center, The black voter turnout rate declined for the first time in 20 years in a presidential election, falling to 59.6% in 2016 after reaching a record-high 66.6% in 2012. The 7-percentage-point decline from the previous presidential election is the largest on record for blacks. (It’s also the largest percentage-point decline among any racial or ethnic group since white voter turnout dropped from 70.2% in 1992 to 60.7% in 1996.) The number of black voters also declined, falling by about 765,000 to 16.4 million in 2016, representing a sharp reversal from 2012.

The Latino voter turnout rate held steady at 47.6% in 2016, compared with 48.0% in 2012. the number of Latino voters grew to a record 12.7 million in 2016, up from 11.2 million in 2012. Even so, the number of Latino nonvoters – those eligible to vote who do not cast a ballot, or 14 million in 2016 – was larger than the number of Latino voters, a trend that extends back to each presidential election since 1996. Meanwhile, the Asian voter turnout rate increased to 49.3% in 2016, up from 46.9% in 2012 and surpassing Hispanics for the first time since 1996. Asians continue to represent a smaller share of voters than Hispanics: Overall, about 5 million Asians voted in 2016, up from 3.8 million in 2012.
Americans appear to be more engaged with this year’s midterm elections than they typically are. Not only do about half of registered voters report being more enthusiastic than usual about voting, up from 40% in 2014, but turnout has surged in the 31 states that already have held their congressional primaries – particularly among Democrats.

The total number of votes cast in Democratic House primaries so far this year is 84% higher than the total for the equivalent point in 2014. One reason: There have been a lot more contested primaries, which tend to attract more voters.
Republican turnout in House primaries also has increased, from a combined 8.6 million votes at this point in 2014 (7% of registered voters) to 10.7 million (7.9%) so far this year. But the increase is much smaller (24%) than on the Democratic side, and the total number of votes cast in Democratic House primaries is considerably higher. Overall turnout in U.S. Senate and gubernatorial primaries also is above 2014 levels.

top

Medical Abortions comprise 22.6% of abortions performed before the ninth week of pregnancy, not an insignificant number. Unlike surgical or suction abortions which immediately kill the baby; medical abortions take longer and therefore can sometimes be reversed. The purpose of this half day conference will increase the participants knowledge of a medical abortion and how the process can be reversed as well as how one can become involved in helping a mother reverse a medical abortion.

Speakers

George Delgado, M.D.
Dr. George Delgado, M.D.

Medical Director of APR and Culture of Life Family Health Care. He established the abortion pill reversal program and in April of this year published a second research study involving 261 successful medical abortion reversals. Dr. Delgado is a popular speaker and has made hundreds of presentations on all pro-life issues.

                Tracey Fish, MS, PA-C
Tracey Fish, MS, PA-C

Kirstie Almy, MS, PA

  Kirstie Almy, MS, PA

Physician Assistants at Crossroads Care Center performing ultrasounds, STD testing and treatment and are in the process of offering APR soon.

Nancy Hauff, PhD, MSN, RN

Nancy Hauff, PhD, MSN, RN

Board President of Gianna House: she is currently a full-time faculty member at Wayne State University College of Nursing, teaching undergraduate perinatal nursing. In addition she continues to work as a staff nurse at the DMC Hutzel Women’s Hospital.

America Needs Fatima

SITOUT-Cal-Forces-XGender-Classes-666x233

Please Help Spread This Important Spiritual Campaign!

I just signed a petition from “America Needs Fatima” and hope you will consider doing so as well because the State of California is forcing little children to attend indecent and explicit pro-LGBT classes. And parents can’t opt out.

In good conscience, we can’t stay silent — and allow the Culture of Death to poison more young minds.

To protect the innocence of our children, please consider at least reading the facts on the link below and then signing the pro-family petition:

Click here to sign.

God Bless You!

**********************************************************************

 

logo

(Information delivered by e-mail from the America Needs Fatima Organization.)  We don’t fight for pro-life only to have our children brainwashed into changing their God given gender identity.

WWF Violating Indigenous Rights – Complaint Abandoned

Baka

WWF-funded park guards attacked this Baka woman’s village and assaulted her with pepper-spray. Photo: Survival International.

Survival International has today abandoned trying to get a resolution to our formal complaint that the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) is violating international standards about corporate responsibility, and is reverting to using public pressure to try and stop the abuses.

Survival made the complaint in February 2016, in an attempt to stop the conservation giant from contributing to the mistreatment of tribal peoples, and it was admitted under the Organization for Economic Cooperation & Development (OECD) process in Switzerland, where WWF is headquartered.[1] Surprisingly, this is the first time that an NGO has been seen as subject to the same guidelines as other multinational corporations. This is a great leap forward for those who think non-profits must also be held accountable for any negative consequences of their work.

The complaint detailed Survival’s allegations that WWF was party to the theft and control of the lands of Baka “Pygmies” in Cameroon, and that the Baka were suffering catastrophic levels of abuse as a result. We said that WWF had made no attempt either to apply its own policy on indigenous peoples, or to abide by the OECD guidelines, which are designed to prevent human rights abuses arising from corporate activities.

The guidelines are recommendations to multinationals which stress the duty to “avoid causing or contributing to adverse human rights impacts.” Multinationals must take responsibility for the consequences of their actions, and cannot hide behind a government’s failure to uphold human rights. Simply abiding by local legislation is no yardstick for anyone claiming a moral position: That’s what underpins the whole concept of human rights, and is why international laws and conventions are necessary.

Although WWF’s own policy requires that the organization ensure proper consent has been given to projects on indigenous peoples’ lands, and construct systems to handle problems, Survival believes that WWF has done neither.

Survival’s complaint was, firstly, that WWF had made no attempt to consult the Baka when it partnered with the Cameroon government to carve up the tribespeople’s forests into trophy hunting zones and national parks. The Baka were kicked out, and even now WWF won’t consult them over how these areas are managed. Secondly, we pointed out that WWF funds park guards who regularly assault, and sometimes torture and kill, Baka.

Tribespeople are victimized both when they dare to re-enter their land to hunt or gather food or medicinal plants, as well as when they’re outside park boundaries. The notion that this reign of terror aids wildlife protection is nonsense: Some WWF-funded guards are themselves poachers and the Baka have shown themselves better conservationists than WWF anyway.

Survival highlighted WWF’s violations of both its own 1996 policy and the OECD guidelines, but WWF responded that the guidelines did not apply in its case, and brushed off responsibility for failing to ensure Baka agreement to what happened to their land.

During the toing and froing over the complaint, the Swiss agency tried to stop Survival campaigning against WWF, and said it may be forced to halt the process if we continued (we did). But finally a mediation was agreed between the two organizations for June 6-7, 2017, in government offices in Bern.

Survival did wonder whether Switzerland, a country priding itself on never taking sides, was likely to arrive at any criticism of WWF. The latter is an important organization with a global turnover of three-quarters of a billion dollars (its U.S. chief executive is paid double the salary of the American president, and the international office alone has an income of nearly two hundred million Swiss Francs). Therefore, in an attempt to extract something helpful to tribal peoples, we reduced our several requests to just one: WWF must establish a high-level unit to ensure indigenous peoples’ consent to work on their land, foresee problems, and investigate and act on abuses. In other words, it should have an office to ensure compliance with its own policy.

The Bern mediation took place over two days of grapple and struggle in Switzerland’s largely intact medieval capital, famous for its sunken bear pits. The details are confidential, but nothing new was said. WWF repeated that the OECD complaint process should not be invoked for its work, and asserted that none of the Baka’s allegations were proven. It said it already had a complaint mechanism, so there was no need for the new office that Survival was calling for.

In reality, Survival has first-hand testimony, including from within WWF, confirming that our allegations are the tip of an iceberg which WWF has known about since at least 2001. The conservation giant even commissioned an independent report into the matter but when its findings confirmed the abuse its existence was denied.

WWF treats its policy on indigenous peoples as merely aspirational, despite the fact that it has existed for over twenty of WWF’s 56-year existence. It claims it is trying to do better and admits no wrongdoing.

Following the struggle in Bern, the next step was to see if a “joint outcome” could be agreed. Despite the best efforts of an accomplished mediator, this proved more tortuous. WWF sought to include justifications of its position, while rejecting Survival’s objections. The grappling continued for two months before grinding to a halt over one point: Would WWF accept that the Baka must agree to how the conservation zones on their land were managed in the future? Although this is no more than its own policy and the OECD guidelines require, WWF refused.

It’s not surprising. Although conservation organizations are supposed to ensure that the “free, prior and informed consent” of those whose lands they want to control has been obtained, this never actually happens. It’s what they fear. They know that being bound by such consent would take power out of their hands and give it to local people, who’ve been conserving these lands for generations. In spite of much dissimulation, Western conservationists in Africa know that requiring local consent will erode their control over huge areas and vast budgets.

Any confidentiality around the OECD process is obviously trumped by our duty to tell tribal peoples about policies which look great on paper but which threaten their future. They would clearly be wise to demand fair, explicit and binding written agreements – with time and advice to consider carefully – before accepting any conservation projects.

Coincidentally, at exactly the same time as this back and forth, Survival met with a company we’ve been campaigning against for years. We’ve supported India’s Dongria Kondh in preventing Vedanta plc from mining bauxite on their land. Now, following years of scrutiny and opposition, Vedanta claims it has bowed to change: It agreed that the mine could not go ahead without Dongria Kondh consent, which it accepted was not forthcoming.

It had abandoned the mine because the local people didn’t want it and, of course, because they could call on vociferous and organized national and international support to make their feelings heard. The contrast with WWF’s position couldn’t be starker. Some mining companies now accept the idea they cannot operate without the agreement of the local people; most conservation NGOs still don’t, they just pretend to.

Both the mining and conservation industries have a long history of stealing land, particularly in Africa, and if one thinks the latter might be justified because the land is subsequently “conserved,” then consider that both are in fact destructive. Both smash the local people who have often been protecting the land, and, through conservation’s commercial partnerships with loggers, both destroy large areas of the environment too.

The parallel can be taken further: Both industries tolerate or support armed groups to further their interests. In the case of the proposed bauxite extraction, these were called “goons,” and operated with police collusion. They intimidated and physically assaulted those who opposed mining. The conservationists’ goons are the park guards. They operate in collusion with the authorities, and also threaten and assault people.[2]

If supporters of conservation are shocked by the comparison, and by the fact that some mining companies now occupy a higher moral ground than many conservation organizations, then they should be. The idea that you must ensure that local people have given their free, prior and informed consent to any planned project on their land is seeping through to a mining industry under pressure to change (with some notable exceptions). That’s just not happening in the big conservation organizations.

During the months of trying to thrash out a mutually agreed text to complete the OECD process, Survival tried the different WWF complaint mechanisms.[3] We raised incidents of guards abusing Baka, and a new national park (Messok Dja in Congo) proposed without even telling the tribal people. At the time of writing, not a single complaint has received a substantive response. The best we’re told is that WWF will look into some of them.[4] Even if the Baka didn’t fear reprisals, which they do, they would find it impossible to use any of these supposed complaint mechanisms.

Anyway, we are now exiting the bear pit with the conclusion that WWF has no intention of seeking, leave alone securing, the proper consent of those whose lands it colludes with governments in stealing. It has no intention of facing the fact that its own indigenous peoples policy isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on: It’s just public relations fluff used to rebuff criticism.

WWF is also incapable of controlling the forces it funds and unleashes on the hapless tribal people who have seen their land stolen, and it seems unwilling or unable to try. It continues to partner with destructive industries, such as logging. It continues to be responsible for guards employed to protect safari-hunting areas, where rich, invariably white, people (including a WWF trustee) hunt elephants, at the same time as poor tribespeople are beaten and abused for trying to feed their families. It continues to perpetrate its version of “fortress conservation” which, we believe, will lead to the destruction of conservation itself.

The OECD complaints process has proven incapable of stopping this. A cynic might think those charged with adjudicating OECD violations will be relieved: Governments don’t want complaints about flagship NGOs which they themselves fund. The conservation behemoths are accustomed to being fêted as progressives in America and Europe – the fact that they’re hated and feared in much of rural Africa must be kept out of sight.

Encouraged by a growing movement of concerned environmentalists, Survival has decided to revert to other mechanisms to get WWF to abide by the law and its own policy, to stop its abuse of tribal people, and to start working for the environment instead of against it. We have no illusions about how strongly the conservation industry will fight back. If this struggle were easy, it would have been won decades ago. Inept conservation has become one of the principal problems faced by tribal people today and has destroyed the lives of millions; it’s also laying the basis for its own destruction and great environmental damage. This is a struggle whose time has come and which should be engaging those who care about the environment and human rights.

Wealthy conservation organizations must start asking local people whether they want outside help to protect their own lands, and offering their resources only where they’re wanted. The power structure must be inverted. That would be a win-win for both the environment as well as the people. The losers though would be conservationists, unwilling to give up their own power and money, and justifying their reign with the claim that they know best, in spite of all the evidence that they really, really don’t.

Notes.

[1] The Swiss government agency responsible for examining the complaint, SECO (which had itself funded WWF), delayed examination for several months because it believed WWF’s false claim that the matter was being resolved.

[2] In both cases, they can include individuals from the societies they oppress.

[3] WWF itself seemed confused about which ones were for what.

[4] WWF described one mechanism as available to anyone to voice complaints, including anonymously. However, our first call to the relevant number was met with the curt reply that it was for WWF employees only (something which the organization had specifically refuted). We were told that WWF would be “unlikely” to take the complaint further. (A more recent call was heard and we were told it would be passed on – so that’s a small step!)

More articles by:

Stephen Corry has worked with Survival International, the global movement for tribal peoples’ rights, since 1972. The not-for-profit has a San Francisco office. Its public campaign to change conservation can be joined at www.survivalinternational.org/conservation. This is one of a series of articles on the problem.