Kars4Kids is a Jewish Scam

News:

f you’ve ever heard the “1-8-7-7-KARS-4-KIDS” jingle, you’ve probably heard it a million times. In states where this car-donation charity operates, it’s been running obnoxiously repetitive singing-kids ads for decades with the intensity of a shock-and-awe military campaign. But after all those years of operation, one disgruntled donor took it to court and got a judge to kick Kars4Kids off California airwaves for practicing “an actionable strategy of deception.”

From the court ruling:

The Defendant’s case included the testimony of Kars4Kids’ Chief Operating Officer (COO), Esti Landau’s strikingly candid testimony. She admitted that the 30-second advertisement, which has been running for two decades, “does not say anything” about the charity’s specific nature. She confirmed: that Kars4Kids is a Jewish organization, yet the word “Jewish” is absent from the ad.; that the primary function of Kars4Kids is to fund Oorah, an organization dedicated to Jewish heritage and summer camps in New York and New Jersey; that while 25% of revenue is derived from California, Kars4Kids has no functional programs in California beyond a “backpack giveaway” characterized as a branding exercise;  over 60% of the funds of Kars4kids go to Oorah, approximately 30% is spent on further advertising, and another 6% on administrative expenses; that the website states, “Because kids are our future. Learn how you can make a difference in the life of a child” as a central element of the Kars4Kids advertising campaign, but it is not found in the 30-second jingle.

You should not have to hear that dishonest jingle again.

England Abolishes Paternal Rights in Child Custody

The London Guardian reported in October:

The family courts will no longer work on the presumption that having contact with both parents is in the best interests of a child, in a landmark change that domestic abuse campaigners have said “will save so many children’s lives”.

The move has been heralded as “groundbreaking” by family lawyers and campaigners ...

The government confirmed on Tuesday that it would repeal the presumption of parental involvement from the act “when parliamentary time allows”. ...

The announcement means family court judges will no longer have to work from a starting point that parental involvement is in the child’s best interest, and instead will be directed to consider the evidence and assess a child’s wellbeing on a case-by-case basis.

Janice Fiamengo comments:

The article does not admit the well-documented fact that mothers are the most frequent perpetrators of child abuse and child homicide (see, for example, p. 65, perpetrators of child fatalities). Neither does the article acknowledge that women do indeed lie about abuse , precisely as a means to sway custody outcomes in their favor. Moreover, women do alienate children from their fathers, often with the assistance of family court orders. Alienation is a recognized form of child abuse.

Feminists quoted in the article admit that this is merely an important “first step” in their long march to total father-exclusion. ...

Many fathers’ groups have lobbied for decades to secure fathers’ legal right to be involved with their children, amassing peer-revied data showing that children do better with both parents present: they are less likely to experience mental illness and juvenile delinquency, less likely to commit crimes or join gangs, more likely to finish school, less likely to abuse alcohol and drugs, and less likely to commit suicide or self-harm. Against fierce opposition, such organizations have achieved significant success in the United States in helping to shepherd statutes through state legislatures that encourage judges to award shared custody to parents after divorce.

Britain used to be a great nation. This is more evidence of its suicide.

National women’s groups in America (including the National Organization for Women) have been vehement opponents of bills to encourage shared parenting, claiming that a presumption of father involvement empowers male abusers. Such advocates reject any implication that women owe anything to the fathers of their children (Radbord is incensed that a woman might be prevented from moving out of state by a father’s petition), and refuse to acknowledge the sincerity of fathers’ parenting aspirations.

Feminism is not about equality. It is more about eliminating fathers rights.

New Taylor Swift Album

The NY Post reports:

Taylor Swift’s new album “The Life of a Showgirl” is barely three days old, and already woke killjoys are tearing it apart, finding offensive lyrics where there are none.

Overly online social media critics of Swift apparently instantaneously decided the new album is rife with racism and homophobia, as well as secret messages of support for the patriarchy, eugenics, and Donald Trump.

Forensic “investigations” have uncovered “dog-whistles,” but only woke detectives themselves are capable of hearing them. ...

In her song “Wishlist,” Swift says she wants to have a couple kids and get “the whole block lookin’ like you.” Some went as far as to suggest this is an allusion to eugenics, a truly astonishing leap.

One TikTokker claimed to see a subtext, which she read as, “I want to have your white babies, and I actually want our entire neighborhood to be racially homogenous.” She continued, “Now Taylor’s calling y’all childless cat ladies because she’s about to pop out some kids.”

As someone said, if you are hearing dog whistles, you are the dog.

Taylor Swift is 35 years old. Almost 36. She wants to get married and have kids.

Not weird. This is the most normal thing she has done.

Crazy Moms cause Transgender Kids

I found this 1991 study:

Mothers of Boys with Gender Identity Disorder: A Comparison of Matched Controls
SONIA MARANTZ, PH.D., AND SUSAN COATES, PH.D.

Abstract. This pilot study compared mothers of boys with gender identity disorder (GID) with mothers of normal boys to determine whether differences in psychopathology and child-rearing attitudes and practices could be identified. Results of the Diagnostic Interview for Borderlines and the Beck Depression Inventory revealed that mothers of boys with GID had more symptoms of depression and more often met the criteria for Borderline Personality Disorder than the controls. Fifty-three percent of the mothers of boys with GID compared with only 6% of controls met the diagnosis for Borderline Personality Disorder on the Diagnostic Interview for Borderlines or had symptoms of depression on the Beck Depression Inventory. Results of the Summers and Walsh Symbiosis Scale suggested that mothers of probands had child-rearing attitudes and practices that encouraged symbiosis and discouraged the development of autonomy. J . Am. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry, 1991, 30, 2:310-315.

A study like this would probably not get published today.

Is this any surprise? Yes of course crazy moms are the cause of gender confusion in boys.

American History of Eugenics

Here is a PBS tv documentary from last year:

Uncover the shocking history of the early 20th-century campaign to breed a “better” American race.

THE EUGENICS CRUSADE tells the story of the unlikely—and largely unknown—project to breed a better American race, tracing the rise of a movement that turned a scientific theory of heredity into a powerful instrument of social control. Populated by figures both celebrated and obscure, it is an often revelatory portrait of an America at once strange and eerily familiar.

This tells the story of the history of eugenics, inluding famous proponents like Margaret Sanger, and Harvard College teaching a course on heredity.

For the most part, it tells of scientists trying to better the human condition. In some cases, women with genetic diseases, or who were unlikely to be able to care for children, were sterilized.

The point of the documentary was that eugenics was once respectable, but actually evil.

The comments are all favorable, such as:

This is one of the scariest movies I have watched. To think I was born into the middle of the Eugenics hay day and had no idea it was going on. I am thankful that I had no idea and that my father and mother were not mixed up in it. Who knows how many brilliant people we destroyed with this. How many writers, poets, scientific, and other kinds of people we destroyed with this. I think the real shocker of the video was when the Nazis' asked "How can you say we are doing wrong when it is the law in the United States". That really got me.

I think the Nazis were prosecuted for war crimes that were similar to what the Allies did.

The purpose of the eugenics was to make more healthy and brilliant people, not fewer.

The movie did not mention this modern form of eugenics:

In many parts of Europe, including the United Kingdom, the termination rate after a prenatal Down syndrome diagnosis is now more than 90 percent. In Iceland, where testing is widespread, “we have basically eradicated, almost, Down syndrome from our society,” one geneticist told CBS last year. In Denmark, where all pregnant women have been offered screening scans since 2004, the disorder is heading for “extinction.”

Not everyone agrees with this, but the Icelandics are not Nazis. They are just trying to have healthy babies.

Here is a Wash. Post article on a company doing embryo genetic screening, which could be viewed as eugenics. And some babies born with the dna of 3 parents. Some people object to these services, but I see nothing wrong with them.

Doomed: Modern Dating is Broken

I found this rant about the difficulties of dating in the modern world:

There IS a dating problem in the western world. Something of a dating crisis, really. Traditional methods of pairing-up have fallen by the wayside and have been replaced by a mess that doesn't work.

However, this joke of an idea won't fix it. It is just another gimmick that doesn't address any root cause and just won't work.

We are kind of stuck. There is simply no going back to the old world. The kinds of technologies that shape our daily lives make doing so a ridiculous prospect. The Internet, in particular. It has made a fundamental change in how we connect with each other (and a whole lot of stuff I won't bother to mention because nobody wants to read a novel here anyway). The old world is gone.

But the new world is broken. Especially when it comes to dating. And dating sites are a major contributor to this broken world. They present us with a selection environment utterly unlike the one in which we evolved. Much like the way in which modern food abundance gives free reign to instincts that should have been naturally curtailed (and drive up obesity and diabetes), so to does the modern dating site give free reign to instincts that only serve us when naturally constrained by a much more limited environment.

To put it bluntly: dating sites motivate the upper 20% of attractive people to have short term sexual flings with each other while leaving the other 80% alone and disappointed. 100% of the people want to date the top 20%, so this is what you get. The people that "everybody want" will never commit because they have too many options, and everyone else will never settle in the face of such desirability a seeming mere click away.

It gets worse. Those in the 80% who actually do settle for an "even match" both feel like they are getting less than they deserve, both feel like the other should be grateful for settling, and hence both feel like they bring more value than the other and hence the other owes more. That dooms the relationship.

And for the upper 20%, once any of them decide to stop sleeping around and find a life-mate, they generally find a barren wasteland. Some of them have aged out of the upper 20% and so are no longer desirable, and others find people who are in theory willing to commit but both of them have become so narcissistic that the relationship is doomed before it begins. And this says nothing of the life-destroying consequences of the inevitable divorce, when it happens.

No dating site will fix this, but we cannot just eliminate them. They are here to stay. It IS possible that a few individuals can enlighten themselves out of this mess and find a satisfying relationship that will last, but statistically speaking this is not a common event. And the threat of life-destroying divorce remains ever-present even for them.

I think that the first step in climbing out of this mess is to fix the divorce situation. People need to know that getting married is a financially safe thing to do. They need to know that they will not be facing a life of indentured servitude if the other decides to leave. And they need to see marriage as something other than a means of gaining access to someone else's money. We need a new definition for it and new laws to regulate it so that it once again becomes an agreement with social-support that fosters child bearing and family. This will require legislation and will be fiercely resisted by religious types who cling to the past and others who still want to use marriage as a means of financial enrichment. So, that's an uphill battle and probably lost already.

After that, we need much better social support for raising kids. It's expensive as hell, hard as hell, and takes two decades. People are more hesitant to sign up for that than ever. We need to take the edge off if we want more babies.

And after that it's mostly a matter of educating people as to how love actually works (no more hollywood romance bullshit), what their timeline is, and why they need to reflect on their life goals and proceed along a life plan if they want to feel accomplished and satisfied when they die.

Personally, my money is on "we are doomed."

A common theory says that women are instinctually hypergamous, and will seek out the highest status man available. The peasant girl wants to marry the prince, And if she goes on a date with the prince, then no other man is good enough.

That is an ancient story, but is exaggerated with urban opportunities and dating apps. An average woman can go on a date with a top 5% man, but he is unlikely to marry her. So all the women chase the alpha men, and get dumped. People do not find suitable mates, and everyone is unhappy.

There is no easy fix. We lack the political will to make any big changes, so we are probably doomed.

A NY Times op-ed details how no one knows what do about declining marriage and birth rates:

To date, no government policies have significantly improved their nation’s birthrates for a sustained period — at least no policies whose lessons are easily transferable to other countries. ...

America has made parenting unusually, needlessly hard. Child care and rent are unaffordable; medical care, even when subsidized, is a nightmare of red tape; family leave is too short and too rare; everyone feels overextended and underachieving.

As the climate activists Meghan Elizabeth Kallman and Josephine Ferorelli have observed, the United States “is already an anti-natalist country in everything but name.” ...

Surveys conducted over the past few years show that Americans already want more kids than they are having; they’d like between 2.1 and 2.7 children on average, depending on the gender and age group questioned, which is half to a full child more than the 1.6 that women are actually having at present.

Usually behaviors can be changed with financial incentives, but they have not worked here. When women make more money, they become more picky about men, and not less picky.

The highest fertility rates are in the poor and the rich. The rich do not need the financial incentives. Giving money to the poor just moves them out of the demographic having the most kids. So no nation has succeeded in paying people to have more kids.

She has her own unworkable ideas.

So what do America’s women actually need? Or to put it another way, is there a way to be natalist without also being patriarchal?

First, some facts about American women. A growing share of them are single; by one estimate, more than half of non-college-educated women born in the mid-90s will be single when they’re 45. Among women of reproductive age, a vast majority work. Women are increasingly having children in later years. And despite women’s growing earning power, they still do the lion’s share of housework, even when their husbands are unemployed.

But fewer women are marrying, at least in part because they’re having trouble finding appealing men. In addition to the partnering problem, many women report financial concerns as a major obstacle to having kids (or having more kids).

Helping heterosexual women have children, then, will require tackling toxic gender dynamics before and within marriage, and committing real, ongoing financial support

She goes on to recite a bunch of feminist goals. But she admits they do not work either, as Denmark has created her feminist utopia, and still has declining birth rates.

The most woman-friendly and birth-friendly regime I have come across so far is in Denmark, where child care is subsidized and extensive parental leave is provided. The public health ministry, which has offered free in vitro fertilization for single women as well as couples until the woman turns 41, recently started to cover treatment for a second child. Today medically assisted reproduction accounts for roughly 12 percent of Denmark’s births, compared with just over 2 percent in the United States. ...

Denmark’s policies haven’t changed the trajectory of the nation’s falling birthrate, which now stands at about 1.5 per woman.

Denmark can maintain its population by importing foreigners, but it has tried that, and stopped it.

Note that she does not want to roll back any of the feminist trends that led to the marriage and birth declines. Her main concern is giving women what they say they want, but women may be already getting too much of that. There is no mention of what would incentivise men.

Any plan to make marriage and children more attractive would need to consider what men want and need. But that does not seem to have occurred to the above author. Also what women say they want may not be what makes them happy. By most surveys, women were happier before the supposed gains of feminism.

Update: The NY Times celebrates Fathers Day by publishing a whiny narcissistic list of petty complaints. This is a good example of leftist feminist women devaluing fatherhood. by a woman about her father.

Smart Babies are Slower to Walk

The most sensitive research topics are genes, race, and IQ. Anything relating all three is forbidden.

The London Telegraph reports:

Late-walking babies ‘may do better in school’

Genes that determine the age of taking first steps linked to educational achievement, suggests study

The study looked at age at onset of walking in over 70,000 infants of European ancestry.

This is respectable research because it avoided racial issues, but there is other research that some groups learn to walk sooner.

These studies just find correlations. They do not mean that a particular baby will be smart just because he walks late.

Ritalin and Adderall do not Work on Kids

NY Times reports:

In the years since the consensus statement was published, however, the evidence for each of these A.D.H.D. biomarkers has faltered. Attempts to replicate the studies that showed differences in brain electrical activity came up empty. And though scientists have identified complex collections of genes that together may be signs of greater risk for A.D.H.D., they have failed to find a specific gene that predicts the disorder. “There is no single-gene story,” John Gabrieli, an M.I.T. neuroscientist, told me recently. “Fifteen years ago, there was incredible optimism, and now we realize how far away we are.” ...

Though Swanson had welcomed that initial increase in the diagnosis rate, he expected it to plateau at 3 percent. Instead, it kept rising, hitting 5.5 percent of American children in 1997, then 6.6 percent in 2000. As time passed, Swanson began to grow uneasy. He and his colleagues were continuing to follow the almost 600 children in the M.T.A. study, and by the mid-2000s, they realized that the new data they were collecting was telling a different — and less hopeful — story than the one they initially reported. It was still true that after 14 months of treatment, the children taking Ritalin behaved better than those in the other groups. But by 36 months, that advantage had faded completely, and children in every group, including the comparison group, displayed exactly the same level of symptoms.

So use of the ADHD drugs has been increasing, but the evidence is that they do not work.

British Schools watch Sick Netflix Drama

Australia news:

Author Douglass Murray discusses the policy by UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer allowing the Netflix drama series Adolescence to be shown in secondary schools across the country for free.

"Keir Starmer has been labouring under the misapprehension that the Netflix series Adolescence is, in fact, a documentary," Mr Murray told Sky News host Rita Panahi.

"You would have to be pretty idiotic to think that what that is."

Starmer talked about “the devastating effect of misogyny on our society.”

I commented about this show and I am wondering what he thinks is the lesson.

The show was apparently partly inspired by a knife crime by an older Black teenager. A crime like this from a 13-year-old seemingly-harmless White kid like the one in the show would be very improbable.

The police have video proof that the boy committed the crime, so there is no doubt that he will be found guilty. Nevertheless, he has a right to a defense, and to tell the court how he was provoked by bullies. Much of the show is about steps to accord him that right.

Except that he never gets that right. His own lawyer hires a female psychologist who acts more like a police interrogator than a defense witness. She bullies him, and tries to get him to incriminate himself. She speaks completely inappropriately to a 13-year-old boy. His parents are not there to protect him from this abuse.

I know this is just a fictional movie, and I would not take it seriously, except for all the people who rave about this as if it were making a serious statement about toxic masculinity and violent incels. No, a 13-year-old is not an incel.

If you think a 13-year-old killer should be dealt harshly, then I understand that. But I do not agree with giving him a defense lawyer who hires a woman to abuse and humiliate him.

Update: There is a real teenaged stabbing in the news. A 17yo Black boy stabbed and killed a 16yo White boy in Frisco Texas.

Dad loses Son to Tranny Mania

News:>

A California judge has permanently stripped Texas father Jeffrey Younger of all parental rights to his twin sons, James and Jude, granting Younger’s ex-wife, Anne Georgulas, the authority to chemically and surgically transition their 12-year-old son, James, against his father’s wishes.

Younger, whose ex-wife, a pediatrician, began transitioning their son to a girl at just two and a half years old, has fought tooth and nail to protect his child. Despite video evidence supporting his concerns, courts in Texas and California have systematically stripped him of his parental rights.

The Gateway Pundit previously reported that a video of James Younger when he was only 3 years old surfaced, revealing that his mother put dresses on him and painted his fingernails when the child was just an infant!

The abuse from the mother all started because James liked a toy from the movie ‘Frozen’ meant for little girls.

This is part of why Pres. Trump won the election. Decent people on the Right and Left agree that is is seriously sick and wrong.

The dad tweets:

I lost all parental rights to my sons. Goodbye, boys. ...

Let my story be a cautionary one for young men. Fathers have no rights to their children. Do not enter the family law system. ...

No parent should do supervised visitation. It’s bad for the children, bad for the father, and allows courts invent false findings to further endanger the father.

I agree that supervised visitaion is demoralizing, humiliating, harmful, and evil.

Andrew Anglin writes:

I wrote yesterday about the retardedness of referring to American democracy as “fascism.”

Would a fascist country steal a man’s son and cut his dick off? It’s nonsensical.

This is something that can and would only ever happen in a democracy. Stealing sons and chopping off their dicks is fundamentally a democracy action. ...

This situation is a prime example of the fact that America is the single most sickening and satanic shithole that has ever existed in history. Nothing even remotely comparable to this has ever happened.

This is Satan unleashed on an industrial scale. It is total separation from God in the name of Jewishness and feminism.

Anglin is widely censored for saying stuff like this.

Korean Child Incentives Not Working

Economics teaches that people respond to incentives. So if you want people to have more kids, just give them suitable incentives, and you will get more kids.

Except that S. Korea and other countries have tried this, and it has failed.

Reuters:

As South Korea scrambles to halt the sharp decline in its birth rate, policymakers are having a hard time convincing many in their 20s and 30s that parenthood is a better investment than stylish clothes or fancy restaurants.

Asia's fourth-largest economy plans to launch a new government ministry dedicated to demographic challenges after years of incentives failed to ease the baby crisis.

But for Park Yeon, a 28-year-old fashion Instagrammer and aspiring singer, spending choices are guided mostly by her appetites for clothing and travel, leaving little budget for marriage and babies.

"I'm all about YOLO (you only live once)," said Park as she sells her Supreme T-shirts at a thrift fashion festival in Seoul's high-fashion enclave of Seongsu-dong.

"There isn't enough left to save each month after I do things to reward myself. Getting married might happen at some point but being happy right now - that's more important, right?"

South Korea continues to break its own record for having the world's lowest birth rate, which hit a fresh low last year.

Sociologists say the lifestyle priorities of Koreans in their 20s and 30s - considered Generations Y and Z - mean they spend more and save less on average than the wider population or their peers in other countries, neither of which are conducive to nest building.

"They are status hunting. Their high spending habits show young people are working on their own emblems of success online rather than focusing on the impossible goals of settling down and have children," said Jung Jae-hoon, a sociology professor at Seoul Women's University.

So give the Korean girls more money, and they just acquire luxuries that futher remove them from childbearing.

To be sure, financial hardship is by far the biggest reason South Koreans cited for not having children, according to a survey by research firm PMI Co. in May.

About 46% of 1,800 respondents blamed either job uncertainty or education costs for this decision.

Maybe they are not telling us their real reasons.

California bans telling Child Names to Parents

California policy is to induce/support schoolchildren to be LGBTQ, and to hide is from their parents.

Liberty Justice Center announced:

In an announcement issued on May 22, elected California representatives proposed new legislation to ban parental notification policies that have been lawfully adopted by school boards across California. State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond joined the California Legislative LGBTQ Caucus to prohibit parental notification policies that require school administrators to inform parents if their children ask to be referred to a name or pronouns that differ from their gender at birth or to access sex-segregated school programs or bathrooms for the opposite gender.

Now the law has passed:

SECTION 1. This act shall be known, and may be cited, as the Support Academic Futures and Educators for Today’s Youth Act or SAFETY Act. ...

(f) LGBTQ+ pupils have the right to express themselves freely at school without fear, punishment, or retaliation, including that teachers or administrators might “out” them without their permission. Policies that require outing pupils without their consent violate pupils’ rights to privacy and self-determination. ...

220.5. (a) A school district, county office of education, charter school, state special school for the blind or the deaf, or a member of the governing board of a school district or county office of education or a member of the governing body of a charter school, shall not enact or enforce any policy, rule, or administrative regulation that would require an employee or a contractor to disclose any information related to a pupil’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression to any other person without the pupil’s consent, unless otherwise required by state or federal law.

They claim that this is just enforcement of existing non-discrimination laws.

California schoolchildren cannot legally have sexual relations until age 18, so normally they would keep their sexual fantasies to themselves. The schools have nothing to do with that.

This law concerns kids who cross-dress, use odd pronouns, adopt a new name, and expect everyone at school to respect their queer sexual identity. And they also expect the school to hide this information from the parents.

There is no good reason for any school to hide information from parents. A priest should keep quiet about what was said in a confessional, but this law is about open behavior that the school is openly catering to.

One excuse is that LGBTQ kids are often suicidal, and therefore related info must be handled with care. This is all the more reason to tell the parents.

The policy is driving kids to suicide, and hiding it from the parents.

Expert Witness Justifies Baby-stealing

ProPublica reports:

Was Baird’s method for evaluating these foster and birth families empirically tested? No, Baird answered: Her method is unpublished and unstandardized, and has remained “pretty much unchanged” since the 1980s. It doesn’t have those “standard validity and reliability things,” she admitted. “It’s not a scientific instrument.” ...

Who hired and was paying her in the case that she was being deposed about? The foster parents, she answered. They wanted to adopt, she said, and had heard about her from other foster parents.

Had she considered or was she even aware of the cultural background of the birth family and child whom she was recommending permanently separating? (The case involved a baby girl of multiracial heritage.) Baird answered that babies have “never possessed” a cultural identity, and therefore are “not losing anything,” at their age, by being adopted. ...

But a ProPublica investigation co-published with The New Yorker in October revealed that there is a growing national trend of foster parents undermining the foster system’s premise by “intervening” in family court cases as a way to adopt children.

Of course there are no scientific instruments to justify this child-stealing. The judges claim to act in the best interests of the child, but they rely on hired kooks and do not look at any scientific evidence.

New Laws to Pay Pregnant Women

The London Guardian reports:

The Republican-led Kentucky senate voted overwhelmingly on Tuesday to grant the right to collect child support for fetuses, advancing a bill that garnered bipartisan support despite nationwide fallout from a controversial Alabama decision also advancing “fetal personhood”.

The measure would allow a parent to seek child support up to a year after giving birth to retroactively cover pregnancy expenses. The legislation – Senate Bill 110 – won senate passage on a 36-2 vote with little discussion to advance to the House. Republicans have supermajorities in both chambers. ...

Kentucky is among at least six states where lawmakers have proposed measures similar to a Georgia law that allows child support to be sought back to conception.

A federal Unborn Child Support Act has also been proposed, with support from Speaker Mike Johnson. The proposal pretty extreme:

“(35) provide that the State will establish and enforce child support obligations of the biological father of an unborn child (and subsequent to the birth of the child) to the mother of such child provided that—

“(A) the mother has requested payment of such child support obligations;

“(B) the start date for such obligations may begin with the first month in which the child was conceived, as determined by a physician (and shall begin with that month if the mother so requests);

“(C) payments for such obligations may be retroactively collected or awarded, including in the case where paternity is established subsequent to the birth of the child;

“(D) the payment amount for such obligations shall be determined by a court, in consultation with the mother, taking into account the best interests of the mother and child;

“(E) any measure to establish the paternity of a child (born or unborn) shall not be required without the consent of the mother;

So payments will be required based on the mom's demands, on her best interests, based on consulting her, and not even having a paternity test if che objects to it.

Under existing abortion law, the pregnant women can kill the fetus without consulting or notifying the dad. Maybe he will be paying child support, up to the date of termination.

Most people think child support laws are to support the child. Not really. There is no requirement that the money be spent on the child. The law is a feminist plot to obsolete marriage, and force men to split their incomes with women, outside of marriage law.

Ex-wife forced son to gender transition

NY Post reports:

A New York man says his ex-wife forced their young son to transition from a boy to a girl during their divorce — despite his protests that his son never wanted to be a girl in the first place.

Dennis Hannon, a 32-year-old former banking vice president from Buffalo who now works as a software engineer, told The Post on Sunday he was engaged in a lengthy, seven-year legal battle that ended with him losing authority over his son’s medical care.

He says the fight began when his ex-wife, Amy Hannon, began pushing his son to transition at the age of 3 by dressing him in girls’ clothes.

But she hid it from him, and whenever he’d pick his son up during visitation periods, he remained a little boy.

Father custody of children would solve this problem. Our courts are backwards.

Bad Therapy for Kids

I mentioned that certain psychotherapies are harmful, and now a new book documents how bad they are for kids.

Amazon announcement:

From the author of Irreversible Damage, an investigation into a mental health industry that is harming, not healing, American children

In virtually every way that can be measured, Gen Z’s mental health is worse than that of previous generations. Youth suicide rates are climbing, antidepressant prescriptions for children are common, and the proliferation of mental health diagnoses has not helped the staggering number of kids who are lonely, lost, sad and fearful of growing up. What’s gone wrong with America’s youth?

In Bad Therapy, bestselling investigative journalist Abigail Shrier argues that the problem isn’t the kids—it’s the mental health experts. Drawing on hundreds of interviews with child psychologists, parents, teachers, and young people, Shrier explores the ways the mental health industry has transformed the way we teach, treat, discipline, and even talk to our kids. She reveals that most of the therapeutic approaches have serious side effects and few proven benefits. Among her unsettling findings:

Talk therapy can induce rumination, trapping children in cycles of anxiety and depression
Social Emotional Learning handicaps our most vulnerable children, in both public schools and private
“Gentle parenting” can encourage emotional turbulence – even violence – in children as they lash out, desperate for an adult in charge

My guess is that it is even worse than described in the book. The more I learn about psychotherapists, the more I do not want them near any kids. They should be treated like child molesters.

Enabling Technology to Abuse Children

Susan Landau writes:

Many proposed laws on encryption assume that children are harmed by the technology, but encryption often provides children with safety and security. ...

Internet-enabled child sexual abuse exploitation (CSAE) is a horrible crime — and there’s no doubt that some CSAE investigations are stymied because criminals hide evidence using end-to-end encryption (E2EE), a method of securing communications so that only the message endpoints can view the unencrypted message. ...

While it is easy to imagine that eliminating E2EE will make children safer by making CSAE investigations more effective, it is likely the opposite effect will occur. As the EDPS report noted, “E2EE provides security and safety to children too, especially vulnerable ones (e.g. LGBTQ+ who use the Internet to explore their sexuality).” Indeed, the systems that automatically flag CSAE are likely to capture images created by the children themselves. These sexting photos are intended for private sharing, and the broad scanning envisioned by the bills thus risks that young people sexting will be investigated and accused of purveying CSAE.

Gandhi is supposed to have said that “the true measure of any society is how it treats its most vulnerable members.” LGBTQ+ children are such a population. Children are aware of their sexual orientation from relatively early on. A Human Rights Campaign (HRC) report showed that 84 percent of LGBTQ+ children realized they were non-straight by age 13. ...

The point is that E2EE benefits children.

She has made many good arguments for encryption and digital freedoms, but I cannot agree with this.

It is just not true that 13-year-old kids realize that they are non-straight, and not true that they need to be sending secret pornographic and sexually deviant messages and images to other young kids and adults.

Supposedly Gandhi left his wife to live with a male lover. Not sure what he has to do with anything.

Yes, 13yo children are vulnerable, and adults should protect them from being exposed and induced into perverted sexual acts. But Landau wants E2EE technology to enable that, and says that children benefit from it! No, 13yo kids do not benefit from being sodomized by child molesters. This is really sick.

Today's Teens see Shrinks

Americansurveycenter.org reports:

American teens are heading to therapy at growing rates. More than one in four (27 percent) Generation Z adults — including nearly one-third (31 percent) of Gen Z women — report that they spent at least some of their teen years talking to a therapist. Twenty percent of millennials also report that they talked to a therapist at some point during their teen years.

For Generation X and baby boomers, therapy was a fairly rare experience. Only 10 percent of Generation X Americans and 4 percent of baby boomers spent any time in therapy as teenagers.

I am guessing that the big majority of those teens are worse off as a result of that therapy.

CPS Agent found Guilty

Upstate Illinois CPS news:

A judge found a former DCFS worker guilty and his supervisor not guilty of mishandling abuse investigations of AJ Freund leading up to the Crystal Lake boy’s 2019 murder.

Carlos J. Acosta, 57, of Woodstock, and Andrew R. Polovin, 51, of Island Lake, were both charged in September 2020 with two counts of endangering the life of a child causing death, a Class 3 felony, and one count of reckless conduct causing great bodily harm, a Class 4 felony.

Lake County Judge George Strickland announced his verdict Friday afternoon after closing arguments in the trial concluded in the morning.

He found Acosta guilty of two counts of child endangerment and not guilty of his third charge of reckless conduct.

The judge found Polovin not guilty of all three of his charges.

Strickland outlined numerous steps that the DCFS workers failed to take in their investigation and several parts that they ignored or failed to further investigate.

A grand jury indictment in 2020 charged Acosta, a DCFS child protection specialist, and Polovin, a DCFS child protection supervisor, with “not acting in good faith” within their official capacities.

The indictment said the two, in a “willful or wanton manner,” knowingly caused or permitted the life or health of Andrew Freund Jr. to be endangered and that was the proximate cause of the boy’s death.

Freund Jr., who was five years old and resided in Crystal Lake, was murdered in 2019 by his mother, JoAnn Cunningham.

Maybe Acosta should have asked for a jury trial, and testified in his defense.

The core problem here is that the parents were irresponsible drug addicts, and medical evaluation of the kid's injuries was inconclusive.

I do not see how it can be a crime for CPS (aka DCFS) agents to fail to act. Government authorities let dangerous people loose all the time. Judges, prosecutors, police, etc.

Acosta wrote some incomplete reports, and failed to call in more knowledgeable experts. Okay, how did that get to be a crime?

Ann Coulter has another opinion, about a different case:

I was innocently reading my New York Times last week when I was startled by this ghastly headline:

“Judge Let Abusive Parents Keep Daughter. Days Later, She Was Dead.”

As we shall see, this wasn’t a mistake; it was the logical consequence of a demented ideology that demands “reuniting” helpless children with their psychotic parents.

See if you can spot any telltale signs that Ella Vitalis should not have been sent back to her parents, Johnson Vitalis and Lafeyette Browne, ever, under any circumstances, even if they were the last people on Earth.

Ella first came to the attention of the authorities last year when she was just 3 weeks old and police, responding to a domestic violence call, found her with two broken ankles, a fractured skull and a brain hemorrhage. The parents had no explanation for any of this.

Child welfare authorities promptly placed both Ella and her 1-year-old brother, Liam, in foster care with their grandmother.

Just a month later, Ella’s father was left alone with her during a child visitation and, in that short amount of time, managed to slice the little girl’s tongue with a “sharp object,” requiring her to be fed intravenously for six days.

So far, Ella’s parents had spent a total of three weeks and a few hours with her, during which time she ended up with multiple broken bones, a brain hemorrhage and a bloody, mangled tongue.

So naturally, when family court judge and de Blasio appointee Erik S. Pitchal was assigned Ella’s case this past August, he ordered the children to be “reunited” with their parents. What a happy homecoming that must have been!

Based on this account, it appears that the judge made a poor judgment, but was it a crime? Will that judge be prosecuted?

I do not think that CPS agents or family court judges have the judgment or ability to make reasonable decisions about taking kids away.

At best, here is what they can do. If the parents commit crimes, they can be charged and convicted. If the parents are drug addicts, then can be forced to test clean to get their kids back. Beyond that, interventions are apt to cause more harm than good.

New California Law Mandates Transgenderism

mentioned previously that california was passing a bill taking kids away from parents for not affirming transgenderism. The bill has now passed, and is waiting for the governor's signature.

Previous California laws drew the attention of fact-checkers who denied that the bill was so radical. So now California passed a more radical bill.

It is hard to say exactly how radical this is, because California law already gave judges the discretion to make child custody decision on just about anything they want. This just adds transgenderism to the list. And soon parents will lose their kids for not going along with perverted sex treatments.