Microchipping goes mainstream: Wisconsin company announces plan to chip employees

The next time your boss asks you to do something you’d rather not, just remember that it could always be worse: you could be working for Three Square Market.

The Wisconsin firm, which designs software that is used in office complex break room markets, has found itself in the spotlight after announcing its intention to be the first American firm to offer its workers microchip implants.

Chief Executive Officer Todd Westby said that he believes this is “the next big thing” and he wants his company to be a part of it.

People can currently buy items at the market with their smartphones, and now he wants to take the phone out of the equation entirely by implanting microchips into people’s hands. Checkout will start out the normal way, with a person’s items being scanned. When it’s time to pay, rather than handing over their credit card, they’ll simply wave their hand. The RFID chips communicate using electromagnetic fields and can be read from distances of up to 6 inches.

The company says that the chip implant is not required, but incredibly, 50 employees have already volunteered themselves as human guinea pigs for this project. The company will foot the bill for the chips, which cost $300 a piece. The microchips are placed inside a shell that is slightly bigger than a grain of rice. They will be implanted between the person’s thumb and forefinger using an instrument that is similar to a syringe during a “chip party” at the company on August 1.

While Westby was quick to point out that people’s data is encrypted and secure and the chip does not have GPS tracking, it’s hard to believe that they have convinced 50 people to get on board already. And what are they putting their health and privacy at risk for? A slightly more convenient way to do things that are already not much of a hassle – namely, swiping badges to open doors, logging in at their computers, and paying for items at the market.

What are the long-term effects?

It’s hard to say for sure how this could affect a person’s health as there are no long-term studies. However, these microchips are very similar to those used to keep track of pets, which is pretty alarming given their track record. Some owners have reported that their dogs and cats experienced weakness in all of their limbs because the chips were not placed precisely.

There is even an entire website, Chipmenot.org, that is devoted to pet owners whose pets died because of their chips, with serious problems like blood loss, spinal cord injury, lymphoma and cancer being blamed on the chips. Picture after picture shows the cute faces of countless furry friends accompanied by a brief description of how their lives were adversely impacted – or ended – by these chips, with many of them developing tumors around their implanted microchips. These employees must really love their company if they are willing to subject themselves to this invasive procedure.

While it’s true that smartphones can be used to keep track of you and your personal data can be hacked frighteningly easily, you can always turn your phone off or leave it behind. A microchip, on the other hand, is always there, unless you have it removed surgically.

If there is one upside to this bizarre situation, it’s that the employees are supposedly being given a choice. Some people believe that one day we won’t get to decide for ourselves and that governments will start forcing people to use implants, compromising their privacy and freedom. For example, people could be prevented from accessing government services and benefits one day if they don’t agree to get implanted. The possibilities are endless – not to mention frightening.

Sources include:

KSTP.com

USAToday.com

NYTimes.com

Physician-assisted suicide now legal in Washington D.C.

Last December, Washington D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser officially signed into law the Death and Dignity Act of 2016, which essentially allows doctors and physicians to give terminally ill patients above the age of 18 life-ending medication. Now, roughly seven months later, that law is finally being implemented.

Of course, there are some regulations. In order for a person to legally commit suicide in Washington D.C., that individual must be working closely with licensed doctors and pharmacies that are morally okay with the idea of giving one of their patients life-ending medication.

In addition to this, patients are required to speak with their doctor and ask for permission to end their life two times, with fifteen days between each request. Before the second request, the patient must fill out an official city form confirming that they do in fact wish to commit suicide.

The program, which will be overseen by the Department of Health in Washington D.C., will also not allow a person to take his or her life in public for obvious reasons. To do so would not only be unnecessary, but also very disturbing for those who would be forced to witness it.

The debate over assisted suicide has been going on for many years now, and needless to say, there are some significant ethical problems with it. Just because something is legal does not necessarily mean it is moral – abortion is legal in all fifty states but it is quite possibly one of the most immoral practices our society takes part in. And if there’s one thing that our Founding Fathers made clear during the time of America’s birth, it’s that our society simply cannot go on unless the people and those who govern them are moral in nature.

Human beings should not play God. They shouldn’t be the ones that determine how and when someone dies, nor should they support laws that legalize that kind of a process. It is impossible to know with one hundred percent certainty what someone’s fate will be, even if they are terminally ill and expected to die. That being said, what gives someone the right to prematurely take the life of another human being, regardless of whether or not they are asking for it?

In the year 1994, Jeannette Hall of King City, Oregon, voted to legalize physician-assisted suicide in the United States. “I thought, hey, I wouldn’t want anyone to suffer,” Hall said in an interview back in 2015 with The Daily Signal. “So I checked it. Then it became legal.”

Jeanette would never have thought that just six years after voting to legalize assisted suicide, she would be diagnosed with inoperable colon cancer. After hearing the bad news, Hall said that the doctors asked her to choose between chemotherapy and ending her life with a lethal dose of barbiturates, a drug that is most commonly used as a central nervous system depressant.

“I wasn’t going to do it,” Hall said of the chemotherapy. “I looked for the easy way out.” However, Dr. Kenneth Stevens, one of Hall’s two cancer doctors, was determined to convince her to choose life over death. He believed that Jeanette, who was only in her mid 50s at the time, had so much more to live for.

Stevens eventually found out that Jeanette had a son who at the time was going through training to become a state trooper. “Wouldn’t you like to see him graduate? Wouldn’t you like to see him get married?” Stevens asked Hall in one last attempt to save her life.

Hall later explained to The Daily Signal how the thought of never being able to see her son grow up and live a happy life ultimately deterred her from going through with the assisted suicide. Hall instead chose to fight the cancer with chemotherapy and went on to live for another 15 years.

Assisted suicide is not something that our society should be embracing. Instead, we should be encouraging people to live their lives to the fullest and to never give up hope, because as long as there is hope, anything is possible – even beating the odds against a terminal illness.

Sources include:

WTOP.com

DailySignal.com

The smell of pot DOES NOT constitute probable cause for police to search your vehicle rules the Colorado Court of Appeals

Backers of marijuana use for recreational purposes won another court victory this week as a state court ruled that police cannot stop or arrest someone just because they smell pot in a suspect’s vehicle.

As reported by The Grand Junction Sentinelin Colorado, indications by drug-sniffing police dogs that there are controlled substances in a vehicle is in and of itself not sufficient probable cause for officers to then search the vehicle, the state Court of Appeals ruled on Thursdays.

The case, which observers said will set a precedent, perhaps beyond Colorado’s borders, involved a resident of Moffat County. The three-judge appeals panel agreed with the defendant that police need more of a cause to search a vehicle without the owner’s permission.

Why? Because, the court ruled, there could be legal marijuana in the car.

“Because Amendment 64 legalized possession for personal use of one ounce or less of marijuana by persons 21 years of age or older in Colorado, it is no longer accurate to say, at least as a matter of state law, that an alert by a dog which can detect marijuana — but not specific amounts — can reveal only the presence of ‘contraband,’” said Judge Daniel Daily for the panel, a ruling joined by Judges Jerry Jones and Michael Berger.

“A dog sniff could result in an alert with respect to something for which, under Colorado law, a person has a legitimate expectation of privacy,” the court noted further. “Because a dog sniff of a vehicle could infringe upon a legitimate expectation of privacy solely under state law, that dog sniff should now be considered a ‘search’ for purposes of (the amendment) where the occupants are 21 years or older.”

Recreational and medical use of marijuana in any amount remains against federal law, but neither the Obama administration nor the Trump Justice Department, so far at least, intervened when Colorado and Washington State voters approved measures legalizing its recreational use a few years ago. At the time Obama told ABC News the administration had “bigger fish to fry.” Thus far, President Donald J. Trump has not given any indication what he will do on the matter, nor has Attorney General Jeff Sessions. And Congress has yet to take up the issue of whether to change the law legalizing recreational pot use in all states. (Related: Could marijuana help fight obesity in America?)

As for the Colorado case, the local paper noted further:

In this February 2015 case, Craig Police Cpl. Bryan Gonzales had followed a truck driven by Craig resident Kevin McKnight that was leaving a home that had been searched for drugs nearly two months earlier.

Gonzales testified that he pulled the truck over because McKnight allegedly made a turn without using a turn signal. He later called in Sgt. Courtland Folks with the Moffat County Sheriff’s Office and his drug-detection dog, Kilo.

Kilo is trained to detect cocaine, heroin, esctasy, methamphetamine and marijuana.

After Kilo detected something in the vehicle, it was searched by police, revealing a glass pipe commonly used to smoke meth.

McKnight’s attorney had filed a motion to suppress the search, but Moffat County District Judge Michael O’Hara nevertheless allowed the evidence to be entered into the court proceedings. McKnight was later convicted of possessing drug paraphernalia as well as possession of a controlled substance.

However, the paper noted, the appeals court ruled that due to state law legalizing a certain amount of marijuana, and since the dog was not able to indicate to officers just what substance he detected, police, therefore, did not have sufficient probable cause to conduct their search of McKnight’s vehicle.

Though Berger and Jones concurred, they each wrote separate opinions in the case. Berger said in his opinion that Amendment 64 handed state residents “an enforceable expectation of privacy.” However, Jones said the amendment has really “added a level of ambiguity” for police as they attempt to gather evidence to make drug cases.

What really needs to happen is one of two things: 1) The Justice Department should enforce federal law as written, so there is no ambiguity; 2) Congress should pass legislation overturning the current federal marijuana ban and defining how it can be used recreationally.

J.D. Heyes is a senior writer for NaturalNews.com and NewsTarget.com, as well as editor of The National Sentinel.

Sources include:

CannabisCures.news

GJSentinel.com

Chimpanzees found to accumulate and transfer cultural knowledge from one generation to the next

A study that was recently published in the journal Evolution and Human Behavior showed that chimpanzees, which the theory of evolution says are where men are descended from, exhibit “cumulative culture”, or the ability to build on the work of others. Until now, it was thought that only humans, baboons, and pigeons had this ability. 

In the study that was conducted by University of St. Andrews School of Psychology and Neuroscience professor Andrew Whiten and his colleagues from the University of Texas and the University of St. Andrews in Scotland, chimpanzees were given juice in a large container and a piece of straw that was outside their enclosure. The chimpanzees in the control group who were presented with these items failed to conceptualize what they needed to do in order to get the juice; this is a novel challenge for ape minds. However in other groups of chimpanzees wherein one of them was taught how to use the tool, the chimpanzees watched and then imitated the actions of the learned chimpanzee to be able to get a drink from the container.

“This and other recent studies are beginning to show that some non-human animals are better equipped to improve the complexity of their cultural behaviors over time than was previously believed,” said study first author Dr. Gillian Vale from the University of Texas. (Related: Federal government limits chimpanzee research.)

They said that the findings of the study are relevant for grasping what may have happened as human evolution progressed. 

Bonobos do not have the skill of imitation

It could be that chimpanzees are the only ones in the ape family who are gifted with the ability to learn from other beings. Bonobos surely do not have that gift. According to a study that was conducted by researchers at the University of Birmingham and Durham University in the United Kingdom, which was featured in the journal Child Development, bonobos do not copy actions of other beings that they interact with, unlike human children, who do.

“The fact that the bonobos failed to imitate demonstrates that even enhanced social orientation may not be enough to trigger human-like cultural learning behaviors,” said Claudio Tennie, research group leader at the University of Tubingen in Germany, who co-authored the study when he was still with the University of Birmingham.

For her part, lead author and Durham University assistant professor of psychology Zanna Clay said, “The young children were very willing to copy actions even though they served no obvious function, while the bonobos were not. Children’s tendency to imitate in this way likely represents a a critical piece of the puzzle as to why human cultures differ so profoundly from those of great apes.”

Bonobos were chosen to be part of the study as they are our closest ape relatives, aside from chimpanzees.

The lineage of modern humans and chimpanzees/bonobos split around eight million years ago. The two great ape species’ lineage further split around two million years ago. However, scientists said it was the bonobos who remained more human-like as compared with chimpanzees.

According to Bernard Wood, professor of human origins at the George Washington University Center for the Advanced Study of Human Paleobiology, “Bonobo muscles have changed least, which means they are the closest we can get to having a ‘living ancestor’.”

Read up on more stories such as this one at Discoveries.news.

Sources include:

Sci-News.com

ScienceDaily.com

DailyMail.co.uk

Zoo covered up massive “penguin massacre” to avoid freaking out visitors

Chessington World of Adventures, a theme park, zoo and sealife center at Chessington, U.K., was recently accused of lying to its customers and remaining mum about a recent fox attack that killed eight of its Humboldt Penguins. According to reports, the attack happened at the end of June when an urban fox infiltrated the penguins’ enclosure. Following the incidence, the zoo management allegedly decided to quietly close off the Penguin Bay and put a sign at the entrance, stating that the unfortunate animals where placed somewhere else as the zoo made alterations to the attraction.

The zoo was accused of covering up the attack by using the sign. It was also reported that theme park employees were warned against talking about the incidence. “The attack happened at the end of June when the night security and zoo staff were not monitoring as they should have been. There is CCTV footage on site at the park. The male penguins can be seen trying to protect the babies from the attack, sadly all bar one of the males were killed as well as all the babies…Not only are these poor animals are now dead, but the customers are being lied to,” a source said in an article on The Telegraphwebsite.

However, a spokesperson for the zoo defended the management’s decision not to inform the public, stating that Chessington was not under any obligation to divulge the details of the animals. The reports also noted that the officer did not specify the preventive measures in place to protect the penguins. This, despite the zoo insisting that the Penguin bay’s enclosure met all specifications stated in licensing standards.

According to the spokesperson, the alterations on the enclosure were being carried out in order to prevent future incidents. The official also noted that investigations are underway to determine how the fox got inside the enclosure. The attraction was opened in 2015 in partnership with Dreamworks in celebration of the release of the animated film Penguins of Madagascar. (Related: Despite massive petition to free the animal, ‘world’s saddest polar bear’ remains imprisoned in Chinese shopping mall, longing for natural habitat.)

Zoo owns up to the penguin massacre

The zoo management eventually owned up to the incident. “It is with great sadness that we have to announce the death of eight of our Humboldt penguins, which it is apparent were killed by an urban fox that infiltrated their home at Penguin Bay overnight at the end of June. We are investigating why this happened, as Penguin Bay, only built in 2015, had special measures put in place specifically to deter foxes and therefore we are shocked and saddened at this news. The eight Humboldt penguins, five adults and three infants, were part of a group of 28 here at the resort…Our remaining penguins have been moved to a secure area while we take additional measures to secure Penguin Bay, which we hope to reopen as soon as possible,” Lisa Britton, assistant zoo manager at Chessington World of Adventures Resort, said in an article on The Guardian website.

According to Britton, the health, safety and welfare of the animals are a top priority for the zoo. The official also stressed that Chessington is a member of the European Association of Zoos and Aquariums (EAZA) and the British and Irish Association of Zoos and Aquariums (BIAZA), both of which maintain strict protocols and ethics in animal conservation, management, operations, and education research.

The recent attack was not the first reported incidence of animal deaths inside the zoo’s parameters. Early this year, a spate of animal killings at Delhi Zoo in India was also blamed on illegal animal capture and negligence by zoo officials.

Sources include:

Telegraph.co.uk

TheGuardian.co.uk

Plant-based diets can kill you if they consist of refined grains and sugars

You might have heard that eating a plant-based diet can help ward off heart disease, but not just any plant-based diet will do. In fact, if you pair all those vegetables with refined grains and sugars, you could be doing more harm than good.

In a study of more than 200,000 Americans that was published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, researchers found that generally speaking, people who ate a lot of healthy plant foods like vegetables, whole grains and beans had a lower heart disease risk.

However, a diet can technically be plant based and still be bad for you. Those who ate plant-based diets that were heavy in foods like bread, pasta, sweets and potatoes fared just as badly as those who ate animal-based diets, if not worse!

Lead researcher Ambika Satija pointed out that not all plant-based foods are the same and urged people to take the nutritional quality of plant foods they consume into account.

The research team assessed the quality of plant foods that people ate and how it related to their risk of heart disease. The studies began in the 1980s and ‘90s, and participants provided detailed information about their diets every two years via questionnaire over the course of two decades. They also answered questions about their lifestyle, medical history and health behaviors. More than 8,600 participants had died of heart disease or suffered a heart attack by 2013.

To make their comparisons, the researchers divided participants into ten different groupsdepending on how closely they followed a plant-based diet. Then they compared those whose plant-based diets had the healthiest foods to those that did not.

The people who had the lowest risk of heart disease were those who ate healthy plant foods like vegetables and fruits, along with nuts, legumes and whole grains like brown rice and cooked oatmeal. Those who ranked in the top 10 percent in terms of healthy plant food diets had an impressive 25 percent lower risk of developing heart disease than the people in the bottom 10 percent when it comes to diet quality.

Unhealthy plant food diets pose greater heart disease risk than animal-based diets

Meanwhile, the opposite effect was seen among those whose diets consisted of a lot of less-healthy plant foods like pasta, crackers, white bread, potatoes, and sugary fruit juices. In fact, these people were 33 percent more likely to develop heart disease. Those who ate a lot of animal products like butter, cheese and meat also had a higher heart disease risk, but those on the unhealthy plant food diets were more at risk.

While the study did not take a specific look at vegan or vegetarian diets, past studies have linked those ways of eating with a lower risk of high blood pressure, heart disease and diabetes. Nevertheless, it’s possible to approach such a diet the wrong way and put your health at risk.

Make a few small changes at a time

In an editorial that accompanied the research, Rush University Medical Center Cardiology Chair Dr. Kim Allan Williams said that healthy plant-based diets should be a greater focus of dietary recommendations. She advised people to start making smaller tweaks that they can sustain as they transition into a healthier way of eating rather than making dramatic changes all at once.

This is sound advice for anyone who is looking to make a change. It’s never too late to improve your eating habits, and although these findings might inspire you to overhaul your diet, don’t feel pressured to do everything at once. Begin by cutting out red and processed meats and sweets, and then start cutting out other bad foods, like white bread and sugary fruit juice, a few weeks later. This will make your new way of eating easier to stick with and you won’t feel as deprived. And don’t forget that exercise can also help enhance heart health!

Sources include:

ScienceDaily.com

CBSNews.com

Reuters.com

Clean eating now considered a “dangerous fad” by nutritionally illiterate doctors

Clean eating has become a way of life for many people around the world. This way of eating focuses on consuming whole foods that are not processed or refined; this can be anything that is as close to its natural form as possible, like fresh produce and raw nuts. This is an undeniably healthy way of eating – and there are plenty of studies that back this – so why are some doctors calling it a dangerous fad?

In a recent piece for the Daily Mail, Dr. Max Pemberton rakes clean eating over the coals. He talks about patients who are emaciated, describing them using frightening terms and explaining in great detail about how their bones are sticking out, their necks can’t support their heads, and their bodies are eating their own muscles. He talks about young girls whose reproductive systems have stopped working and who have developed osteoporosis, bleeding throats and lost teeth.

This is certainly an outcome that no one wants, but what he is describing here are people who have eating disorders, not people who focus on eating clean foods. The desire to eat healthy is not disordered eating, and lumping the two together is dangerous as it may give those who prefer to eat junk food an excuse to continue on their path to diabetes, obesity, and early death.

It’s particularly concerning when he writes: “The central tenet, the very nugget at the core of its belief system, is flawed. The very notion of ‘clean’ eating suggests that some food is dirty or bad — and this simply isn’t the case.”

Countless researchers would beg to differ. Some food really is bad, and it’s very irresponsible for a doctor to say that’s not the case. A trans fat-filled Burger King Triple Whopper, a sugar-laden venti Starbucks Frappuccino, and a can of corrosive Coca-Cola are just a few of the “bad” foods that come to mind.

He closed his piece with another gem: “But be under no illusion: ‘clean eating’ is ugly, malevolent and damaging. The whole irony of the clean eating fad is that, despite what it purports to be, it’s fundamentally toxic.”

No, Dr. Pemberton, what’s toxic is high fructose corn syrup, artificial sweeteners, boxed macaroni and cheese, and GM soy.

Eating disorders and clean eating are not one and the same

He’s right that social media is causing all sorts of eating problems for people, from constant images of bodies most normal people can never hope to attain to round-the-clock posts of the latest meals, healthy or otherwise, that everyone on your friends list is eating. But blogs about clean eating are not telling young women to head to the bathroom and vomit up their lunch if they slip up.

Of course, some people take it too far. People who are prone to eating disorders can – and often do – start out by eating healthy in an attempt to lose weight. If a person has underlying issues, there is no doubt that this could well lead to obsessions over healthy food and body weight and end up becoming a full-fledged eating disorder.

But there are also countless people who have committed to giving up processed foods in the interest of being healthy, and most of them can enjoy a piece of cake on their birthday without feeling compelled to stick their fingers down their throat afterward. Most clean eaters do not have any sort of eating disorder or mental illness and will never develop one. They are simply eating a healthy diet, which is something that more responsible doctors encourage their patients to do.

It’s true that some people who have eating disorders might hide behind an interest in only consuming healthy foods so family and friends won’t interfere with their habits. Having an eating disorder is a very serious problem that absolutely needs to be addressed, but suggesting that clean eating and bulimia are one and the same and that there is no such thing as “bad” food is incredibly irresponsible.

Sources include: 

DailyMail.co.uk

NaturalNews.com

NaturalNews.com

Citing the scientific research of white men now blamed for “marginalization” of women and people of color, claim delusional left-wing academics

There is no question about it: The academic far-Left has lost their collective minds and is now actively trolling for things to be upset/angry/offended about, and this is especially true for many of today’s college and university campuses.

As reported by Campus Reform, a pair of feminist professors who teach geography — yes, geography — recently wrote in an actual academic journal that certain citations in scholarly articles do nothing but contribute to “white heteromasculinity” because they ignore research by minorities and women.

You just cannot make this stuff up.

Carrie Mott of Rutgers University and Daniel Cockayne made the claim in an article published last month in the Feminist Journal of Geography (I know — I couldn’t believe there was such a publication, either), noting also that citing works can be “a feminist and anti-racist technology of resistance” if they are specifically chosen with the intent to promote “those authors and voices we want to carry forward.”

So in other words, scholarly findings by white males are not to be advanced as vigorously as similar scholarly findings by persons of color and women, because if they are, then the author is somehow contributing to the oppression of both.

Campus Reform noted further:

Mott and Cockayne say citation practices are an issue of scholarly concern because whether a professor’s work is cited by other scholars has strong implications for hiring, promotion, tenure, and how “certain voices are represented over others” in academia.

“To cite only white men…or to only cite established scholars…does a disservice to researchers and writers who are othered by white heteromasculinism,” they actually wrote, further defining “white heteromasculinism” as “an intersectional system of oppression describing on-going processes that bolster the status of those who are white, male, able-bodied, economically privileged, heterosexual, and cisgendered.”

They also claimed that this ‘oppression’ only contributes to the “marginalization of women, people of color, and those othered through white heteromascline hegemony,” further asserting that “particular voices and bodies are persistently left out of the conversation altogether.”

In an interview with Campus Reform, Mott said she and her co-author wrote their piece after they observed that “white men tend to be cited in much higher numbers than people from other backgrounds.” She said, “we started looking into research that had been done in other fields about similar topics, and wanted to write something specifically for geographers to think about the relationship between knowledge production and identity.”

Mott claimed that women and minorities “have contributed a lot to geographic research,” but they have mostly been ignored by other researchers. That not only holds individual scholars back but it also leaves their potentially unique perspectives out of the larger body of research.

“When it is predominantly white, heteronormative males who are cited, this means that the views and knowledge that are represented do not reflect the experience of people from other backgrounds,” she said. “When scholars continue to cite only white men on a given topic, they ignore the broader diversity of voices and researchers that are also doing important work on that topic.” (Related: Brown University Students Claim The First Amendment Doesn’t Include ALL Speech, Only Views They Agree With.)

As someone who has done graduate-level research, I can say with honesty that I didn’t pay any attention to the ethnicity or gender or sexual preference of the researchers I cited; rather, I looked for the quality and appropriateness of research as it pertained to my thesis topic.

But beyond that, I am also well aware that for some fields of study, maybe most of the research has been done by white heterosexual males, and that if that’s the case, so what, so long as it’s accurate?

To suggest that certain research should not be cited just because it was performed by someone with a specific political view, ethnicity, gender and sexual preference is absurd beyond belief. Worse is to assume that citation of “white heterosexual males” is racist or bigoted.

J.D. Heyes is a senior writer for NaturalNews.com and NewsTarget.com, as well as editor of The National Sentinel.

Sources include:

CampusReform.org

CampusInsanity.com

Public school teachers using “gender unicorn” to teach children that binary gender is a fictional construct… HUH?

With lots of kids still lacking basic reading and math skills, the educational establishment is apparently incorporating a gender unicorn handout into public school curriculum in some areas.

The gender unicorn is a “sexually ambiguous mythical creature,” The Daily Caller reported.

Oregonian columnist Elizabeth Hovde explains how the gender unicorn, which kind of resembles Barney, is employed in the classroom in middle school.

The unicorn invites students to consider their gender identity, gender expression, declare their sex “assigned at birth,” and choose who they’re physically and emotionally attracted to. For the kids who haven’t yet had their first kiss, or even the desire for one, this must be a confusing subject matter.

Perhaps oversimplifying, gender identity is defined as how a person feels internally, and gender expression is the outward manifestation of same.

In some areas, teachers are evidently using the gender unicorn in supplemental materials without the knowledge of school boards or parents. The Oregonian suggests that some school districts in Oregon and Washington state begin teaching about gender issues in health studies as early as kindergarten.

According to the organization that created the gender unicorn, which it says is an updated version of the gingerbread “person,” the male or female binary is “mostly a European construct.”

Trans Student Education Resources describes its mission as being “dedicated to transforming the educational environment for trans and gender nonconforming students through advocacy and empowerment,” which includes creating a “more trans-friendly education system.”

View image on Twitter

 Follow

Siko Soft  @SikoSoft

Just saw Gender Unicorn mentioned by @jordanbpeterson. Postmodern pseudo-scientific insanity pushed onto the youngest of minds. Sickening.

12:11 PM - Jun 29, 2017

•  Replies
 
•  Retweets
 
•  11 like

Twitter Ads info and privacy

Human sexuality is obviously a very sensitive, complex issue and one that traditionally was dealt with privately. For the ordinary person and/or concerned parent who supports the concept of inclusiveness, questions include where is this all headed and whether school systems have appropriate or misplaced priorities.

Hovde’s column recommends that teachers share any such supplemental materials with parents, adding that “I want to be at least as involved in the gender-and-sexual-identity discussion with my kid as a purple unicorn.”

Earlier this month, Natural News asserted that indoctrination in schools is “sowing the seeds of confusion” in the minds of young children, and which could lead in some instances to invasive gender identity therapy.

In April, NaturalNews founder Mike Adams said, “the genetic reality that gender expression in humans is binary,” and that “You can’t believe in biological transgenderism and science at the same time.” (Related: Follow more news on rational science at Rational.news.)

Separately, writing in The Daily Signal, pediatrician Michelle Cretella insisted that transgender politics leads to child abuse in those instances when pharmaceutical drugs and surgical procedures come into play. Dr. Cretella, the president of the American College of Pediatricians, maintained among other things that most kids who experience distress over their biological sex outgrow it by late adolescence after going through puberty.

In a recent appearance with Tucker Carlson, Dr. Cretella underscored her concerns with the almost universal acceptance of a transgender ideology, asserting that gender is hardwired at birth.

We have actually called this child abuse because by feeding children and families these lies, children are having their normal psychological development interrupted. They’re being put on the puberty blockers which essentially castrates them chemically, followed by surgical mutilation later on. This is child abuse; it’s not healthcare.

Sources include:

DailyCaller.com

Transstudent.org

OregonianLive.com

Inquisitr.com

North Korea’s nuclear missiles can now reach New York City, Boston and Los Angeles, analysts conclude… are you awake yet?

According to David Wright, physicist and co-director of the UCS Global Security Program, North Korea’s latest ICBM — tested just days ago — has the capability to strike almost half of the largest U.S. cities, including Chicago, Denver and possibly even New York City.

As reported by Zero Hedge, North Korea now states:

…we have demonstrated our ability to fire our intercontinental ballistic rocket at any time and place and that the entire U.S. territory is within our shooting range.

…Melissa Hanham, a researcher at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies in California, confirmed the findings saying that the test showed North Korea is now capable of hitting U.S. cities such as Denver or Chicago.

Essentially, Kim Jong-Un just declared, “All your base are belong to us.”

Washington D.C. appears to be just out of range for the moment, as the missiles fly over the North Pole and enter the atmosphere over the Northwest portion of the United States. This means Miami is the farthest away from North Korea’s reach. Houston, New Orleans and other Southern cities are also on the extreme edge of potential range.

Tensions are escalating, and North Korea could launch an actual attack at any time

In a show of force, the United States Air Force is currently running supersonic bomber drills over North Korea, and President Trump is warning that world that the United States can “no longer allow” North Korea to continue threatening the world with nuclear missile launches that might set off World War III.

Kim Jong-Un is known to already possess an estimated two dozen nuclear warheads, and Natural News has previously explained why any attack on the United States by North Korea could trigger a devastating implosion of the U.S. economy. The miniaturization process to fit nuclear warheads onto missiles is child’s play for any nation that already possess nuclear capability. This means North Korea almost certainly has ICBMs right now that can deliver nuclear strikes to major U.S. cities, including Chicago, Seattle, Denver, Los Angeles, Phoenix and so on. It is even conceivable that North Korea could launch a volley of missiles to strike multiple cities at the same time.

North Korea’s strike options also include EMP weapons which could indirectly kill up to 90% of all Americans by destroying the power grid, thrusting the United States into the 18th century in terms of technology, almost instantly collapsing the food supply, money system, water supply, medical logistics, police forces and just about everything else.

If you are not yet prepping for the possibility of a nuclear event on U.S. soil, you are living in denial.