Saturday, November 25, 2023

This Video Is a Solid Reminder of Why Fathers are Important


Despite what modern society might think or say, fathers are an important part of the home. Often referred to cutesily as the "babysitter," the father is often relegated to a secondary role in the child's life or, as the feminists tell it, is completely unnecessary in the child's life. 

This is a lie and an egregious one to boot. Fathers are integral in sustaining a child's health, comfort, and development as research has shown. 

But there's another aspect to child-rearing that makes a father absolutely necessary, and that's safety. 

While Smith and Wesson might have made men and women equals in terms of deadliness, the bottom line is that men are far more in tune with their killer instincts than women. It's what were designed for. Everything about our basic body structure makes room for combat situations. We're far more likely to resort to violence to solve an issue than women. It's why wars are fought by men, most fights are between two men, and sadly, most domestic violence is committed by men. 

Violence isn't good or bad. Much like a gun, it depends on how it's used. The bottom line here, though, is that men are far more willing to use it than women are, and once they're using it, they'll know how to use it effectively. 

There's a viral video that's been popping up from time to time that features women being asked if they'd kill someone for their kid. Their reactions are...shocking, at least from the standpoint of the father writing this article you're reading now. 

As you can see, most of the women in this video when asked if they'd take a life for their child answered "no." As there's no data behind this, I can assume that these women don't make up an ultimately large portion of the mothers in America, and with more data, I'm sure you'd see a lot of women answer emphatically that they'd take a life to save their child's. 

However, the fact that there were plenty of women who said they wouldn't got me thinking. 

Perhaps some of these women can't be blamed for feeling uneasy about fatal violence because that kind of capability just isn't in them. When faced with a confrontation where a decision to pull a trigger needs to be made, it's unclear how they would react in the moment. They could break down, become too scared, and their fight or flight instinct might take over with "flight" being the chief order that takes over. 

But this would not be the same case for men. 

If men were asked the same question the answer would be an unthinking "yes." It wouldn't matter the context. If it means taking a life to save the life of his child, then he's going to choose to keep his child alive. In a situation where a trigger needs to be pulled, the trigger is far more likely to be pulled in the hands of a man. 

It's what he was designed to do. 

This isn't meant to demean women's ability or will to protect their children, but the fact of the matter is that nine times out of ten, the man will be far more successful in the physical and fatal defense of his child than the woman. 

I think that fact is lost on us in the modern age, and will likely stay lost so long as the Western world continues to be a place of ease, wealth, and ignorance of the real world, but even in our nation the true nature of our world peaks through and men are necessary to beat the wolves back into the hills. 

Fathers are necessary to the home because the safekeeping of a home is necessary. Over a long enough period of time, your home will eventually face some sort of danger and you're going to need the instincts of a man to keep things in order. That takes many different forms, but one of them involves violence, and a society that demeans, sneers, and laughs at fatherhood will suddenly wish a protective father was around. 



X22, On the Fringe, and more- November 25

 




Alarm Bells for the Establishment


Recent events have underlined how little success the U.S. and global establishment has in its efforts to mold public opinion and vilify its critics. The left-leaning powers-that-be exercise unprecedented control over the sprawling edifice of the mainstream media, whose professional ethics are, each day, degraded just a little more in service of the overriding mission of trashing conservative and populist causes and leaders. What's more, the Left has come to dominate social media. It shamelessly uses search algorithms, demonetizing, and other tricks to ensure that only approved narratives are propagated and dissident voices are stifled. When digital sleight-of-hand doesn't suffice, blunt censorship abetted and even administered by government agencies is used to silence critics of the status quo more permanently – and no apologies are given for the consequences to free speech and pluralism.

You would think, given the sophistication and thoroughness of these efforts to amplify establishment narratives and to castigate alternative viewpoints as “far-right”, “racist”, “anti-democratic”, and “extreme”, that the public would long since have been bullied and cajoled into acquiescence to the agenda of the establishment, which, in this country, is often called the Deep State. The evidence, though, is that the grip that the powers-that-be have on public opinion is loosening, and the forces of opposition are either ascendant or threatening to ascend in short order.

Take the stunning electoral victories of Geert Wilders, anti-Muslim, and anti-immigrant nationalist, in the Netherlands, and Javier Milei, irascible libertarian and unapologetic free marketeer, in Argentina, which came despite the absolute scorn that the political establishment and the legacy media have poured on both men. Wilders' shocking win came in a country that is often held up as a model of progressive “respectability,” meaning Euro-socialism, DEI run amok, cradle-to-grave social welfare programs, and a sneering contempt for traditional religion (but not for Islam, needless to say). Milei, meanwhile, rode popular angst about Argentina's (latest) financial collapse, featuring 140% inflation, to a landslide victory over an establishment socialist opponent. In both places, pollsters were confounded by the strength of the conservative/populist backlash against establishment misrule.

In the United States, all available evidence indicates that a similar comeuppance for the powers that be is looming. Eight years of establishment scorn directed at Donald J. Trump has left him, while somewhat bruised and battered and not precisely beloved by a majority of Americans, politically as strong as ever and in an excellent position to force Joe Biden into unwanted early (or late, depending on your point of view) retirement in January 2025. Despite, or perhaps because of, the 91 felony charges that a rogues' gallery of leftist prosecutors have leveled against him, Trump's favorability ratings have remained steady. His performance in head-to-head polls versus Biden indicates a high likelihood of winning the national popular vote and, thus, a very high likelihood of winning a crushing victory in the electoral college. Meanwhile, the establishment and the media talk in ever more strident terms about the absolutely fatal consequences for “democracy” if – heaven forbid! – the voters should choose Trump, or anyone but Biden, as the country's next president. That message is not getting through. Trump only grows stronger, while Biden's appeal and credibility continue to wither.

Of course, the establishment isn't stupid. It can see the warning signs. In Holland and Argentina, there's increasing talk of finding ways to co-opt Wilders and Milei or, alternatively, to pen them politically and render them impotent. 

In the U.S., where the renaissance of Trumpism is only tentative, there's much interest on the Left in persuading Joe Biden to step aside and find a more acceptable and younger face for the establishment to hide behind. It remains to be seen whether this gambit will work, although so far Biden himself shows zero inclination to make discretion the better part of valor.

That naturally leads intelligent observers of the establishment's potential death throes to wonder: what new and innovative (not to mention desperate and ruthless) stratagems might these masters of the universe concoct to forestall their own decline and fall? I have long believed that the Democrats and the Deep State would do virtually anything to prevent Donald Trump from becoming president again. As the skies darken for these entitled elitists, I strongly suspect that they are increasingly thinking along the same lines...



Biden's 2024 Plan: Blame the Border Crisis On Trump


Under President Joe Biden's term, the United States has seen one of the worst border crises in American history as more than five million migrants crossed into the country illegally. 

However, according to the Biden Administration, the mass illegal migration issue would be worse if former President Trump gets elected. 

During Biden's Thanksgiving Day speech, the president gave Americans a sneak peek at their 2024 campaign: blaming Trump for the chaotic border crisis. 

"He's promising to make it worse: Rounding up Latinos into mass detention camps, ending birthright citizenship, and shooting people at will," a script from the Biden campaign read. 

In a social media thread, Biden's campaign pitched a "guide for responding to crazy MAGA nonsense this Thanksgiving." 

One of the prompts instructed family members to deny any failure at the border if someone at the dinner table began accusing Biden of the chaos. 

When family members say, "Trump secured our border!" The campaign said to reply by saying, "No, he didn't. All he did was separate families, put children in cages, and leave behind a broken immigration system for Joe Biden to clean up."

Yet, the post fails to mention that Biden is responsible for the nearly 10 million aliens who have crossed the U.S. border illegally, putting the lives of Americans at risk. 

Since 2021, the president has torn down the existing border wall, halted Trump-era policies that helped stem the flow of illegal migrants, and expedited reckless Leftist policies that have caused human trafficking to flourish and deadly drugs such as fentanyl to pour into the U.S. 

On the contrary, under the Trump Administration, the 45th president's border policies helped Americans secure better jobs at higher wages and buy new homes at lower costs.

He also reduced the flow of illegal aliens at the height of COVID-19 when he established Title 42— which kept millions of migrants out of the U.S. 

In addition, the Trump Administration installed more than 450 miles of physical barriers during Trump's time as president— which Biden demolished on day one of his term. 

A Border Patrol agent praised Trump's border policies, calling the "Remain in Mexico" policy "the most effective thing" in combatting the border situation. 



Elon Musk’s ‘Multiplanetary’ Dreams Clash With Man’s Propensity For Ruin

Once we open the path to the stars, we set humans on a quest for eternity that this life can never fulfill.



SpaceX called the Starship’s second test flight on Nov. 18 a “success,” and Elon Musk predicted that the interplanetary rocket would bring about a “fork in the road of human destiny.” The Starship has the potential to make all life “multiplanetary,” Musk wrote on X.  

Some, especially in the media, have questioned whether SpaceX can achieve its interplanetary aspirations. The naysayers focus on the technical troubles, but Musk considers them surmountable

All 33 engines on the Starship fired. The main Starship stage detached from the booster and continued to fly for several minutes. Then its system activated a self-destruct mechanism above the Gulf of Mexico, despite a planned trip around the globe. SpaceX and the Federal Aviation Administration will investigate what triggered Starship’s Automated Flight Termination System. 

All but a small few have no idea whether we can colonize Mars. The technological subjects overawe most minds. But all must consider whether we should colonize Mars and eventually other planets in distant solar systems. 

We, indeed, face a fork in the road of human destiny, and we should consciously plot our course.

Colonization for Consciousness’s Sake 

Musk has given a compelling philosophical defense of multiplanetary colonization. In an interview with Google co-founder Larry Page, Musk said that “human consciousness is a precious flicker of light in the universe, and we should not let it be extinguished.”  

If current models of our solar system hold, then humans only have a few billion years left to prepare for the sun’s death. After those short years pass, the sun will no longer sustain life on Earth. Musk wants humans to get ahead of this calamity. He’s waking us all up to the idiom: “Don’t put all your humans on one planet.” By spreading out, we’ll become extinction-proof. 

Unlike many agnostic scientists, Musk regards human consciousness as something like a miracle. That has led some to describe his views as compatible with Christianity. And there’s certainly good reason to defend Musk’s stance, especially when prominent atheists want humans to understand their consciousness as a subjective illusion and its development as a random occurrence. Once we dive into the details, however, there’s reason for skepticism. 

The goal of his companies — from SpaceX to Neuralink — is to “expand the scope and scale of consciousness” and to help humans “become more enlightened” so they can better “understand what questions to ask.” This will require both mental and spatial expansion, hence the dual concern with biotechnology and space exploration. Abstract philosophical and theological speculation cannot answer fundamental questions. We need applied science to make philosophical progress.

Consciousness, though worth preserving for its own sake, is not self-sufficient. Without technological aid, consciousness will both fail to ask the right questions and to provide for its own preservation. 

By Any Means Necessary 

If we need to expand consciousness to answer fundamental questions about our nature, then we might take extreme steps to do so. Musk acknowledges as much. 

“It appears that consciousness is a very rare and precious thing, and we should take whatever steps we can to preserve the light of consciousness,” Musk said in a 2019 speech at SpaceX’s Boca Chica Launch Facility. 

The “whatever-steps-we-can” framework might sound innocent, perhaps even like a courageous defense of the species. But the principle — the preservation of consciousness by any means necessary — unavoidably places man’s actions beyond moral limitation.  

In Perelandra, the second book of his Space Trilogy, C.S. Lewis described the motivation behind humanity’s quest for interplanetary colonization.  

“It is the idea that humanity, having now sufficiently corrupted the planet where it arose, must at all costs contrive to seed itself over a larger area: that the vast astronomical distances which are God’s quarantine regulations, must somehow be overcome. This for a start.” 

He warned that if man ever had “the power … put into its hands” to reach distant planets, then it would “open a new chapter of misery for the universe.” 

Ecosystem Disruption 

When humans arrive on distant planets, they would disrupt the native ecosystems. Think of the destruction that European explorers brought with them beginning in the late 15th century. The island of Mauritius, as a famous example, lost its endemic dodos and giant tortoises in a few generations. 

Even if there isn’t life on Mars or distant planets, we might wonder whether humans have the right to change other planets. Andrew Coates, a physics professor at University College London’s Mullard Space Science Laboratory, called it “cosmic vandalism … to change the environment of Mars from what it is at the moment.”  

Maybe we can tolerate some losses of native extraterrestrial species for the preservation of the human species. And maybe humans will perpetually land on worlds with nothing but raw materials. But we need to determine whether God gave us our native terrestrial ball to govern, as Lewis contended, or whether he gave us a universe to govern.  

Our vision of human nature helps us determine how far the human empire should extend. If we, with Lewis, view man as a fallen species that brings sin and destruction, then we probably don’t want his domain to increase. If we, with Musk, view man as essentially good — as a civilizing and enlightening force in the universe — then we should increase his domain in space and time as much as possible. 

Human Extinction and the False Infinite 

Lewis saw a problem in the hope that scientists placed on interplanetary colonization. It merely delays the inevitable. In an essay, “On Living in an Atomic Age,” Lewis argued that “the whole story is going to end in NOTHING.”  

“The astronomers hold out no hope that this planet is going to be permanently inhabitable,” he wrote. “The physicists hold out no hope that organic life is going to be a permanent possibility in any part of the material universe. Not only this earth, but the whole show, all the suns of space, are to run down. Nature is a sinking ship.” 

In Perelandra, he again described the absurdity of trying to resist mankind’s unavoidable extinction: 

But beyond this lies the sweet poison of the false infinite — the wild dream that planet after planet, system after system, in the end galaxy after galaxy, can be forced to sustain, everywhere and for ever, the sort of life which is contained in the loins of our own species — a dream begotten by the hatred of death upon the fear of true immortality, fondled in secret by thousands of ignorant men and hundreds who are not ignorant.

While we seek out ever-habitable planets over billions of years, innumerable cruelties might become necessary to sustain humanity’s preservation for a few more precious years. Lewis warned that interplanetary colonization would increase the possibility of inter-species warfare. He seemed to consider extraterrestrial life a likelihood. 

“The destruction or enslavement of other species in the universe, if such there are, is to these minds a welcome corollary,” Lewis said of those supporting space colonization. 

Now, I don’t think that Musk has Martian chattel slavery or extraterrestrial genocide in mind. But he will not captain the Starship forever. The terraforming of Mars would take hundreds of years. Other generations, with different aspirations, will lead civilization toward more and more distant planets.  

Musk’s Multiplanetary Vision 

These considerations run into the truth that Musk appears to act with regard to justice and the common good. And it clashes with the right’s practical need to defend the man at all costs. In the past week, he has trashed Media Matterstotalitarian security measures, and the Anti-Defamation League, easily placing him among the world’s top defenders of free speech. He has gone “thermonuclear” against the regime.  

There’s undeniable greatness in a man who can find a way to sustain life on another planet. His vision makes the heart swell with pride in the human race.

“You want to wake up in the morning and think the future is going to be great. And that’s what being a spacefaring civilization is all about,” Musk said. “It’s about believing in the future and thinking that the future will be better than the past. And I can’t think of anything more exciting than going out there and being among the stars.”

Once we open the path to the stars, however, we set humans on a quest for eternity that this life can never fulfill. The only hope of eternally maintaining the light of human consciousness is in the Holy Spirit. Musk’s dream for mankind might turn into a nightmare that stretches across galaxies and millennia.



The Biden Regime’s Electric Vehicle Subsidies Are Becoming Another Solyndra

Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm made $1.6M from an electric car company the Biden regime boosted that just went bankrupt.



Proterra, an electric bus and battery company that President Joe Biden touted as a success of his green energy initiative, filed for bankruptcy in August. Last week, it finally sold its embattled battery business at a rock-bottom price as part of the bankruptcy proceeding. The rise and fall of Proterra demonstrates once again that politicians should refrain from betting taxpayers’ money on business ventures to advance their political agenda.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Proterra has sold only 550 electric transit buses since its founding in 2004. Most of the sales were underwritten by government agencies with federal grants. Proterra’s electric buses were plagued with mechanical defects and other performance issues, such as limited range and long charging times. Besides government subsidies, the company only survived as long as it had due to powerful political connections. Former Michigan governor Jennifer Granholm, Biden’s energy secretary, served on its board.

Despite all the quality issues of its EV buses, Proterra went public in January 2021 and raised $650 million, more than three times its annual revenue. A month after the company’s IPO, Biden tapped Granholm as his energy secretary. Proterra’s political connection to the Biden administration paid off in many ways.

Surviving on Grants and Tax Credits

In April 2021, Biden took a virtual tour of a Proterra facility to promote his infrastructure plan. The proposal included $6.5 billion in grants to help replace diesel-powered school and transit buses with electric ones. During the tour, Biden lauded Proterra for “getting us in the game.” He predicted that Proterra and other electric vehicle companies would “end up owning the future.”

Biden’s 2022 Inflation Reduction Act further enriched Proterra’s coffer. The law had little to do with reducing inflation, but it gave massive government handouts to the green energy sector. For instance, IRA includes a $40,000 per vehicle tax credit for purchasing electric commercial vehicles and an additional tax credit for EV batteries.

Proterra admitted in its quarterly report that “the availability of this new unprecedented level of government funding for our customers, suppliers, and competitors to help fund purchases of commercial electric vehicles and battery systems will remain an important factor in our company’s growth prospects.” Proterra’s political profile rose even more after Biden appointed Gareth Joyce, CEO of Proterra, to serve on the President’s Export Council in February this year.

Backed by Biden, Buried by Biden

Excessive government spending under Biden has sparked high inflation rates that were last seen in the 1970s. To bring inflation rates down, the Federal Reserve has aggressively raised interest rates. Higher rates increased production and operations costs for many companies. As legendary investor Warren Buffett famously said, “Only when the tide goes out do you learn who has been swimming naked.” Proterra was one of those companies that had been caught “swimming naked” in this new environment.

The company struggled because it had difficulty passing rising costs on to its existing customers, since most were government agencies with little budget flexibility. Nor could Proterra outsource its production overseas or import components at lower costs. Receiving government grants comes with strings attached. One requirement is that companies like Proterra must produce at least 70 percent of their EV components in America. Proterra couldn’t afford to cut the prices of its EVs to drum up sales.

Finally, Proterra filed for bankruptcy in August. Government subsidies could not offset the financial pressure of rising inflation, higher interest rates, and falling sales. Last week, a Swedish automobile manufacturer, Volvo, bought Proterra’s battery business for $210 million, a great deal considering Proterra was valued at $1.6 billion a year ago.

Another party who got an excellent deal was Granholm. She sold her Proterra shares for $1.6 million last year. They would have been worth nothing if she had held on to her Proterra shares until this August. The biggest loser of the whole Proterra saga is American taxpayers.

No Good News for Electric Vehicles

Proterra was not the only EV company that went under. Michigan-based Electric Last Mile declared bankruptcy in June 2022. Ohio-based Lordstown Motors went bankrupt a year later. Ironically, these companies benefited from the Biden administration’s climate handouts, but the economic consequences of the same policies eventually doomed them. Even large automobile companies’ EV units are struggling. Ford estimates it will lose $3 billion this year on its EV business. The company relies on sales of gas-powered vehicles and government subsidies to keep the EV business afloat. 

More bad news about EVs is coming. The Wall Street Journal reported that Americans seem to have fallen out of love with EVs because they are more expensive than gas-powered ones. After all, the EVs cost more to make.

Additionally, the travel range of EVs is limited because few charging stations exist around the country. When Granholm took a road trip with EVs to highlight the Biden administration’s climate initiatives this summer, a Georgia family reportedly called the police on her staff for using a gas-powered vehicle to block access to a charging station.

Companies from GM to Tesla are considering putting additional EV investments on hold due to weak consumer demand. The WSJ Editorial Board remarked, “One lesson from Proterra’s failure is that government subsidies alone don’t create business success.”

A History of Government-Backed Failure

Biden should have known better. He was the vice president under former President Barack Obama when Solyndra, the solar panel manufacturer that Obama claimed would be a “sure winner in the solar industry,” filed for bankruptcy less than two years after the Department of Energy provided Solyndra with a loan guarantee for $535 million.

Although politicians have a poor record of picking business winners, don’t expect them to learn lessons from their spectacular financial failures. Ryan Yonk, a Research Fellow at the Independent Institute, observed that “support for renewable energy has reached the status of a moral imperative, and more importantly, a political imperative that elected officials must engage.”

That means American taxpayers will see more Solyndra and Proterra in the future and continue footing the bill for “green-washing” Democrats’ failed climate policies. The only way to stop this madness is to vote these politicians out of office. If any of these politicians made money from taxpayer-funded bets, they should surrender their profits to make taxpayers whole. 



Will 'MeToo' and 'BelieveAllWomen' Apply to Israeli Women Taken Hostage by Hamas?


Becky Noble reporting for RedState 

The world has watched in horror as the Israeli-Hamas war has unfolded. The unbelievable pictures of Israelis running from Hamas terrorists. and bodies in the streets, during the October 7 attack are beyond disturbing. But as horrific as those scenes are, there are even more nightmarish atrocities happening to Israeli women and girls. The rapes and brutal physical attacks women and girls are enduring will leave scars on the inside long after the physical scars go away. As groups of hostages held by Hamas are being released during a four-day pause in the fighting, and the stories of those Israeli women and girls are told, will they be afforded the same demands by the left of "#MeToo" and "#BelieveAllWomen"?


It is an interesting question to ponder. Saturday, November 25 has been dubbed "International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women." The United Nations (UN) is promoting this day with an awareness campaign that includes the stories of survivors and first responders from that horrific day. It reveals that the weapon used most by Hamas on women is rape. One woman who attended the music festival where many Israelis were killed described the unimaginable scene she witnessed of an Israeli girl being raped by a Hamas terrorist. 

This is where you might think that all the feminists spearheading the #MeToo and #BelieveAllWomen movements would be shouting from the rooftops that these women--and the atrocities committed against them--should absolutely be believed, and the women should be defended. Think again. Around the world, the reaction of many feminist and women's organizations is crickets, dead silence. And not only is there no outcry from these women's groups, but the veracity of the stories of the Israeli women is being questioned. 

Wait, what? All through now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation hearings in 2018, woman after woman was paraded in front of the cameras during the hearings, and told stories of how Kavanaugh, as a drunken teenager at parties, sexually assaulted girls at parties. "Believe all women" was the chant of all Democrat Senators, in the hearing and beyond. But that noble standard apparently applies only to certain women. If you are an Israeli woman in a war zone, things like #MeToo and #BelieveAllWomen don't apply to you.


Fast forward to 2023, and the hundreds of stories of rape and assault that will no doubt surface upon the release of Israeli hostages by Hamas. Is the #MeToo and #BelieveAllWomen brigade coming to the rescue of Israeli women? Hardly. While several UN-affiliated groups have made somewhat weak gestures to condemn the violence done against women by Hamas, they were quick to speak out about atrocities done to women in other parts of the world like Iraq, Nigeria, and Myanmar. The #MeToo Movement itself made a statement on November 15 that completely ignored Israeli women saying,

What we have been witnessing in Gaza is a humanitarian crisis. Thousands of people have been killed, injured, displaced, or deprived of basic human necessities like water, food, and medical care. As a global movement rooted in Black feminism, and driven by principles of anti-violence and anti-patriarchy, me too. International recognizes that sexual violence often functions as a weapon of war and imperialism. Sexual violence has been used in many periods of war, as a tactic to intimidate and punish innocent civilians, and as a tool of genocide and ethnic cleansing, aimed at destroying communities. Conflict-related sexual violence is acknowledged as a war crime under international law but accountability and justice for survivors under the law remains difficult to enforce.

The group managed a follow-up statement, which said it stood by Israeli women, that seemed little more than a "by the way." Several other international organizations whose mission is to fight sexual violence against women and girls either have not made any statements, spoke of Israel as the aggressor, or simply failed to address the atrocities being committed by Hamas. 

One very prominent woman is calling out the silence of the world regarding the rape of Israeli women. Michal Herzog is the First Lady and wife of Israeli President Isaac Herzog. In a Newsweek op-ed, she called out not only the fact that statements made by UN groups have been weak, but that they really have not been statements at all. Herzog goes on to say that the "inconceivable and unforgivable" silence from international human rights groups has been "devastating" to Israeli women, and that silence has been a "betrayal" to all women. 

Is the ongoing rape of Israeli women and girls just part of the "acceptable" amount of antisemitism we are seeing worldwide? Perhaps the UN should answer that question.


‘Moderates’ Like Andy Beshear Use ‘Emotional Blackmail’ To Cloak Trans Extremism In Counterfeit Compassion



Kentucky Democrat Gov. Andy Beshear used “emotional blackmail” to cloak his extremist position about kids with gender dysphoria in “moderate” language this week during an interview on MSNBC.

On Sunday, the governor went on “Inside with Jen Psaki” to discuss his recent election to a second term in the historically red state, which voted for President Donald Trump by 26 points three years ago.

“One of the issues that came up was of course trans rights. You did not hesitate to veto a sweeping anti-trans bill passed by the Kentucky state legislature,” Psaki said. “Your opponents still kind of came after you. … It didn’t work. What does that tell you about the effectiveness of this kind of an attack?”

Psaki was referencing the governor’s March veto of a bill designed to protect children from transgender medical interventions, which carry painful lifelong consequences. The legislation vetoed by Beshear — which the legislature ultimately passed anyway, overriding the governor by an overwhelming majority — bars transgender surgeries and wrong-sex hormones for children under 18.

On MSNBC, Beshear went on to engage in what Amber Duke, the Washington editor at the American Spectator, described as “emotional blackmail based on bad science.”

“All children are children of God,” Beshear said, twisting the compassionate-sounding words before spreading routine falsehoods linking child protection laws to increases in suicide. “These are individuals that are already at the margins. The studies show [they] suffer more mental health issues, are more at risk for suicide.”

“We ought to be in the suicide prevention business and not further harming kids who are going through too much,” he added, accusing those who would protect children from harm of causing harm themselves.

Beshear’s comments exploit the real emotional turmoil of parents who are bullied into quietly feeding their children’s mental distress by dishonest fearmongering about suicides. Activists and politicians like Beshear rely on debunked narratives to pressure parents and voters into supporting damaging, premature interventions that leave children with permanent complications. Contrary to the lies that refusing to “affirm” a minor’s gender dysphoria amplifies his or her risk of suicide, data show it’s actually such “affirmation” that does exactly what activists warn.

report from the Heritage Foundation last year found that “easing access to cross-sex treatments without parental consent significantly increases suicide rates.”

“There is a 14% increase in suicide rates among young people by 2020 in states that have a provision allowing minors to access care without parental consent relative to states that do not,” wrote Heritage Senior Research Fellow Jay Greene. “Easier access to puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones by minors actually exacerbated suicide rates.”

Another major long-term study out of Sweden showed that people who underwent transgender surgeries were 19 times more likely to die by suicide than the general population.

But those realities don’t matter to Beshear, who is recycling a debunked talking point to frame his Republican opponents as radicals for protecting children from damaging and permanent procedures.