The case can be made that LGBT+ behaviors are objectively immoral, since like with all generally accepted immoral behaviors (e.g. murder, stealing, lying) they lead to bad life outcomes, and their overall effects on society are negative. E.g. LGBT lifestyles lead to significantly increased risk of physical disease, as well significantly increased risk of psychological disease, and also relatively poor outcomes for children. (Regarding poor outcomes for children, LGBT lifestyles lead to relatively high incarceration rates, and increased levels of mental illness among children of such unions). The most stark effects LGBT+ lifestyles have on society however, can be seen if they were allowed to displace heterosexual relationships and patriarchal families. The above would lead to the abrupt end of our civilization, since among other things, social cohesion would be erased, and procreation would plummet.

In addition to above, parents fighting LGBT+ indoctrination in schools, can make a note that LGBT+ philosophy is tied to a belief system, that suggests that these behaviors are morally acceptable. Parents can object to LGBT+ indoctrination in schools, based on the fact they force on children, a belief system children and parents find unacceptable – similar to gender identity and transgenderism. Also, if LGBT+ behaviors are taught in school to children of Christian or Christian leaning parents, they must be depicted as immoral, otherwise teaching these behaviors would implicitly convey to the children that they are not immoral – consistent with a belief system that is in conflict with that of the parents' and children's. (Note: all of the above instances of LGBT+ indoctrination, violate parents' and children's 1^st Amendment rights.)

Patmore Douglas 4/24/2025 4:36:00 PM

In 03:43 of this video, Richard Dawkins contends that Evolutionary Biology explains how you can go from simple things giving rise to complex things. The problem with his contention, is that it is flat out wrong. In everything that we can observe, things only go in the opposite direction. For example, man, the most creative observable producer of things, only give rise to things about equal, or less than himself. For example, houses built by man, are less complex than man; DNA manipulation, and the products they result in, are less complex than man, etc. Birds build nests that are less complex than birds; and so forth. Further, the contention of Evolutionary Biology that things were created via an astronomically improbable series of events, rather than by intelligent agents, is completely idiotic. It is like a prosecutor saying that the plaintiff of a case is the most likely perpetrator of the crime at hand, because of evidence that shows motive, means, and opportunity; and the defense countering that a whirlwind could have come out of nowhere, and initiated a series of highly improbable events, which lead to the homicide of the victim.

Quite simply, the explanation that our world came into being because of a creator, is far, far more probable and hence plausible, than it did by a series of astronically improbable events. (Also, the fact that our world's construction is consistent with that of a creator building it, increases the likelihood that our world came into being because of a creator.)

Current knowledge now asserts that the language of DNA which underwrites all biological life, is likely from a creator, because language is only known to come from a mind. Also the fact that cells are complex, where the systems in them are much more likely to have been created as a whole, rather than come into being piecemeal by chance, further undercuts Evolutionary biology.

Christianity contends that there was a First Cause that always was, that is beyond all things including righteousness, wisdom, beauty, time, etc. It is from this First Cause that the Father came into being, who ultimately created all things through His Son. This cannot be logically refuted by atheists like Dawkins.

Patmore Douglas 7/9/2024 2:45:00 PM

Many say Trump and MAGA supporters were wrong to say that the 2020 elections were stolen. Why? Because many (corrupt) Democrat, sympathetic organizations and individuals, as well as many (corrupt) establishment Republicans, claimed that the elections were on the up and up. Broad consensus over a matter, however, is the lazy person's way of verifying something is true. That is why the Left rely heavily on projecting false narratives that are supported by a broad spectrum of society, to fool people into believing their falsehoods.

(Remember during COVID, a large spectrum of society was saying the COVID-19 vaccines were safe and effective. A large number of people now know that was a lie. Remember also, a large spectrum of officers from US intelligence agencies, attested during the 2020 election campaign, that the Hunter Biden laptop story was Russian disinformation. We also know that that was a lie.  Therefore:

consensus opinion <> the truth [often times]).

If you want to know the truth about something, you have no choice but to dig and ask questions. Also, statistical analysis is one of the fastest ways to determine if something is true. Therefore, when you see ballot counting stopping in synch across several crucial swing states in the middle of an election night, and then similar vote dumps that appear to exclusively favor Biden by 80% or more occur (across those states, again in synch) it defies the odds that these events are coincidences. These events can only reasonably be considered deliberate, and hence point all but conclusively, to election fraud. In other words, when you see a series of significantly improbable events occurring about the same time, you have to multiply all of these low probability events together, which leads to an overall, extremely small probability, or virtual impossibility, that all these events are coincidences. You are then left to conclude, in the case of the 2020 elections, that these events are part of a deliberate scheme, to subvert the 2020 elections, in Biden’s favor.

Statistical analysis, should be a requirement of every recount / verification effort. It flushes out fraud which can be covered up by unscrupulous individuals, doing recounts.

Edited: 06/18/2024

Patmore Douglas 5/22/2024 11:33:00 AM

The Left like to redefine terms, as well as expand the application of laws, far beyond what the laws were originally intended. The courts have pushed back against this exercise several times over the years. The administrative state, in collusion with a number of highly influential large corporations, did the above, with the definition of vaccine. When the law which gave vaccine makers immunity from lawsuits was passed, the term vaccine had a particular definition, that was aligned with well established technologies and methods. (Many of these technologies and methods were over 200 years old.) The administrative state along with big pharma et al, have since introduced mRNA and other technologies, that are radically different from vaccine technologies, that were current at the time the vaccine immunity law was passed. What’s more, there is not a lot of data about these new vaccine technologies’ long term side effects. Short term data for these new technologies, in the meantime is devastating. (See the link at the end of this article.) I believe there is therefore a significant legal basis to sue vaccine companies like Pfizer and Moderna, because they technically do not enjoy immunity from medical lawsuits, for their COVID-19 mRNA vaccines.

Patmore Douglas 5/17/2024 3:26:00 PM

The Biden administration is attempting to force the broad acceptance of Transgender ideology, on the most innocent and impressionable population – children. The Biden administration to trying to do this, by adding ‘gender identity’ to the language of Title IX. Not only does this violate the original meaning and intent of the law, it forces Americans to accept an objectionable belief system, which is a clear violation of the 1^st Amendment.

Patmore Douglas 4/28/2024 1:40:00 AM

When the Left sue Oil Companies over their distribution and use of fossil fuels, remember that virtually everything has cost and benefit. This is seen most starkly in medicines. Virtually all medicines have cons or side effects. Are we to outlaw or restrict medicines where their pros far outweigh their cons - due to the fact they have cons? The same thing can be said about fossil fuels. The world’s current: population level; science and technology; wealth of knowledge; standard of living; high level of health and healthcare, are made possible by fossil fuels. Getting rid of fossil fuels would wipe out the advantages of human living above, eliminating the lives of billions, while sending us back to the dark ages. Restricting fossil fuels would also have a detrimental effect on the lives of billions of people around the globe, by significantly increasing inflation, which would result in the impoverishing of the world, and the death of many millions.

The above underscores the malevolence of those who want to eliminate fossil fuels - based on the unproven, politicized, science of Climate Change, whose models and predictions have been consistently wrong. Further, these proponents of the elimination of fossil fuels, individually produce orders of magnitude more CO2 than the average person, and only increase their CO2 output over time - in clear contradiction of their claim, that humanity only has a limited amount of time to change its behavior. In addition, these people refuse to entertain the idea of dealing with unfolding issues, by using technological innovation (which we do every day, in just about every industry).

Patmore Douglas 3/17/2024 2:31:00 AM

In the video of this article, Dr. Naomi Wolf proposes a new election system which can be adopted by all states. She essentially pushes for paper ballots, along with a set of rules for how they should be processed. The issue I have with paper ballots, is that they are inherently insecure, and are at the mercy of the scruples of those conducting an election. This means if you have unscrupulous people running an election, and opportunities exist for cheating, paper ballots will become compromised. (Examples of this include trucks dumping ballots of unknown origin at polling stations in the middle of the night, as well as thousands of mail-in ballots being gathered up by unscrupulous people, and filled out for a particular political candidate.) Generally, if you try to do a thorough audit of ballots, these people (invariably Democrats), will use lawfare and other tactics, to block you and undercut the audit. Democrats do massive amounts of cheating up front, then use every trick in the book, to prevent people from carefully examining critical parts of the ballot counting process.

What you need is a process that is inherently secure, that ensures up front, that cheating cannot take place (at least at scale). The process should also be able to accept ballots of any form in the future. Casting a current day ballot, is like using a debit card that doesn’t require a PIN. Many honest people will not abuse the debit card, but many others will. If you require ballots be cast with a state issued PIN, you will make ballots as inherently secure as debit cards. You will keep out the vast majority of fraud that takes place during elections, and you will undercut the Democrat party's tactic of front-loading elections with fraud, then preventing the counting process from being genuinely examined by auditors.

Naomi cited a number of issues with using electronic voting machines and systems. This guy cited even more. An electronic voting system can be placed on a private network, with the disparate parts of the system connected via a VPN. This makes the system inaccessible to bad actors on the Internet. Laws would require all software used to be Open Source, and all hardware used make their design and specifications available. Tallying the votes would be easy and transparent. Entering votes would be easy, and would have checks and balances – requiring designated poll observers, review and okay ballot inputs, for them to be able to be tallied.

Electronic voting systems can be secure: you just have to think them through.

Patmore Douglas 2/10/2024 2:53:00 AM

People need to convince Donald Trump that he should push for the adoption of voting systems with integrated security throughout all states - the swing states in particular. It is relatively easy to do, and will repel virtually all types of voter fraud that are thrown at them. Remember, doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results, is the definition of insanity. Conservatives cannot seriously go to another round of elections, and expect Democrats not to rely on extensive voter fraud, when they have done so successfully and extensively, in 2020 and 2022.

Trump needs to push for the use of PINs when casting ballots in voting systems. This is how banking systems ensure debit card use is secure. A similar system needs to be employed when casting ballots. Casting a ballot with a PIN issued by the state to a voter, ensures that only the voter can cast his ballot. It also ensures that ballots cannot be cast by unauthorized voters (voters without state issued PINs) – not at scale anyway.

Patmore Douglas 1/22/2024 1:04:00 PM

Lawyers suing transgenders, should ask the court, that judgements made in the case, be based on objective facts, not on transgenders' states of mind. Also, the courts should treat transgenders the same way they treat all other individuals who are delusional, or suffer from severe mental illness. The court should rule according to the reality of the situation being dealt with, and should implore transgenders get psychiatric help, to see past their delusions or mental illness. The court should not rule that society be reorganized around a person's delusions, or insanity. (Among other things, this would force people to live their lives according to a lie [a 1^st Amendment violation], vs. what is obviously true.)

If the court rules that people must accommodate a transgender's delusions, it would be going against a precedence of court rulings, where rulings are made according to the objective facts of cases, and that people’s delusions are irrelevant. Also ruling that transgenders’ delusions be accommodated, but other patients’ delusions not be (e.g. someone who thinks he is Napoleon or the President of the United States), would be a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, and would hence be discriminatory against other mentally ill individuals.

Patmore Douglas 12/17/2023 10:23:00 PM

Conservatives need to push the idea, that gender identity is a form of delusion (thinking unaligned with reality), that is sanctioned by the Left. Gender identity, is people believing they can be any gender they want to be. It is a form of mental illness or insanity, the Left would like to codify into regulations and the law. In other words, the Left are pushing to have society and the courts, accept and protect, acts of insanity displayed by individuals. Needless to say, this would set a catastrophic precedent in our country, that insanity is acceptable behavior, and that it should be held in higher regard, than rational thought, and objective truth.

Patmore Douglas 12/8/2023 12:00:00 PM