Court filings show the mass shooter identifies as non-binary. But the media and other left-wing figures have already blamed conservatives
In other words, Anderson Aldrich is a self-identified queer man. We saw in earlier footage of the time last year that the SWAT team responded to the home he shared with his mother, when he threatened to blow it up, that he was a volatile lunatic. This information was widely available days ago. And yet — and yet! — the media and prominent liberal voices did not wait for more information to come out. This fit their narrative of a deranged conservative massacring gay people, no doubt urged on by Libs of Tiktok, Matt Walsh, Tucker Carlson, and other conservative figures who dare to question the accepted LGBT narrative. It’s a replay of the Jussie Smollett hoax, in which the usual suspects accepted without question the absurd story that poor, poor black Jussie was victimized by “MAGA Country” domestic terrorists.
We conservatives have grown accustomed to this garbage. We know how the Left rolls, especially the propagandists in the media who pose as journalists. But something about this case really cracks me. They flat-out accused the strongest critics of the transgender cult, and the sexualization of children through things like Drag Queen Story Hour, of being party to mass murder. This is blood libel. It would have cost Pelosi, NBC, Daily Kos, and all the rest nothing to have waited until police released a statement about the suspected motive of the killer. But they couldn’t do it. They just knew it had to be the fault of conservatives and Christians. Even the early evidence we had that the killer was a raging psychopath did not stop them. They had the Truth. They had witches to burn.
This is not a one-off thing, as you know. I mentioned Jussie Smollett, but it goes back much further. For at least two decades now, LGBT activists have claimed that if we don’t give them whatever they want, including total affirmation of whatever they think and do, that we have blood on our hands. It is the vilest kind of manipulation, but it has worked wonders. We hear every year these fake claims that there is an “epidemic” of anti-trans violence, even though looking into the particular circumstances of all the trans people killed in a given year — as I have done before, here and here — reveals that the overwhelming majority were killed for reasons that almost certainly had nothing to do with their trans status (e.g., many of them were street prostitutes, one of the most dangerous lines of work that you can undertake).
None of that matters to activists, Democratic politicians, and the news media. Truth is inconvenient to their Narrative, which tells them to construe conservatives, Christians, and even liberals who question their radical claims and goals, as demons with blood on their hands. They did it with the horrific Florida gay nightclub massacre, which was actually carried out by an Islamic radical who swore allegiance to ISIS just before the killings, and who had a history of violence, mental instability, and who was possibly a closet case. They did it with the Matthew Shepard story, which turns out to have been about anti-gay hatred, yes, but also about rampant meth abuse. According to a journalist who reported the complexities of the story for the liberal magazine Harper’s, and who talked later to NPR, “Emblematic stories need emblematic victims. So Matthew needed to be an emblematic victim. And as soon as you have to do that, you start creating a kind of myth.”
The myth that the Left demands is that religious and political conservatives are anti-gay racists who are responsible for all the suffering of racial and sexual minorities. What they are doing is manufacturing a rationale for oppression, and even violence, against religious and political conservatives, and, on racial matters, against white people. Look, there really are anti-gay haters of the Right. There really are right-wing racists. There really are violent bigots of the Right. But these people, these credentialed hysterics, blame all of us.
TORONTO – In a prestigious medical journal, doctors from Toronto’s Hospital for Sick Children have laid out policies and procedures for administering medically assisted death to children, including scenarios where the parents would not be informed until after the child dies.
The article appears just three months before the Canadian Council of Academies is due to report to Parliament on the medical consensus about extending voluntary euthanasia in circumstances currently forbidden by law. The Canadian Council of Academies is specifically looking at extending so-called assisted dying to patients under 18, psychiatric patients and patients who have expressed a preference for euthanasia before they were rendered incapable by Alzheimer’s or some other disease.
The Sept. 21 paper written by Sick Kids doctors, administrators and ethicists was published in the British Medical Journal’s J Med Ethics and backed by the University of Toronto’s Joint Centre for Bioethics.
In a flowchart that outlines how a medically induced death would occur at Sick Kids, authors Carey DeMichelis, Randi Zlotnik Shaul and Adam Rapoport do not mention conversation with family or parents about how the child dies until after the death occurs in the “reflection period.”
Patient confidentiality governs the decision about whether or not to include parents in a decision about an assisted death, the authors said. If capable minors under the age of 18 stipulate they don’t want their parents involved, doctors and nurses must respect the patients’ wishes.
“Usually, the family is intimately involved in this (end-of-life) decision-making process,” they write. “If, however, a capable patient explicitly indicates that they do not want their family members involved in their decision-making, although health care providers may encourage the patient to reconsider and involve their family, ultimately the wishes of capable patients with respect to confidentiality must be respected.”
The proposed policy for Sick Kids argues that there is no meaningful ethical distinction between a patient choosing to refuse burdensome treatment and accepting an inevitable death versus patients who choose to die by chemical injection before the disease brings on death. Legally, Ontario does not require parents to be involved in a capable minor’s decision to refuse further treatment, therefore there is no legal reason to require parent involvement in an assisted death, according to the Sick Kids policy.
Bioethicist Bridget Campion said she is neither surprised nor shocked by the article.
“The fact is medical assistance in dying is now legal. And it’s legal in many places around the world,” said the researcher, lecturer and writer with the Canadian Catholic Bioethics Institute. “Now that it is legal, many practitioners are saying, ‘How do we do this?’ I’m not surprised at all.”
Opponents of assisted suicide are concentrating their efforts on a fight for conscience protections, she said, both for individual clinicians and for religious health care institutions.
“It’s a tough thing to know what to do next under the circumstances. This is now legal,” she said. “In my opinion, if we are committed to building a culture of life, forget the legislation. That ship has sailed. There are some things that we absolutely must make sure stay in place – that there can be Catholic health care, that there can be conscientious objection. But, to me, the biggest thing is, ‘OK, how do we build a culture of life? How do we build a culture of care?’ If we can do that and make it so that people don’t want medical assistance in dying, then we will have achieved something.”
Like other Catholic bioethicists, Campion finds the assisted suicide argument based on patient rights and autonomy simplistic and overly narrow. But the Sick Kids policy seems to take no account of collective rights or values, as it concentrates on patient autonomy.
“These days, what I’m thinking about is that we tend to think of medicine as a highly private thing – between the patient and the clinician,” she said.
“We have to be thinking about communities of health as well, communities of wellness.”
Following his takeover of Twitter, “Chief Twit” Elon Musk has quickly begun to address many of the platform’s problems. Musk, who intends for Twitter to be a platform for legal free speech, has moved to crack down on terrorists and violent far-left extremists who have for many years been a fixture on Twitter and used it to organize riots.
Now Tesla, which Musk owns, has become the target of violent retaliation by far-left militants angered by the suspension of their accounts.
This week, Musk moved to ban a pro-Palestinian “resistance” group called “Jisr Collective,” which promoted and celebrated terrorist acts against Israeli civilians.
In a separate thread, Musk called for members of the public to report violations of the site’s terms of service against child sexual exploitation and far-left extremist violence.
Numerous self-identified Antifa militants including several prominent organizers have been banned for calling for violence against Chaya Raichik, who operates the popular “Libs of TikTok” account, and Daily Wire host Matt Walsh.
“Incitement to violence will result in account suspension,” said Musk in response to journalist Andy Ngo, who explained that a large number of Antifa accounts operate on the website to promote riots and provide tips to each other on how to identify targets and commit violence.