A Christian woman in Oregon has filed a lawsuit against the state for denying her application to adopt a child due to her religious beliefs regarding g****r and sex, according to a report from National Review.

Jessica Bates, a mother of five, claims that her application was rejected because she refuses to use pronouns that contradict biological sex and would not bring a child to medical appointments for cross-sex hormone treatments.

The Oregon Department of Human Resources allegedly put Bates in a position to either abandon her religious convictions or forgo the possibility of ever adopting a child.

The lawsuit states that the department denied Bates’s application not because of a lack of financial resources or any history of abuse or neglect but because she acknowledged that her Christian faith informs her that g****r and sex aren’t a choice.

State officials have implemented a last-minute religious litmus test for adoption, preventing Bates from adopting.

Meanwhile, there are over 8,000 children living in Oregon foster care, with 200 waiting for adoption, The Federalist notes.

G****r dysphoria medicine, an industry estimated to be worth $5 billion by 2030, has become an area in which child patients guide their medical care, rather than licensed clinicians.

Concerns have been raised over the lifelong consequences of extreme treatments and how medical institutions manipulate the healthcare system to circumvent parents’ wishes.

One Swedish study found that people who were given “g****r-affirming treatment” were 19 times more likely to die by suicide than the general population, The Federalist points out.

Despite this risk and other permanent mental and physical impacts of child t***sition treatments, Oregon legislators are proposing a new law to cut parents out of the process entirely.

This comes as 11 states have banned or restricted such treatments for minors with permanent implications, with lawmakers in at least 19 more considering similar legislation.

A CNN poll, conducted March 8-12 among 1,045 Republicans and Republican-leaning Independents, found 63% of respondents believe Biden did not legitimately win the 2020 e******n, while 37% believe he did.
Of that 63%, only 52% say they think there’s “solid evidence” the e******n was s****n, while 48% say they’re going based on “suspicion only.”
That marks a significant decrease in the share of Republicans believing there’s evidence of fraud: 61% thought there was evidence of fraud in October 2022, the last time the question was asked, which was already down from a high of 75% who said there was proof the e******n was s****n in January 2021.

1954: Khrushchev T***sfers Crimea to Ukraine - The Soviet government under Nikita Krushchev t***sfers Crimea from Russia to Ukraine in a gesture of “eternal friendship,” a move that receives little attention at the time since both Russian and Ukraine remained within the borders of the Soviet Union (USSR).

1986: Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster - A safety test goes awry at the Chernobyl nuclear power station in Ukraine, leading to a deadly reactor meltdown that the Soviet authorities initially try to cover up. The disaster, considered history’s worst nuclear accident, is often blamed for hastening the Soviet Union’s demise.

1991: Ukraine Declares Independence - With the Soviet Union in its death throes, Ukraine’s parliament declares independence, a decision that’s overwhelmingly approved by Ukrainian v**ers in a national referendum. Ukraine is now fully independent for the first time.

1994: Ukraine Gives Up Nuclear Weapons - Negotiations between the United States, Russia and Ukraine result in a deal under which Ukraine gives up its inherited nuclear weapons in exchange for, among other things, a Russian vow to respect “existing borders.” Thereafter, Ukraine becomes a major recipient of U.S. foreign aid.

The Crimean peninsula has loomed large for Russian leaders ever since Russian Tsarina Catherine the Great annexed it from the Ottoman Empire in 1783. The strategically located peninsula has given Russia military leverage not only in the Black Sea, but the greater Mediterranean region.

When Russia signed the Treaty of Paris in 1856, accepting defeat in the Crimean War—which had decimated its military and ruined its economy—it agreed to dismantle its naval base in the port city of Sevastopol. These were the terms demanded by Britain, France and their allies, who sought to eliminate Russia as a military presence in the Black Sea.

Russia began to rebuild Sevastopol during the Franco-Prussian War, in 1870. And throughout history, Russian leaders would return to Crimea again and again. After Germany’s bombing of Crimea during World War II, much of Sevastopol was in ruins. Joseph Stalin declared the port a “hero city” and ordered it restored to its former neoclassical beauty.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, a 1997 treaty with Ukraine allowed Russia to keep its Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol, under a lease that has since been extended until 2042.

I have no idea how numerically extensive your contemporary conversations with Russian speaking occupants of the Donbas region of Ukraine may be, or how candid they may be with a US (presumably by telephone) inquirer, or even how you acquired a copy of their current Telephone book.

My own inquiries are primarily limited to online records.

In April, 2022, the Washington Post conducted a survey of the people in Ukraine’s contested eastern region - to see if they wanted to be liberated from Ukraine by Russia.

(Analysis by John O’Loughlin, Gerard Toal and Gwendolyn Sasse)

In part of what’s called “the Donbas,” Ukraine’s two easternmost regions of Luhansk and Donetsk, which border Russia, Ukraine has been fighting against these proxy states ever since 2014."

"Russian President Vladimir Putin declared in February, 2022, that Russia would recognize these entities — the Donetsk Peoples Republic (DNR) and the Luhansk Peoples Republic (LNR) — as independent states, including supporting their claim to all the territory of the Donbas."

"The Washington Post conducted a large, computer-assisted telephone public opinion survey of people living in the two regions on both sides of the military line of contact. To enable cross-checking of the survey data, they used three companies: the U.K.-based agency R-Research and the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology calling from Ukraine, and Levada Marketing Research calling from Russia."

"In total, 4,025 people were interviewed, with equal numbers on both sides of the line of contact dividing the Donbas. Data are weighted proportional to current population estimations separately in the Kyiv-controlled and separatist areas."

"The opinions of those forcibly displaced are thus absent. Estimates are that up to 3 million of the 6.5 million people who originally lived in the Donbas region in early 2014 had left by early 2022, with many more fleeing since February."

"Because of the fiercely contested nature of the Russian proxy “republics” in Ukraine, when asking people what status they preferred for the region, it proved impossible to use the same wording on both sides of the Donbas divide."

"In the areas controlled by the Ukrainian government, respondents were asked: “In your opinion, what should be the status of the regions of the Donbas temporarily uncontrolled by the Kyiv government?"

"In the separatist-held areas, the question ended, “…of the Donetsk Peoples Republic (DNR)/Luhansk Peoples Republic (LNR).”

What do the people of Donbas want?

"In the Ukrainian government-controlled areas, almost 3 in 4 respondents (72 percent) wanted the breakaway territories back within Ukraine. These residents were twice as likely to say the Donbas should not have any special status as to say it should have special autonomous status within Ukraine."

"In the separatist-held areas, forty-nine percent said they wanted to be part of the Russian Federation, with a roughly equal (49%) saying they wanted to be a special autonomous region or just an ordinary part of Russia."

"But the figure in which we averaged data from all the survey firms summary data hides some big differences."

"While the Ukrainian and Russian pollsters found similar opinions in areas controlled by the Ukrainian government, in the breakaway area, pollsters calling from Russia found higher support (70 percent) for joining Donbas with Russia than did the pollsters calling from Ukraine (16 percent)."

Note: "(Some respondents may have decided whether to answer the call or participate in the survey according to whether it originated in Kyiv or Moscow, or may have replied with answers that they thought the interviewers wanted to hear.)"

"For this sensitive question with a high degree of uncertainty about Kyiv’s and Moscow’s actions, the "don’t know" ratio is high at 18 percent."

Well I guess it really doesn't matter who owned who then.

All that matters is that the U.S. should stay out of this localized issue since neither one of them has historical ties to US. Let the all-knowing Europeans sort it out for once since they think they are such advanced civilizations.

And it's certainly not worth the risks and costs incurred with getting involved in what appears to be a never-ending battle. One that could easily escalate into a WWIII scenario.

We have our own fish to fry here that are FAR more meaningful to OUR residents. Not ones 5,000 miles away.

My understanding is that Ukraine has a long history of corruption (as does Russia) so any funds sent there are likely to be misappropriated (i.e. STOLEN) anyway.

But maybe that's the point of the whole affair??

What is a likely scenario that has that happening in real life?
This unlimited "blank check" philosophy is not only stupid but it's very dangerous.
And worse yet, NO END GAME IN SIGHT.

And BTW, how does it become the responsibility of the United States to "defend" Ukraine, a non-NATO country led by a fanatic that CAUSED this by threatening to join NATO?

This is another never ending war that we, as usual, somehow get to finance.
$110 BILLION DOLLARS IS MORE THAN ENOUGH.

WE have problems in THIS country that need far more attention.

Forget it. Walk away and let it happen.
They were part of Russia before now they get to be part of Russia again.
If they don't like it - too bad.
Not our problem.
Period.

"The default presumption by Washington and much of the West seems to be that Russia must be completely defeated. It's difficult to see this happening in the real world. Everyone seems to agree that Putin is a mad man and an autocrat. Is there really any scenario where Putin leaves Ukraine completely and just admits defeat? Would Putin even be able to remain in power if he did? Driving Putin out of power seems like a positive development, but it's foolish to presume he would do that voluntarily. And even if he did, would the chaos left in his wake in a country with the world's biggest nuclear stockpile -- be even worse from an American perspective? These are basic questions, but they couldn't be more important, and we don't hear them discussed much."

By Neil Patel

https://townhall.com/columnists/neilpatel/2023/02/24/how-to-end-the-ukraine-war-n2619908?utm_source=thdailyvip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&bcid=acf59efac006ea179c42e66ba650c9b0a8e5dd82709f17c3ff7fc9c8307261e9&recip=27630409

The war in Ukraine has been tragic for Ukrainians. It's in America's interest to dissuade other countries from rolling through their neighbors' borders. Stability matters in the world.

Other things matter, too.

From an American policy perspective, the long-term security of the American people should always matter most. That's obvious, but it doesn't seem to be the driving force today. America's long-term security includes, more than anything, not putting young American lives at risk in a war with Russia. Given this paramount concern, it seems odd that important and obvious questions are not being asked and answered. Specifically, how will the war come to an end in a way that doesn't put those young American lives in danger? As the father of an 18-year-old, I'm keenly interested. So are many others.

The war has been going on for more than a year. The Ukrainians have hung on longer and fought more bravely than many experts would have predicted. Russia has taken some huge losses. America, a country with increasingly worrisome national finances, has thrown in massive support for the cause. What is the end game? For anyone interested most in long-term peace and security and in making sure the situation doesn't lead to World War III, figuring out a plausible and acceptable end to the shooting seems pretty important. Yet this topic has somehow been off-limits in the national discussion. Just asking it will get you accused of supporting Putin. You don't have to be a Putin sympathizer to want to protect American kids from fighting Russia or to care about the ultimate nightmare of driving Russia and China closer together. Yet that's just what the strategy to date seems to be doing.

The Western world has largely galvanized against President Vladimir Putin's assault on a neighboring state's sovereign border. The response has been dramatic. Sleepy European NATO countries stepped up their military budgets. They are also providing weapons and aid for Ukraine. The U.S. has, of course, provided massive levels of support. Remember when the experts said Donald Trump's border wall was not a real option because America couldn't afford it? The total cost was estimated at $20 to $25 billion. The U.S. has already sent $100 billion to Ukraine, and the meter is still ticking. Beyond the fiscal impact, the weapons systems sent to Ukraine are growing more and more deadly. All this has helped the Ukrainians hold the line and inflict reportedly huge losses on Russian forces. Yet, as the impact of more and more deadly American weapons systems grows, and as each day passes without a resolution, the danger of the U.S. being drawn into the conflict increases. That's just a f!
act.

Increased NATO defense spending is a good thing. The U.S. has subsidized the rest of NATO for too long and cannot afford to do so forever. Other results have not been positive. Russia has already announced its withdrawal from its nuclear reduction treaty with the U.S. Perhaps even more worrisome, the American and European response to Russia's Ukraine incursion has driven Russia and China closer together. Due to Western sanctions, Russian trade with China is skyrocketing. Russia and China have agreed to increase military cooperation. It's difficult to come up with a worse outcome from an American perspective.

The really big question is where does this all end?

The default presumption by Washington and much of the West seems to be that Russia must be completely defeated. It's difficult to see this happening in the real world. Everyone seems to agree that Putin is a mad man and an autocrat. Is there really any scenario where Putin leaves Ukraine completely and just admits defeat? Would Putin even be able to remain in power if he did? Driving Putin out of power seems like a positive development, but it's foolish to presume he would do that voluntarily. And even if he did, would the chaos left in his wake in a country with the world's biggest nuclear stockpile -- be even worse from an American perspective? These are basic questions, but they couldn't be more important, and we don't hear them discussed much.

If Putin is as autocratic and unstable as we are told, would he resort to attacking a NATO ally or using nuclear weapons if facing ultimate defeat? Can anyone be certain this option is off the table for him? That's a big bet, but it sure seems like the bet America is making. If a desperate Putin did use nuclear weapons, America has already said it would result in "catastrophic consequences." This is a nightmare scenario that must be avoided at all costs.

All risks considered, a negotiated settlement appears to be the best way out of this war. A recent report by the Rand Corporation, the world's preeminent defense policy think tank, came to just this conclusion. The Rand authors concluded that the U.S. cannot support the war in Ukraine long-term and simultaneously press forward other priorities like protecting Taiwan from China. Yet, to date, the U.S. policy has not pushed for a settlement of any sort. To the contrary, President Joe Biden has emphasized that support will continue for as long as necessary and that decisions on negotiations are for Ukraine alone.

In the plainest terms, the current policy is essentially "here's a blank check" available forever. This honestly does not seem like an adult strategy. It's fanciful. Given America's financial state, its other priorities, the risk of the war expanding to draw in NATO, the fact that the current strategy is drawing China and Russia closer together, and the risk of a desperate Putin using nuclear weapons, it's past time for a more realistic strategy. That strategy has to include a push to end the war without American blood being shed. You don't need to be a Putin sympathizer to have this view. You just need to be someone looking out for America's interests and protecting the lives of Americans above all else. It's time for the U.S. to press for peace.

According to a BBC "negative in tone" toward Russia - "Reality Check" published last year, they actually admitted thousands of civilians, Ukraine army troops and other "armed" groups had been k**led between 2014 and 2022 BEFORE RUSSIA EVER ENTERED UKRAINE, making it obvious to any rational mind that the Donbas region civilians had been subjected to non-stop war by Ukrainian authorities.

I copied only a couple of paragraphs:

https://www.bbc.com/news/60477712

"Ukraine crisis: Vladimir Putin address fact-checked," Published on 22 February 2022,

"The UN says states "have sometimes characterised certain incidents or periods of violence as genocide" but these "characterisations cannot be treated as authoritative or determinative."

"There is a continuing conflict in eastern Ukraine, however.

"The UN estimates 14,200-14,400 people were k**led in eastern Ukraine between 14 April 2014, when the conflict started, and 21 February 2022 [before Russia entered the country on Feb. 24, 2022], including:

at least 3,407 civilians
4,400 Ukrainian forces personnel
6,500 members of armed groups

"Up to 39,000 people have been injured, an estimated 7,000-9,000 of them civilians."