Another one of your lies! You can’t prove this because Trump did not say this! I found this when I googled your NAMES! 😉

What Is Pathological Lying?
Lying is a common behavior in humans. When someone tells a lie, there's often a clear reason they do so. Lying may be used as a tool to achieve a goal.

But pathological lying is often done without any reason and regardless of consequences. These lies are extensive and elaborate, and the urge to tell them is compulsive. Pathological liars often make up stories, even if that causes them harm. They may lose jobs and ruin relationships because of their lying.‌

It isn’t clear whether pathological liars understand that what they say isn’t true. Some people believe the things they say, even when those things are clearly false. Other pathological liars will admit that they've been lying only when their lies are proved false.‌

Christian kids, and more specifically Christian schooled kids, clearly understand how warped and nonsensical t*********r doctrine is.

This is where the t*********r movement is going:

A prominent magazine makes “the moral case for letting t***s kids change their bodies”—and makes it the cover story

“We did see this coming. With relentless energy, the revolutionaries have bulldozed through the culture, breaking down one moral barrier after another—and all in the name of sexual and moral liberation. First the revolution came for heterosexual relations. Premarital sex was normalized, and then extramarital sex followed. Adultery became an “affair,” and an entire system of sexual morality cracked. Then it broke.

Within a matter of mere decades, marriage was redefined and humanity’s most basic institution was “expanded” to include same-sex couples. Simultaneously, there were demands that homosexuals be given full recognition and liberation as well. That revolution took a bit longer to gain traction, but then it gained momentum and expanded its aims. The modern L***Q movement represents two great achievements of the liberationists. First, they took advantage of identity politics in order to push their aims in the public square and demand political action. Second, they took advantage of the ideological shift toward unbridled personal autonomy in order to argue for g****r identity over virtually everything else—including biology.

They gained so much ground, so fast, that even the revolutionaries and the L***Q activists were astounded. Their sexual identity ideology was celebrated by the culture industry and the elites, who constantly bombarded the rest of us that the empire of the rainbow f**g was unstoppable and would be universal. Their next demand—polyamory.

And then, something happened on the way to the P***e parade. The T in L***Q became the issue. There were obvious strains within the coalition, but the biggest problem for the T***s movement was that the public was moving in their direction, then stopped, then went into reverse—especially when it comes to children and teenagers.

On every other dimension of the L***Q spectrum, the advance has been constant and the ground has been gained fast. On the t*********r issue, the movement has actually lost ground. An interesting but predictable pattern emerged. A lot of Americans seem to be willing to have a 35-year-old declare t*********r identity and life goes on. Many Americans are evidently fine with adults having access to so-called “g****r affirming” medical procedures, both hormonal and surgical. Interestingly, many people seem to understand quite fully that they are playing a sort of game. When a t***s claim is made, a lot of our neighbors see it as a strange and extreme sort of identity game. Their response is not necessarily affirmation but befuddlement. You know the look.

Americans are increasingly not buying the argument that medical intervention (hormone blockers and surgery) is in any way appropriate for children and teenagers. 

But when it comes to children and teenagers, Americans are not ready to join the t***s revolution, especially when it comes to hormonal treatments, much less surgery. Polling is clear about this. Writing in New York magazine, Pulitzer Prize-winning t*********r writer Andrea Long Chu acknowledges the problem: “But a growing majority of Americans also believe g****r is determined by sex at birth, and even more (almost 70 percent) oppose puberty blockers for t***s kids.”

There it is, and it’s not just Americans. Britain is closing its identity clinic for children and teenagers at Tavistock. Other European nations are also shifting into far more conservative positions on hormonal and surgical “treatments” for young people claiming to be t***s or non-binary. Leading media sources have also raised big issues. Just weeks ago, New York Times columnist Pamela Paul wrote a major essay on young people who identified as t***s and later “det***sitioned.” More recently, Megan McArdle of the Washington Post asked, “When treating t*********r youth, how informed is informed consent?” Activists know they are losing ground. Americans, and American parents in particular, are increasingly not buying the argument that medical intervention (hormone blockers and surgery) is in any way appropriate for children and teenagers.

Just this week, Andrea Long Chu went for broke with the New York magazine piece. Chu claims to present a “moral case” for allowing kids who present as t***s to “change their bodies.” Trust me on this—Chu means it. As a matter of fact, though Chu deals with some of the ideology behind the L***Q movement and modern g****r theory, the real purpose of the cover story is to push identity constructs to the breaking point. Chu’s “moral” case is that there is no right reason to deny a child or teenager access to radical hormonal or surgical treatment. Chu writes: “We will never be able to defend the rights of t*********r kids until we understand them purely on their own terms: as full members of society who would like to change their sex.” Chu adds: “It doesn’t matter where this desire comes from.”

The claim is as categorical as it seems. There is no moral reason to deny any kid any sex “reassignment” or “g****r-affirming” medical treatment. None. Ever. Period. Just consider this argument from Chu’s essay: “That t***s kids’ access to care will in most cases be mediated by parents or legal guardians is an inescapable fact of the way our society regards children, rightly or not.” Clearly, Chu thinks “not.” Chu goes on to argue that, “For now, parents must learn to treat their kids as what they are: human beings capable of freedom.” We know what this means. So does Chu.

It would be tempting to just shrug and see this piece as a fringe argument from a t***s writer addressed to people with purple-streaked hair living in a Manhattan artists den. But it’s much more than that. It is a major salvo in a great struggle over human sexuality, g****r identity, and the future of our society. At a far more fundamental level, it’s about a battle for the hearts, minds, and bodies of our children. We had better know what we are up against.

-- Dr. Albert Mohler

March 7, 2024 by DANIEL J. STONE, an internist and geriatrician in Beverly Hills

As a geriatrician, I discuss the effects of aging with patients every day. I wish I had a chance to give my usual talk to everyone who chortles or tears their hair out about President Biden’s fitness for his job.

First, memory. I explain to patients that there are three components to consider. One is formation. Then storage. And, finally, recall. The most common issue among seniors is slow recall. This is the familiar “tip of the tongue” phenomenon, when a word seems to hide or a name won’t come to mind. You know the name, it’s in your bank of memories, it just can’t be accessed quickly. Given time, it usually arrives.

This problem, called age-associated memory impairment, often starts for people in their 30s and gradually progresses. It’s a nuisance but not disabling. If, like me, you find yourself using the term “whatchamacallit,” you probably have it. Don’t worry, you’ll be fine.

Alzheimer’s disease, the most common cause of dementia, is a different story. Those affected lose the ability to store new memories. They can still access old memories in their memory bank and may recount events that occurred decades ago. But they can’t tell you what they had for breakfast because that never entered the memory bank. (I reassure my patients with age-associated memory impairment by asking whether they remember their breakfast. They do.)

Alzheimer’s is cognitively crippling. Losing the ability to form new memories freezes one in time. Those affected can’t make new friends or address new situations without fresh memories. Additionally, the disease progressively impairs other domains, including behavior and ultimately physical sk**ls.

Fortunately, President Biden shows no signs of Alzheimer’s disease. At news conferences, he references new events and obviously creates new memories efficiently. He speaks slowly and pauses to find words like others with benign age-associated memory impairment. These issues are exacerbated by a chronic speech impediment. Biden has struggled with stuttering since childhood, and remnants of the condition have long been apparent in his speech.

Unfortunately, word hesitations coupled with the mild stutter can’t help but affect his public speaking. Biden’s political opponents and the uninformed exploit it, along with stereotypes about older people, to create a false narrative about intellectual impairment.

I take care of many high-functioning seniors like President Biden in my practice. One that I know, who is not a patient of mine, has been my family’s lawyer for five decades. Melvin Spears, at 96, recently responded to an emailed legal question with succinct and well-targeted advice, as he always has. When I spoke to him, he acknowledged some concessions to his age. He speaks more slowly, and t***sportation is a challenge because he’s stopped driving. (He considers Uber and Lyft “a hassle.”) Like Biden, Spears focuses on his work and lets others worry about his age if they choose.

Studies show that high-functioning seniors like Mel Spears and the president compensate for slower reaction time by applying superior knowledge and judgment. The presidency is not a job that requires lightning-quick reflexes. First-hand experience with the successes and failures of U.S. foreign policy over decades, for example, combined with time-tested judgment offers far more than speed in speech or decision-making.

Actuarial tables show that the 81-year-old president’s life expectancy extends nearly eight years, well beyond a second term. He gets excellent healthcare, has no major chronic illnesses, and at his recent physical at Walter Reed Military Medical Center, he was declared “healthy, active” and “fit for duty.” All that means that Biden is likely to beat the actuarial estimate. Given his overall health and the absence of current cognitive impairment, he would likely complete a second term with stable cognition.

All candidates for political office in the United States deserve to be evaluated on their accomplishments and capabilities rather than by their age. Seniors may be the last minority whose natural traits are singled out for ridicule and stereotyping. If the American people disagree with President Biden’s policies and prefer change, they should support his opponent. But in the absence of valid evidence of true cognitive impairment, their judgment should not be influenced by ageist social stereotypes. Biden and the American political process deserve better.

Daniel J. Stone is an internist and geriatrician in Beverly Hills.