Transsexual stories not in the news

Featured

‘Hundreds’ of young trans people seeking help to return to original sex

If we jump across the Atlantic to Sky News, we can read of the many children who want to return to their original sex after transsexual treatment.

Hundreds of young transgender people are seeking help to return to their original sex, a woman who is setting up a charity has told Sky News.

CharlieEvans

Charlie Evans, 28, was born female but identified as male for nearly 10 years before detransitioning.

The number of young people seeking gender transition is at an all-time high but we hear very little, if anything, about those who may come to regret their decision.

There is currently no data to reflect the number who may be unhappy in their new gender or who may opt to detransition to their biological sex.

Charlie detransitioned and went public with her story last year – and said she was stunned by the number of people she discovered in a similar position.

“I’m in communication with 19 and 20-year-olds who have had full gender reassignment surgery who wish they hadn’t, and their dysphoria hasn’t been relieved, they don’t feel better for it,” she says.

“They don’t know what their options are now.”

(Read more at Sky News)

Although this article says “there is no data …” on how many are unhappy with their new gender, there are a number of studies that say otherwise

Consider the following data:

  • At least 12 studies indicate that slightly over 90% of children with gender dysphoria will grow out of the condition by puberty and more by adulthood
  • Most children experiencing gender dysphoria also have other psychological issues
  • A survey conducted in 2010 by the National Center for Transgender Equality and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force – neither of them members of the vast rightwing conspiracy – revealed that 41 percent of transgendered Americans have attempted suicide. This is a rate more than 25 times higher than the population at large.
  • Even secular media sources are talking more about the lies behind this industry. However, mass media news and reality shows still paint it as somewhat glamorous.
  • Surgery won’t reassign sex, because our sex is determined when we were in the womb. Sex is binary, either male or female. Identities are in our thoughts or feelings.
  • Surgery only masculinizes or feminizes someone’s outward appearance. People aren’t born in the wrong body. It is biologically impossible to change one’s sex.
  • There are at least 6500 genes which are expressed differently in men and women which will continue to function as the sex someone is born as.
  • The facts of biology won’t be changed by your feelings or even the fact that you can get a surgery which they call “reassignment.”
  • Up to 20% have regret, even after the operations, according to over 100 international medical studies. The reality of the expected results does not meet the mind’s expectations, which caused a 44-year-old woman in Belgium to request euthanasia after the surgery because she was psychologically distraught. “I was ready to celebrate my new birth. But when I looked in the mirror, I was disgusted with myself,” said Nancy Verheist (birth name) who wanted to be known as Nathan. They granted the euthanasia.
  • A study from 2016 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid indicated there were no meaningful improvements to the quality of life for those who had transitioned.
  • Suicidal thoughts don’t reduce if the person had them before. Or they become a new reality.
  • Body-identity Integrity Disorder (BIID) is when people want to cut off healthy body parts. For instance, someone who identifies as an amputee but has all his/her body parts would not be allowed surgery to remove body parts to become an amputee. Their feelings are ignored while those wanting to “change” their sex are not. Therefore, the medical doctors willing to do these reassignments ignore the facts above to make money off gender dysphoria or BIID, and therefore are probably violating the Hippocratic Oath of “Do no harm.” Remember this in case you need to sue the doctor later if you have regrets. But they’ll make you sign paperwork to prevent that because they know.
  • There is an institute in Belgrade who does gender re-re-assignment for those who regret previous surgeries and want to return to their biological sex.
  • Harvard professor Jerome Kagan, with 40 years of studying children, says parents who are particularly affirming of their children’s cross-sex identification ultimately have outcomes in health and well-being which are worst.
  • Another lie is once you change you’ll be happy. The stories of those formerly in the LGBTQ choice proves otherwise.

(Hat tip to the podcasts of Bryan Fischer, Abraham Hamilton, and Bishop E. W. Jackson)

Puberty Blockers Linked to Thousands of Deaths – Liberty Counsel

According to Liberty Counsel and the Food & Drug Administration, thousands of deaths in the United States can be linked to puberty blockers.

Drugs that are being used as a puberty blocker in gender-confused youth have been linked to tens of thousands of serious reactions and thousands of deaths, as well as other serious medical issues, according to Food & Drug Administration (FDA) data.

lupron

The FDA has now documented over 41,000 adverse reactions suffered by patients who took Leuprolide Acetate, known as Lupron, which is used as a hormone blocker. There have been 25,645 reactions considered “serious,” including 6,379 deaths.

Lupron is traditionally used for treatment of prostate cancer as it inhibits the flow of testosterone over the prostate. The drug is clinically approved for treatment of precocious puberty, a condition where children start their pubertal processes at an abnormally early age and the blocker is administered for a short time until the proper age. However, it is being prescribed off-label for use in children who have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria, despite the lack of formal FDA approval for that purpose and the absence of any peer-reviewed studies done on the drug’s long-term effects.

Lupron and synthetic hormones have been documented to contribute to physical problems such as blood clots and other cardiovascular complications, brittle bones and faulty joints, altered psyches, and permanent sterilization. Yet many of the long-term repercussions will not be felt for years.

Despite these serious issues, sales of Lupron were approximately $669 million in 2017 in the United States alone.

In an interview with The Christian Post, Dr. Michael Laidlaw, a California-based pediatric endocrinologist, stated that he knows of no other psychological condition that is treated by administering hormones out of alignment from their normal levels. When injected into a physically healthy body, the drug interrupts a normally-functioning endocrine system and causes a condition where the male testes or the female ovaries produce little or no sex hormones.

Currently doctors are giving testosterone to gender-confused girls as young as eight years old and teen girls as young as 13 are having their breasts removed via mastectomy procedures. Boys the age of 17 can have penises the developmental age of a nine-year-old’s or lose sexual sensation all together due to hormone blockers.

Dr. Laidlaw said, “Gender dysphoria is not an endocrine condition, but is a psychological one and should, therefore, be treated with proper psychological care. But it becomes an endocrine condition once you start using puberty blockers and giving cross-sex hormones to kids. There have been few physicians willing to stand up and say, ‘We need to question this, there is something wrong here. Why are we using cancer drugs on kids without cancer and stopping normal puberty?” Laidlaw said.

(Read more at Liberty Counsel)

Because of the physical harm and death being dealt on children, this seems to be a mass case of Munchhausen Syndrome by Proxy

Be certain that children between 3 and 15 are too young to make decisions that will:

  • Cut their life expectancy dramatically,
  • Prevent them from ever having children,
  • Increase their chances of contracting cancer, becoming clinically depressed, and otherwise being burdened, and
  • Will leave physical and mental scars.

Therefore, I would suggest that the above article provides evidence that liberals in the US have begun experiencing Munchhausen Syndrome by Proxy. That is, these parents — to the detriment of their children — have sought attention by forcing their children to take the position of a gender dysphoric.

If that is not the case, then they have — en masse — taken on the advise of greedy, soulless, and un-Hippocratic doctors.

Court will decide who writes law: SCOTUS or Congress

Does SCOTUS get to rewrite Title VII in its own image?

Although the Washington Post wants to make the recent Supreme Court inductees the center of the story, the real topic centers on whether the jurists on the Supreme Court adhere to originalism or believe the Constitution has become a living document. Still, the Washington Post says:

SCOTUSdecidesOnLGBTQ

The Supreme Court appeared divided Tuesday about whether federal discrimination laws protect gay and transgender workers, and President Trump’s appointments to the court could play the pivotal roles in deciding the outcome.

The issue, one of the most significant facing the court this term, concerns the reach of ­Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which, besides protecting against workplace discrimination because of race, religion and other characteristics, also prohibits discrimination “because of sex.” The court has since interpreted that definition to include discriminating on the basis of sex stereotypes.

The arguments touched on some of the most controversial issues of the day — whether it would mean the end of single-sex bathrooms, whether men should be able to compete on female athletic teams, whether dress codes for men and women would become a thing of the past.

The word “transgender” made its first appearance in a Supreme Court argument, as did “cisgender” — the term for a person whose gender identity matches how they were identified at birth — and the gender-ambiguous character “Pat” from “Saturday Night Live” skits that aired during the 1990s. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., whose questions in court gave no signal about his views on the case, was careful with pronouns, at one point using the neutral “they” to refer to an individual.

Lawyers for the gay and transgender individuals challenging their firings seemed to pitch their arguments to Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, a conservative who advocates a close textual reading of statutes. During the sexual orientation arguments, he pushed lawyers for the government and the employers to acknowledge that sex seemed to be at least a “contributing cause” to the terminations.

The Post is right to say “transgender” made its first appearance, because the concept does not appear in the original law

Title VII was written to deal with discrimination between males and females. Those who wrote that law did not have any concept of transsexualism in their minds as they framed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. So, if the current Supreme Court stretches the definition of “sex” to include transsexuals (much as the 1973 Supreme Court invented the right to abort babies from a stretching of the Fourteenth and Ninth Amendments), then we will have experienced another writing of law via judicial fiat.

Oddly, since the constitution states that Congress has the sole authority creating law, how can this be? One answer might be that Senators and Representatives are lazy and do not want to take on the tough subjects that the appointed-for-life justices seem willing to burden us with.

When John Roberts saved the Affordable Care Act by effectively rewriting it from the bench, Democrats breathed a sigh of relief because their failing healthcare law had a little more life. Republicans wiped the sweat from their brow because they did not have to risk being called racist for standing against the first African-American president.

When Henry Blackmun wrote the majority decision for Roe, he not only enabled the American holocaust (which, unlike Germany’s holocaust, was carried out against our own children), but also absolved the sexual revolution of its responsibility and enabled Margaret Sanger’s racism.

If the Presidential election were today, who has earned your vote

Featured

Democrats: the party of “Do as I say, not as I do”

Featured

Democrats show how not to promote a free press

The Democrat press accuses Trump of suppressing the Freedom of the Press

I cannot count the times the press has accused President Trump of oppressing the members of the American press. However, finding an example of the whining required reference to an 8 January 2019 commentary at The Federalist that detailed the scaremongering by the American press on freedom of the press.

committee-to-protect-journalists

The Committee to Protect Journalists, a group alleging to promote press freedom and the rights of journalists, awarded President Donald Trump the “Overall Achievement in Undermining Global Press Freedom” in its “Press Oppressors” awards this week. The story was giddily retweeted across the liberal Twitterverse, because, one imagines, people actually believe it.

From there, the author (David Harsanyi) goes on to characterize the battle between the American press and President Trump as a “slap fight (between) a couple of sloshed Real Housewives.” Sadly, until President Trump moved his press gatherings out to the edge of Marine One, I would have to agree with Mr. Harsanyi and say that the press got too much press out of the White House. Nonetheless, the move to the edge of Marine One happily put an end to much of the grandstanding by the press.

Additionally, I would suggest that any freedom-loving conservative read this article by Mr. Harsanyi so as to glean:

While Trump’s efforts to stop Michael Wolff’s fabulist “Fire and Fury” from being published are silly and counterproductive and sure to fail (update: as is his new lawsuit against Buzzfeed), he is merely accessing the legal rights that all Americans enjoy. In the meantime, Democrats, right now, support new laws that would allow the state to ban political books and documentaries. The Obama years made overturning the First Amendment via the Citizens United a tenent of its party platform. Obama, in perfect syntax, engaged in an act of norm-breaking, called out the Supreme Court publicly for upholding First Amendment. That was rhetoric, too. Few defenders of the press seemed bothered by any of it.

(Read more at The Federalist)

Although sometimes embarrassed by Trump’s foibles, I still support a President who punches back

Admittedly, there are times that I wince at the words tweeted by the President; however, I appreciate this President who fights (unlike some seemingly spineless Republicans).

thefighter1

This is particularly accentuated since I have seen that this President has taken into consideration many of the topics that have been heavy on my heart. He has held the hope presented by the pro-life position. Moreover, he took in mind the effect the misdirected courts have had on our lives by appointing constitutionally-minded jurists. Furthermore, he removed the chains placed by previous administrations on our economy through unnecessary regulation. More to the point, he removed the mandate that we be required to kowtow to governmental meddling between me and my doctor.

And while I will not make this portion of this post into a listing of the major accomplishment of the administration, I do find it necessary to reiterate the mistrust I have in the press due to their 90% negative reporting on this President.

Democrats show how not to allow journalism

O’Rourke ejects a conservative journalist

We find by reading Breitbart that Presidential hopeful Robert Francis O’Rourke tossed a conservative journalist (Joel Pollack) out of a public meeting.

NothingStopORourke

Former Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-TX) has styled himself as a champion of press freedom, tweeting last October: “The press is not the enemy of the people but the best defense against tyranny.”

It is now August, and with his poll numbers falling in the Democratic presidential primary, O’Rourke has decided that he is entitled to abuse members of the press who cannot be relied upon to provide favorable coverage.

O’Rourke’s campaign ejected this Breitbart News reporter from a speech at Benedict College, a historically black college, on Tuesday afternoon.

JoelPollack_EjectedByBeto

This reporter was standing along the side of a lecture hall in the basement of the Henry Pinder Fine Arts Humanities Center, waiting for the event to start, together with roughly 200 students and college staff members. Other news outlets had set up cameras in the back of the room.

Several minutes after the 3:00 p.m. event had been scheduled to begin, a staff member in a Beto O’Rourke t-shirt approached this reporter and asked what outlet I represented. Upon reading the press credential on my chest, he put a hand on my shoulder and said, cheerfully, “Oh, hey. All right.”

A few minutes later, before the event began, a campus police officer approached this reporter and motioned for me to accompany him to the back of the room, adding that I should bring any property I had with me. In the hallway outside, he informed me that I was to leave.

A different member of the O’Rourke campaign staff, who said his name was “Steven” and would not give a last name, said that I was being ejected because I had been “disruptive” at past events.

This reporter has covered two O’Rourke events. The first was at a protest outside a shelter for migrant teens in Homestead, Florida, in June; the second was at the College of Charleston “Bully Pulpit” lecture in Charleston, South Carolina, on Monday evening. At no point was there any disruption whatsoever.

This reporter asked a question during a press gaggle on Monday evening; that was the only interaction of any kind with the candidate.

The question asked the Democratic presidential hopeful whether misquoting Trump’s comments on riots in Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017 was consistent with O’Rourke’s pledge to “heal” and not “inflame” divisions in this country.

Considering how the Left howled when Jimmy Acosta was barred from White House briefings, this should have made front-page news

However, unlike the spats between the White House and Jimmy Acosta, Kaitlan Collins, and others, they might have forgotten about Obama’s blacklisting of Fox?

iu

Or, more to the point, did they think that we did not notice how they encircled Acosta after he was called out for blocking a female White House staffer from taking the microphone he had repeatedly been told to relinquish? News to the Nightly News: you cannot successfully champion both the #MeToo movement and a bully of females.

Bodyguards for April Ryan rough up an invited guest photojournalist

The New York Post lets the cat out of the bag by reporting on the attack that one bodyguard of April Ryan perpetuated on a photojournalist who was trying to ply his trade.

AprilRyanBodyguard

CNN political analyst April Ryan — who has repeatedly blasted President Trump for attacking and vilifying the press — got her bodyguard to forcibly remove a journalist from an event she was speaking at in New Jersey, leading cops to charge him Monday with assault.

“This was more than just an assault on me,” tweeted New Brunswick Today editor Charlie Kratovil. “This was an assault on freedom of the press.”

Kratovil claims he was violently tossed from the New Jersey Parent Summit on Aug. 3 by Ryan’s goon after spending two hours inside filming other guests and speakers without any problems.

Kratovil had been invited to The Heldrich Hotel, where the event was held, by a public relations firm and asked to cover it. Video posted online shows him sitting in the audience as Ryan takes the stage and starts speaking.

Moments later, her bodyguard — Joel Morris, 30, of Illinois — comes into view and is told something by Ryan. He promptly walks over to Kratovil and allegedly attempts to take his video camera.

“Put that down,” Kratovil yells. “Don’t you dare — put that down, sir! That’s my camera!”

A tussle allegedly ensues and Morris winds up walking Kratovil out of the venue — with his arm twisted around his back, the journalist says.

“This is a personal event,” Morris can be heard telling him. “You’re not allowed back in.”

A woman can be heard screaming at Kratovil at one point, saying: “How dare you come in here and interrupt this event like this!”

“I didn’t interrupt,” he fired back.

Kratovil posted a video on his Twitter page Monday, explaining how cops found “probable cause” to charge Morris with harassment, assault and theft.

“I was there to cover April Ryan’s speech,” Kratovil explained. “Joel Morris stole [my] camera, high-tailed it out of the room. One thing led to another, I ended up being assaulted after retrieving the camera. But now Mr. Morris is going to have to show up on Sept. 12…in Superior Court.”

Kratovil added, “It’s a shame that we even have to be at this point.”

He read a statement from the NJ Society of Professional Journalists, saying: “It is never under any circumstances permissible for a person aggrieved at being photographed or videotaped to lay hands on the journalist, or attempt to take away the journalist’s equipment.”

“It is sad we have to say this, and remind people of this — and it’s super sad that we have to remind another journalist of this,” Kratovil said. “We are still waiting for [Ryan] to comment on this unfortunate incident…Maybe now that there’s criminal charges we might hear something from her. I hope sincerely that she does comment and I hope she does condemn this. This is unacceptable…Not in our country, we have freedom of the press here.”

(Read more at New York Post)

Although this started in full view of April Ryan and the bodyguard was in her employ, she denied involvement

Somehow, a person who made a name for herself by reporting on other people has surrounded herself with bodyguards and will not allow herself to be the subject of reporting.

Another phase of the killing of the Freedom of the Press: Liberals stand against the free flow of ideas

Facebook bans ads from The Epoch Times after huge pro-Trump buy

Due to the slanted reporting by NBC News in their 22 August 2019 article on the Epoch Times, it becomes evident that maybe this outlet (that liberals want to close down) merits our support.

To quote NBC (and, thence, read beyond the liberal bias to see the possible truth):

Facebook has banned The Epoch Times, a conservative news outlet that spent more money on pro-Trump Facebook advertisements than any group other than the Trump campaign, from any future advertising on the platform.

The decision follows an NBC News report that The Epoch Times had shifted its spending on Facebook in the last month, seemingly in an effort to obfuscate its connection to some $2 million worth of ads that promoted the president and conspiracy theories about his political enemies.

“Over the past year we removed accounts associated with the Epoch Times for violating our ad policies, including trying to get around our review systems,” a Facebook spokesperson said. “We acted on additional accounts today and they are no longer able to advertise with us.”

Facebook’s decision came as a result of a review prompted by questions from NBC News. The spokesperson explained that ads must include disclaimers that accurately represent the name of the ad’s sponsors.

The Epoch Times’ new method of pushing the pro-Trump conspiracy ads on Facebook, which appeared under page names such as “Honest Paper” and “Pure American Journalism,” allowed the organization to hide its multimillion-dollar spending on dark-money ads, in effect bypassing Facebook’s political advertising transparency rules. Facebook’s ban will affect only The Epoch Times’ ability to buy ads; the sock-puppet pages created to host the new policy-violating ads were still live at the time of publication.

Nicholas Fouriezos, a reporter for the website OZY, tweeted about the move Thursday. It was first spotted last week by Lachlan Markay of The Daily Beast.

A recent NBC News investigation revealed how The Epoch Times had evolved from a nonprofit newspaper that carried a Chinese-American religious movement’s anti-communism message into a conservative online news behemoth that embraced President Donald Trump and conspiracy content.

(Read more tripe at NBC News)

Facebook as one of the gatekeepers for the Democrat party

Nobody can deny the numerous times Facebook has acted to suppress points of view that counter the Democrat orthodoxy. When at a gathering of liberals, Mark Zuckerberg bragged that Facebook had banned pro-life ads to the platform just prior to the Irish referendum on abortion (something that at least one Spanish article corroborates).

PJWBanned-1200x630

So, how can we consider Facebook (or Google or Twitter) a unbiased platform for the digital exchange of information? Considering that it took Facebook years of anti-Semitic offenses by Louis Farrakhan to get him banned, but only months of right-wing reporting or commentary by Paul Joseph Watson, Milo Yiannopoulos, and Laura Loomer to get them banned, there is no way to trust Facebook in such a manner.

NYTwits: You’re not the resistance

NYT Staffer Pleads With Newsroom: ‘We’re Not F**king Part Of The Resistance’

Through a 14 August 2019 article in the Daily Caller, we are told of an instance where a member of the press resisted “The Reistance.”

The New York Times takes a lot of heat from the right for just existing.

But this week things turned majorly introspective at a newsroom meeting in which a staffer told his coworkers that they all need to remember that they’re not part of the left-wing movement.

But this week things turned majorly introspective at a newsroom meeting in which a staffer told his coworkers that they all need to remember that they’re not part of the left-wing movement.

That they even needed a reminder on this matter speaks volumes.

The meeting came after Manhattan’s paper of record caught hell when editors ran — and then changed — a headline that put President Trump in a favorable light. The headline changed after the Twitterverse descended on the NYT like an angry swarm of bees.

“Trump Urges Unity Vs. Racism,” last Monday’s headline read after Trump delivered a speech denouncing white supremacy after the recent spate of mass shootings in Dayton and El Paso killed 30 people.

Lefty Joan Walsh, a CNN contributor and longtime editor at The Nation, dramatically dropped her subscription. If you lose Joan Walsh you know you’re in trouble (eye roll)

In the next edition, the NYT changed the headline to “Assailing Hate But Not Guns.”

CNN media writer Oliver Darcy wrote about a newsroom town hall that happened at the behest of Executive Editor Dean Baquet last Friday.

New York Times Illustrations Ahead Of Earnings Figures

Stating the obvious, one staffer said, “There are a lot of people that think The Times is too liberal, and when you start throwing words like that around, people will accuse us of editorializing.”

Baquet didn’t need his arm twisted. “It was a fucking mess,” he told reporters and editors of the headline choice.

(Read more at the Daily Caller)

A headline to state the obvious: the New York Times is only objective as a mouthpiece for Democrats

Nobody can gloss over it. All pretense that there might be true objectivity at the New York Times has evaporated.

Muslim-American Journalist Says Twitter Shadow-Banned Her After Asking Ilhan Omar For An Interview

Through a 14 August 2019 article in the Daily Caller, we hear the story of Dalia Al-Aqidi, a Muslim, female journalist and refugee, who was shadow-banned from Twitter after pressing Ilhan Omar for an interview.

DaliaAl-Aqidi_IlhanOmar

A Muslim-American female journalist and refugee was shadow-banned from Twitter after criticizing Democratic Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar.

Dalia Al-Aqidi said Omar has largely refused to grant sit-down interviews to U.S. media outlets, while doing so with Al Jazeera, which is owned by the government of Qatar.

Al-Aqidi is a longtime journalist who has covered the White House and the Iraq war for Alhurra TV, a U.S.-based Arabic network, where the Chicago Tribune lauded her as the “most-watched TV reporter no one in America has seen.” She has also contributed stories to the U.S. government-run Voice of America and the Saudi-government-run Alarabiya in the past. She previously fled Hussein’s Iraq.

“I dared her to give me a 30 minute 1-on-1 interview. I believe we have things in common we can discuss — we’re both immigrants, women, and Muslims. And from what I’ve seen from her she only gives interviews to Al Jazeera,” Al-Aqidi told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

“Two hours later, CAIR started following me” on Twitter, she said, referring to the Council on American-Islamic Relations. “So I pointed out CAIR’s connection to the Muslim Brotherhood.”

Soon after, it was as if Al-Aqidi didn’t exist on Twitter. From her side, everything looked normal. She never received communications from Twitter notifying her of violating its terms of service, and she could log in and send tweets.

But no one could see them. When a user searches her name on Twitter, it never comes up in the autocomplete. If you type in her screen name “@dalia30,” it does not come up, with Twitter instead suggesting @dalia30900915. When you search for key words that she has tweeted, her own missives are missing from the search results.

Known as a “shadow-ban,” the practice of Twitter secretly preventing others from seeing someone’s tweets, while misleading the user that this is not happening, is so common that a website, shadowban.eu, tests for it. It confirms that Al-Aqidi is shadow-banned.

(Read more at 14 August 2019 article in the Daily Caller)

This goes to prove that insider politics has killed journalism

Just as Dalia Al-Aqidi got shadow banned for asking questions of the untouchable Ilhan Omar, Laura Loomer got banned from Facebook shortly after reporting on Nancy Pelosi and Sharyl Attkisson left from CBS with her persistence in investigating the Obama excesses.

And Democrats present themselves as tolerant.

Democrats on race relations: Ilhan Omar demonizes all White men

Ilhan Omar suggests people should be ‘more fearful of white men’ than jihadists in 2018 interview

The New York Post reveals through a 25 July 2018 article how Rep. Ilhan Omar demonized all White men.

ilhan-omar-FearWhiteMen

Rep. Ilhan Omar said Americans should be “more fearful of white men” when discussing the threat of “jihadist terrorism.”

The Minnesota progressive was asked in a resurfaced interview with Al Jazeera from August 2018 about the rise of Islamophobia, citing the attacks that killed eight people on a Manhattan bike path in 2017 and the 2015 terror attack in San Bernardino, Calif., that killed 14.

“I would say our country should be more fearful of white men across our country because they are actually causing most of the deaths within this country,” Omar answered.

“And so if fear was the driving force of policies to keep America safe — Americans safe inside of this country — we should be profiling, monitoring, and creating policies to fight the radicalization of white men,” she continued.

Omar, a Somalia-born Democrat, along with other first-year Democratic congresswomen — Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib and Ayanna Pressley — have been feuding with President Trump after he tweeted earlier this month that they should “go back and help fix the totally broken and crime-infested places from which they came.”

(Read more at the New York Post)

If the Democrat press held Ilhan Omar to account …

If the Democrat press held Ilhan Omar to account for this statement (or her accusations that represenatives friendly to Israel held dual allegances or her “Some people did something” comment about 9/11 or her many anti-Semitic statements), then it might again start to set unfortunate trends.

I say “again” because the last time the Democrat press dismissed the words of a prominent Democrat, riots erupted. On another instance with that same Democrat, towns burned in support of lawlessness.

Ilhan Omar must not have believed her own advice on White men (quoted above), since she had an affair with a married White man

In yet another article, the New York Post explains how Rep. Omar has been accused of having an affair with her white, male campaign worker.

A Washington, DC, mom says her political-consultant husband left her for Rep. Ilhan Omar, according to a bombshell divorce filing obtained by The Post.

Dr. Beth Mynett says her cheating spouse, Tim Mynett, told her in April that he was having an affair with the Somali-born US representative — and that he even made a “shocking declaration of love” for the Minnesota congresswoman before he ditched his wife, alleges the filing, submitted in DC Superior Court on Tuesday.

The physician, 55, and her 38-year-old husband — who has worked for left-wing Democrats such as Omar and her Minnesota predecessor, Keith Ellison — have a 13-year-old son together.

“The parties physically separated on or about April 7, 2019, when Defendant told Plaintiff that he was romantically involved with and in love with another woman, Ilhan Omar,” the court papers say.

“Defendant met Rep. Omar while working for her,’’ the document states. “Although devastated by the betrayal and deceit that preceded his abrupt declaration, Plaintiff told Defendant that she loved him, and was willing to fight for the marriage.

“Defendant, however, told her that was not an option for him’’ and moved out the next day, the papers say.

“It is clear to Plaintiff that her marriage to Defendant is over and that there is no hope of reconciliation,’’ according to the filing.

The Mynetts lived together for six years before marrying in 2012, the filing said.

Omar — a member of “the Squad,” a group of far left-leaning female freshman House members including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and two others — recently separated from her husband, according to reports.

ilhan-omar-tim-mynett

The 37-year-old congresswoman and mom of three paid Tim Mynett and his E. Street Group approximately $230,000 through her campaign since 2018 for fundraising consulting, digital communications, internet advertising and travel expenses.

Omar was spotted enjoying time with Tim Mynett at a California restaurant in March.

(Read more at New York Post)

If Ilhan Omar were anything but a hypocrite

Hypocrit_UntilThen

If Ilhan Omar were a true, principled politician, she might consider taking acts that would be best for her constituents.

If she were true to Islam, there would be no room in her life for infidelity or racism.

If she were a dedicated racist, she never would have had an affair with a White man.

With all of this said, all I can say is that she definitely is a hypocrite.

Democrat hypocrisy on personal protection

In response to the Odessa shooting, Democrats call for ineffective gun control

On Saturday, 31 August 2019, an insane man went on a shooting spree after he was fired and then pulled over for failing to signal a turn. Previously described by neighbors as “scary” and “violent,” this nut called the FBI and began “incoherently rambling” after his firing. Although he had both a criminal record and had been diagnosed with a mental illness, and, therefore, failed his background check, this madman purchased a rifle by way of a private sale. By the end of his rampage, the man who won’t be named here had killed seven and wounded 22 as he drove around shooting randomly before he was stopped by a policeman’s bullet near a movie theater.

During the same weekend in Chicago (where gun laws are in effect), eight were killed and 26 injured during a respite from violence (this is the lowest murder rate since 2011).

Over the years, articles demonstrate that Democrats want gun protection for them, not you

Democratic Congressman: Yeah, You Don’t Need Guns, But ‘We Deserve’ Armed Guards

The Daily Wire reports in a 23 June 2016 article on the hypocrisy of Charlie Rangel.

Democratic New York Representative Charlie Rangel, no stranger to hypocrisy, told The Daily Caller in an interview that while members of Congress “need” and “deserve” to be protected by guns, law-abiding citizens should not own guns.

(Read more at the Daily Wire)

These are the Democrats who carved special payments out that cover their Obamacare expenses

If anyone finds any bit of surprise in the fact that Congress expects armed protection even as they devise methods of disarming the people, then remember these similar situations. Remember that they exempted themselves from Obamacare. Remember that insider trading laws that apply to you do not keep Congress members from using their Congressionally-acquired information to profit.

7 Liberal Hypocrites Who Call For Gun Control While Being Protected By Guns

Townhall comments on the liberal hypocrisy that surrounds the topic of gun control.

One of the great ironies of the gun control debate is that everyone who calls for gun control still wants a man with a gun protecting him. Every governor in America has armed security. You have to go through a metal detector guarded by men with guns to get into the Capitol building. Barack Obama has hundreds of Secret Service agents carrying fully automatic weapons who protect his safety. Even run-of-the-mill Democrats who want to take guns away from everyone else will unhesitatingly pick up the phone and call the police if they feel threatened — so that a man with a gun can show up and make them safe.

But, if a man in a bad neighborhood wants a gun to make his family safe, a rape victim wants a gun to be protected, or just the average Joe wants a gun in case his life is endangered by a burglar, thug or the next Adam Lanza, these same people want to take their guns away. Pro-gun control Democrats may think we have an “upper class” that deserves to be protected with guns while it’s okay if the “peons” get shot, but that goes against the core of what America is supposed to be. If your child’s life is in danger, you should have every bit as much of a right and opportunity to defend his life as the Secret Service does to defend the President of the United States when he’s threatened.

Unfortunately, there are some people in this country who apparently believe they’re so special, so elite, so much better than the rest of the “riff-raff,” that they should have a right to be protected even if you don’t.

(Read the list of seven people and organizations who use guns but campaign for gun laws at Townhall)

Beyond knowing who to ignore and boycott

By knowing to avoid the print of the Journal-News and the bloviating of politicians like Nancy Pelosi or Diane Feinstein or that of celebrities like Mark Kelly, Shania Twain, Rosie O’Donnell, or Michael Moore — we can be happier when we ignore it all.

Democrats accuse the NRA of profiting from bloodshed

Ridiculous Hypocrite Celebrities Launch Dumb New Attack on NRA

Red State rightfully points out one instance of where celebrities started a hypocritical attack on the NRA.

Even as it becomes apparent that Tinseltown’s celebrity set is an increasingly inconsequential political faction, they continue to hector and lecture the rest of as if they are still socially relevant and influential.

Undeterred by the fact that their overwhelming support of and assistance for Hillary Clinton in 2016 not only didn’t push her over the finish, but actually contributed to her defeat, the luminary Illuminati continue to offer up their unnecessary and unwanted opinions.

Since the election the famous have led the #Resistance — resulting in zero change. They have loudly backed the Women’s March, and their donning of vagina hats has provoked far more laughter than change. Celebrities have openly funded and supported the latest surge of gun control fervor following the Parkland school shooting, and the result has been an increase gun sales and a huge spike in new memberships for the NRA.

So not merely inconsequential to success for their liberal causes, but actively detrimental to it, and yet totally unaware of it.

This lack of awareness has led to a particular crowd of celebrities who, unable to ascertain the reason for rising NRA memberships and gun ownership, to concoct a plan to counteract it. Remarkable.

The formation of The NoRA Initiative is meant to be a direct salvo against the NRA. By way of introduction, this outfit crafted an open letter (PDF) to NRA President Wayne LaPierre, and it is a marvel of ignorance and misinformation, all delivered in a demeaning, condescending, angry tone. Just as you’d expect from these geniuses.

This letter — signed by a lengthy list of actors, performers, and dozens of other deeply important people — wastes no time in being an easily disregarded missive of mirth. It begins by addressing the Columbine High School shooting, and our celebrities fall on their collective faces by sentence Two. “Three of the four guns used in the shooting were legally in the possession of the shooters.”

Uh, no. Sorry, Hollywood gun experts, but the two killers at Columbine — Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold — were below the age to “legally” own their firearms. The guns were purchased by another individual, and despite the claim by NoRA, the straw purchase for underage individuals was illegal.

The letter then mentions the NRA held its convention in Denver weeks later. This is another wild inaccuracy. Rather than marching in behind the tragedy, the convention had long been planned for Denver and following the shooting then President Charlton Heston canceled most of the event activities, save for his legally mandated annual speech. This was done out of respect of the victims. Then NoRA engages in more sophistry.

(Read more at Red State)

Not terrorists, but founded by pastors seeking to protect former slaves from the KKK

As I previously blogged in 2016, there are a number of Blacks who support Second Amendment rights. Still, when you compare the support that should exist for the protection of Black families against the stated support for senseless Democrat policies, there really can be no comparison.

Additionally, considering that the NRA was established by former abolitionist pastors who wanted Blacks to be able to protect their own families against the KKK (the Southern Democrat’s violent tool of oppression), there should not be a debate within poor America as to whether only the rich deserve the protection of sidearms via bodyguards (refer to April Ryan above).

As evidenced by the words of the Black conservatives in the 2013 conference documented in the below two videos (both long and short versions), we have ample evidence to support the good intentions of the founders, leaders, and members of the National Rifle Association.

The O’Rourke campaign shows no control in promoting itself after the Odessa shooting

Beto O’Rourke campaign selling ‘this is f—ed up’ T-shirts to help gun control activists

In a 1 September 2019 USA Today article, the sickness of one Democrat campaign comes out.

Former Rep. Beto O’Rourke did not mince words when describing the deadly shooting in Midland-Odessa, Texas, that left at least seven people dead and 22 wounded.

“This is f—ed up,” he said on Twitter Saturday evening and in a television interview on Sunday morning.

Later Sunday, his presidential campaign announced that the “f—ed up” quote had become a T-shirt being sold for $30 on the campaign website.

TeamBeto

“100% of the proceeds from the sale of this item will be shared equally between Mom’s Demand Action and March for Our Lives,” the campaign wrote on the O’Rourke campaign website, referring to two prominent gun violence prevention groups.

According to the campaign, the shirt was printed by a union and made in the United States.

The campaign has defended O’Rourke’s profanity on Twitter.

“if you’re angrier about a swear word than a baby being shot in the face, consider your choices,” the campaign wrote, referring to a 17-month-old girl who had been shot in the Texas shooting.

(Read more at USA Today)

News for “Beto”

What I am angry about stems from the continual attack by “Beto” on my Second Amendment rights any time he can make an emotional plea based on the acts of someone else.

Unlike “Beto,” I believe that murderers should be executed (rather then babies). Unlike “Beto,” I believe that the guilty should be punished, not those law-abiding citizens who have done nothing and who want to protect themselves.

Lead Democrats hypocrisy on “Climate Change”

Obama commits America to higher taxes with the Paris Climate Accord

According to a 1 June 2017 Business Insider article, Obama brought the USA into the Paris Climate Accord in order to supposedly slow the progress of global warming.

In December 2015, nearly every country, including all of the world’s biggest polluters, came together in Paris and agreed to limit carbon emissions.

The Paris Agreement was designed to keep the planet from warming by more than 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels.

It was a cornerstone of President Barack Obama’s environmental legacy. Now President Donald Trump is withdrawing the US from the accord.

Here’s a quick primer on the Paris Agreement.

What did the US agree to?

The Paris Agreement laid out a framework for countries to adopt clean energy and phase out fossil fuels. Each country submitted a climate-action plan laying out how it would achieve these goals.

The US’s plan, which the Obama administration submitted in March 2015, set the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 26% to 28% by 2025. The baseline level this reduction is measured against is 2005, when the US emitted 6,132 million metric tons of carbon dioxide.

(Read more at the Business Insider)

After claiming the seas would rise due to global warming, Obama buys multi-million dollar beachfront property

As discussed at PJ Media, Obama has purchased a mulit-million dollar beachfront property which would easily be wiped out by global warming, if it existed.

After the news broke that former President Barack Obama and former First Lady Michelle Obama are buying a $15M waterfront estate in Martha’s Vineyard, some took to social media to accuse the Obamas of hypocrisy on climate change.

“If I genuinely believed in 12 years coastal areas would be under water, I wouldn’t buy a $15 million mansion on…Martha’s Vineyard. Call me crazy, but it doesn’t seem like Obama is taking climate change all that seriously,” wrote Twitter user @RantyAmyCurtis.

Others made a similar point in reaction to the news of the Obamas purchase, which has reportedly not been finalized yet.

“If climate change is as bad as Obama said it was, why is he buying property on or near the beach?” wrote Twitter user @Huffman_Hippy.

“How about Obama pushing climate change legislation then buying a coastal mansion at Martha’s vineyard?” wrote Twitter user @Mikel1618.

Twitter user @Chris_Roy wrote that the Obamas $15 million investment in a waterfront property “seems odd for a climate change alarmist believing in sea level rise and the destruction of coastal regions.Hmmm 🤔. Obviously not thinking of what he will leave his children.”

(Read more at PJ Media)

This was not the first high-profile Democrat to become a climate hypocrite

Al Gore, who hit his peak during his years in the as the Vice President under Bill Clinton, told a German audience in 2008 that “the entire North polarized cap will disappear in five years.” Additionally, he told American households to conserve by keeping the air conditioning and heating at uncomfortable levels (while he maintained a sprawling mansion that included an Olympic-sized, heated pool). Likewise, he encouraged America to abstain from burning gasoline while he uses a fleet of jets and gas-guzzling sedans.

More recently, AOC has been called out for jet-setting and using SUV’s while advocating her drastic “Green New Deal.”

Democrats on terrorism

Democrats want to both coddle and demonize terrorists

When The Atlantic pointed out the incoherence within liberal (hence, Democrat) thought on terrorists.

Shortly after three men with knives and a van spent eight minutes murdering and maiming people at random on London Bridge, one of the Democratic Party’s leading voices on national security responded on Twitter. Chris Murphy began by criticizing Donald Trump for sounding the alarms. “My god,” he wrote. “@POTUS has no idea that the goal of terrorists is to instill a level of fear in the public disproportionate to the actual threat.” The Connecticut senator tried to put the threat in proper proportion. “Terrorism is a real threat,” he acknowledged, “but remember that since 9/11, you have a greater chance of being killed by a falling object than by terrorists.” Murphy then issued a five-point rebuttal to Trump’s approach to terrorism. He did not issue a five-point plan for defeating falling objects.

LondonBridgeMuslimAttackers

Maybe Murphy didn’t do this because falling objects are not equivalent to three men ramming and hacking people to death on London Bridge. Terrorists attack not just individuals but society, which makes mortality rates a poor measure of the danger terrorism poses. Falling objects “attack” neither. The men behind the carnage in London appear to have been inspired by ISIS, the same organization that has recently motivated young Muslim men to mow down civilians from Minya to Manchester, Berlin to Baghdad, Istanbul to Orlando, and beyond. Telling people not to be frightened by such acts—that fear is what the terrorists want—does not make those acts less frightening. Many people are scared by terrorism, despite the allegedly comforting statistics, because terrorism is scary. It’s designed to be. And most people recognize that while terrorism takes various forms, one of the most virulent strains these days is extremist violence committed in the name of Islam. They distinguish, in other words, between wobbly furniture and jihadist terror.

In the raw moments after a terrorist attack, people are often looking for recognition of the horror and reassurance that they’ll be kept safe, not to be told that they’re overreacting or to be soothed with unconvincing arguments. Franklin Roosevelt famously told Americans during the Great Depression that “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror.” Less famous is how he contextualized that message. He listed the country’s many “dark realities”—the government deprived of revenue, families stripped of their savings, the unemployed facing the “grim problem of existence,” and so on. The good news, Roosevelt said, was that these were merely “material things,” and they could be regained. Before fear could be feared, it had to be reckoned with.

Murphy’s reaction to the London attack captures a common line of reasoning, particularly on the left, and it recalls some of the clinical rhetoric that Barack Obama used in similar circumstances. In repeatedly resisting (with some exceptions) any language that associated terrorism with extremist interpretations of Islam, the former president provided fodder to right-wing critics who argued that he was misleading people about the nature of the problem. And in his cerebral approach to counterterrorism, Obama could come across as tone-deaf to the public mood. After attackers killed 130 people in Paris , for example, Obama scoffed at reporters’ questions about whether the bloodshed would change his ISIS strategy. My colleague Jeffrey Goldberg documented what happened next on the president’s overseas trip:

Air Force One departed Antalya and arrived 10 hours later in Manila. That’s when the president’s advisers came to understand, in the words of one official, that “everyone back home had lost their minds.” Susan Rice, trying to comprehend the rising anxiety, searched her hotel television in vain for CNN, finding only the BBC and Fox News. She toggled between the two, looking for the mean, she told people on the trip.

Later, the president would say that he had failed to fully appreciate the fear many Americans were experiencing about the possibility of a Paris-style attack in the U.S. Great distance, a frantic schedule, and the jet-lag haze that envelops a globe-spanning presidential trip were working against him. But he has never believed that terrorism poses a threat to America commensurate with the fear it generates. Even during the period in 2014 when ISIS was executing its American captives in Syria, his emotions were in check. Valerie Jarrett, Obama’s closest adviser, told him people were worried that the group would soon take its beheading campaign to the U.S. “They’re not coming here to chop our heads off,” he reassured her. Obama frequently reminds his staff that terrorism takes far fewer lives in America than handguns, car accidents, and falls in bathtubs do. Several years ago, he expressed to me his admiration for Israelis’ “resilience” in the face of constant terrorism, and it is clear that he would like to see resilience replace panic in American society. Nevertheless, his advisers are fighting a constant rearguard action to keep Obama from placing terrorism in what he considers its “proper” perspective, out of concern that he will seem insensitive to the fears of the American people.

Into this emotional void stepped Donald Trump, who on terrorism is the id to Obama’s ego. He rails against political correctness, portrays “radical Islamic terrorism” as a grave threat to the nation, and embodies the fearful alarmism that terrorism can provoke.

Obama’s stance on terrorism also contained a contradiction. He argued that the terrorist threat was much less severe than other challenges such as climate change and gun violence. But he didn’t scale back his counterterrorism policies to reflect that assessment. After criticizing the excesses of George W. Bush’s war on terror, Obama launched a massive drone war against suspected terrorists in several countries. He urged the government to do more on gun violence, which is responsible for far more deaths per year in the United States than terrorism is, while simultaneously claiming that the U.S. government was right to “spend over a trillion dollars, and pass countless laws, and devote entire agencies to preventing terrorist attacks on our soil.” Either Obama never managed to invest in counterterrorism at the level he felt it deserved, or he was tacitly acknowledging that terrorism is, in fact, a big problem that statistics only partially capture.

(Read more at The Atlantic)

From these and other instances, Democrats seem to want to have their cake and eat it, too

In the event that one might review the above article (or consider how radical Islam was never mentioned during a Senate hearing on the 9/11 attacks or think about how Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib have never been punished for their many anti-Semitic attacks, just remember.

San Francisco City government declares the NRA to be a terrorist organization

By reading between the lines of the New York Times, we discover the degree of disrespect doled out by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors toward the National Rifle Association.

Unsettled by recent mass shootings across the nation, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors unanimously approved a resolution this week declaring the National Rifle Association a domestic terrorist organization.

The resolution was introduced by Supervisor Catherine Stefani on July 30, two days after a shooting at a garlic festival in Gilroy, Calif., in which three people were killed and more than a dozen others injured.

Before the resolution was put to a vote on Tuesday, Ms. Stefani spoke about the “carnage across this country,” also citing mass shootings last month in El Paso; Dayton, Ohio; and near Odessa, Tex.

Ms. Stefani said the N.R.A. conspires to limit gun violence research, restrict gun violence data sharing and block every piece of sensible gun violence prevention legislation proposed at local, state and federal levels.

“The N.R.A. exists to spread pro-gun propaganda and put weapons in the hands of those who would harm and terrorize us,” Ms. Stefani said in a statement. “Nobody has done more to fan the flames of gun violence than the N.R.A.”

While the resolution has no practical effect, Ms. Stefani said in an interview on Wednesday, “I firmly believe that words matter, and I think this is a step in fighting the negative impact of the N.R.A.”

(Read more at the New York Times)

Consider the results of the Board of Supervisors on San Francisco

To those who might consider the words of Ms. Stefani, walk the streets of San Francisco and decide whether the NRA or the Board of Supervisors has done the most to terrorize San Francisco.

AOC and Pressley raise bail funds for Antifa members who attacked police in Boston

According to the New York Post, AOC and Pressley raised bail for Antifa.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and a fellow member of “the Squad,” Rep. Ayanna Pressley, vowed Saturday to contribute to a fund that is raising bail money for the 36 counterprotesters arrested at the “Straight Pride Parade” in Boston.

Nine of the counterprotesters arrested have been charged with assaulting police officers, the Boston Herald reported. Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Pressley (D-Mass.) both tweeted out a link to a crowdsourcing page called The Solidarity Against Hate Legal Defense Fund, which has raised nearly $25,000 to pay bail and other legal fees of those arrested while protesting the march.

“One way to support the local LGBTQ community impacted by Boston’s white supremacist parade?” Ocasio-Cortez said on Twitter, sharing a link to the fund. “Contribute to the Bail Fund for the activists who put themselves on the line protecting the Boston community.”

Ocasio-Cortez retweeted Pressley’s initial tweet about the fund. Pressley slammed the “Straight Pride” event as an “#LGBT hate march” and asked followers to join her in making a contribution to the fund.

(Read more at the New York Post)

An answer that aligns with our founding

We can stop mass shootings without restricting Second Amendment liberties

Tom Giovanetti of the Institute for Policy Innovation argues that America need not give up its guns in response to the recent violence.

PoliceProtection

It is often said by people of all political persuasions, and certainly by my fellow conservatives, that the primary duty of the federal government is to keep us safe.

The problem is, that’s not true. The founding documents, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and especially the Federalist Papers, make it clear that the primary duty of the federal government is the preservation of liberty, not safety. The Founders had very clear ideas about the trade-offs between safety and liberty, and they willingly gave up their own security in order to take a desperate shot at more political liberty.

The Founders were primarily concerned about preventing tyranny, and they correctly understood that a free people could keep themselves safe, but a safe people might not be able to keep themselves free. You could live safely in a police state or a military dictatorship, or remain subjects of King George, but you wouldn’t be free.

That’s why Thomas Jefferson said, “I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.” Americans in the tradition of the Founders don’t trade liberty for safety.

But liberty and safety are not mutually exclusive. The Founders believed that a free people could, through self-organization, create the means and the institutions necessary to maintain public safety. Liberty logically precedes safety, but it doesn’t preclude it.

Confronted with the horror of repeated mass shootings, proposed solutions have rushed toward restricting Second Amendment rights. But an American solution for reducing mass shootings should not focus on erosions of liberty.

On the other hand, when defenders of Second Amendment rights offer no practical solutions, they leave open the implication that liberty requires us to tolerate the occasional (or not-so-occasional) mass shooting. Not only is that a losing argument with the public in the long run, it’s also not true. Americans are entitled to both liberty and safety.

And let’s not get distracted by discussions about root causes. That might strike you as peculiar, but root causes are notoriously difficult to address, and government is particularly ill-equipped to do so. So what can we organize to do now to increase safety without eroding liberty?

Travel almost anywhere else in the world and you will commonly encounter armed security in public places. Somehow, uniquely in America, we see this as a bad thing. That needs to change.

In the church my family attends, we adapted after a threat. There is now armed security scattered throughout the congregation, in the sanctuary, in the lobby, and even on the platform. Air transportation obviously adapted after 9/11, with added airport security and air marshals on flights.

It’s time to adapt to the era of mass shootings. Every school, every church, every large retailer and every government facility should have armed, obvious guards at all entrances. We don’t need to force teachers to take up arms, we simply need ever-present, trained, armed security in schools. This is now the cost of protecting our children and of protecting the public.

(Read more at the Institute for Policy Innovation)

Consider these Bible verses

Three stories of religious discrimination not widely reported in the mainstream media

Featured

  1. Religious clash leaves USA’s best left back an observer of World Cup bid

Hat tip to an American Family Association radio broadcast after I had discovered the first reference

We have to go outside of America’s press to a 12 July 2019 article in The Irish Times to find out that a Christian was cut from the US Women’s Soccer Team because she declined to wear a rainbow jersey.

Jaelene_Hinkle

The curious case of Jaelene Hinkle.

In June, 2017, she was called into the USA women’s squad ahead of a two-match tour of Scandinavia. With eight full caps already and the World Cup two years away, it looked the perfect opportunity for the then 24-year-old to confirm the growing consensus that she was the country’s best left-back.

Shortly after US Soccer announced the team would wear special jerseys in Europe, emblazoned with rainbow numbers in support of LGBTQ Pride month, Hinkle pulled out of the squad, initially citing “personal reasons” before later going into more detail.

“I just felt so convicted in my spirit that it wasn’t my job to wear this jersey,” she said.

“I gave myself three days to just seek and pray and determine what He was asking me to do in this situation . . . I knew in my spirit I was doing the right thing. I knew I was being obedient. If I never get another national team call-up again then that’s just a part of His plan, and that’s okay. Maybe this is why I was meant to play soccer, to show other believers to be obedient.”

The religious justification for her withdrawal came during an interview for The 700 Club, the most popular and incendiary show on the Christian Broadcasting Network, the go-to channel for fundamentalists across America, an outfit that regularly denounces the gay lifestyle.

When Hinkle’s North Carolina Courage visited the Portland Thorns in the National Women’s Soccer League (NWSL) shortly after the broadcast, opposing fans waved Pride flags and booed her every touch, something supporters of other teams soon began to copy.

(Read more at The Irish Times)

Considering all of the praise heaped on the captain of the team and recognition of her lesbian lifestyle, it would seem that the high standard of acceptance required of everyone when it comes to her lesbianism would also require acceptance (on co-captain Megan Rapinoe’s part) of other people’s point of view.

However, the always-inclusive crowd (at least the one at Slate) lobbied to have Jaelene Hinkle removed from the US Women’s Soccer Team in 2018 because they saw her presence as an affront to the LGBTQ2 community. I was not able to find any letters to the editor written by any Women’s Soccer Team member in support of Jaelene Hinkle, but what can you expect? For liberals, tolerance usually only goes in one direction.

  1. Christian Student Kicked out of Uni for Gay Marriage Views Wins Latest Court Battle

Breitbart reports in a 4 July 2019 article that a Christian student at the University of Sheffield was expelled for a Facebook post and has now won a judgement.

Felix-Ngole

A Christian who was expelled from his university for expressing a biblical view on marriage has celebrated winning his latest legal battle, calling it a victory for freedom of speech and religious conscience.

In 2015, Felix Ngole had defended U.S. state official Kim Davis, who had refused to register same-sex marriages in her state of Kentucky, writing on an open Facebook page: “Same-sex marriage is a sin whether we like it or not. It is God’s words and man’s sentiments would not change His words.”

Mr Ngole at the time had been studying for a Master’s degree in social work at the University of Sheffield, but two months after the Christian student stated the biblical position on marriage he was informed by university administrators that his comments were being investigated. After a professional fitness to practice (FtP) hearing, the university panel deemed Mr Ngole’s comments “derogatory of gay men and bisexuals” and he was expelled from the course.

Mr Ngole took his case to court to have the university’s decision overturned, stating that the decision was a violation of his right to freedom of thought and speech. In 2017, deputy high court Judge Rowena Collins Rice sided with the university.

However on Wednesday, three Court of Appeal judges overruled that judgement, saying Sheffield University’s disciplinary proceedings were flawed and that the institution should reconsider its decision through another FtP hearing, reports The Guardian.

The university had ruled that because Mr Ngole was taking a “professionally qualifying degree” in social care, the openly-shared comments may be of offence to people he may encounter or work with in the future.

“This is great news, not only for me and my family, but for everyone who cares about freedom of speech, especially for those working in or studying for caring professions,” the 41-year-old from Barnsley, south Yorkshire, said.

“As Christians we are called to serve others and to care for everyone, yet publicly and privately we must also be free to express our beliefs and what the Bible says without fear of losing our livelihoods,” he added.

Despite expressing regret that four years of his life were lost to battling his case for religious freedom and freedom of speech, Mr Ngole said: “…I feel overwhelming joy that what I have lost will be so much gain to Christians today and in the future as a result of this important ruling for freedom.”

(Read more at Breitbart)

So, as long as you toe the liberal line, you can stay at the university. Prove me wrong in my belief that liberals will accept tolerance only when it goes in one direction.

  1. Christian student group sues university for ‘equal access,’ alleges religious discrimination

As illustrated by a 12 July 2019 Fox News article, we see that not only have public universities become hotbeds of liberalism, but they have become exclusionary of any other type of thought (particularly Christian thought).

InterVarsity

A prominent Christian student organization has sued its university, claiming the group was targeted because of its religious beliefs.

In 2017, Wayne State University kicked Intervarsity Christian Fellowship off campus because it required its leaders to be Christians. It was only when the student group, which had been on campus for 75 years, threatened to sue in March 2018 that the Detroit school reversed its decision, according to a federal lawsuit.

The university claims the InterVarsity Christian Fellowship is just trying to use this case to “set a precedent.” But Becket, the civil liberties firm hired by the student group, argues the school still stands by its original interpretation that claims InterVarsity is “discriminating in violating of the law and could be kicked off at any time.”

“We are proud of and love our university, so we were saddened in fall 2017, when Wayne State deregistered our group, canceled our meetings, kicked us out of campus group events, and made us pay thousands of dollars to use campus space that other groups got for free, all simply because we asked that our student leaders believe our Christian faith, just as we have for over 75 years before,” Deaunai Montgomery, a student from InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, said Wednesday outside the courtroom.

InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, a student group at Wayne State University, is suing the Detroit, Mich. school in federal court alleging unfair and unconstitutional treatment. (Becket Law)

“As a Christian, we need our leaders to sincerely believe that what they teach us about Jesus is true,” Montgomery added. “To be clear, we want everyone to feel welcome to attend our group, but why should our Bible studies, prayer, and worship be led by someone who doesn’t believe those things?”

(Read more at Fox News)

Thank God that Intervarsity won this lawsuit.

A sad day for many American Christians


The Shocking Speech Wheaton College Doesn’t Want You to Hear

In a 11 January 2019 Black Community News article, Ryan Bomberger provides perspectives on two speakers at Wheaton College.

This is the tale of two lectures at Wheaton College, a Christian evangelical college in the suburbs of Chicago. One was given in September 2017 and the other in November 2018. Though only a year apart, the responses to the two presentations were universes apart. The reaction is very telling and tragic for those who believe that a Christian education is different than a secular one.

The first speech was given by Dr. George Yancy, a philosophy professor at Emory University (huge thanks to Jamie Dean at World Magazine for excellent article on this and uncovering actual audio recording). It was sponsored by Wheaton’s Philosophy department and held in the esteemed Billy Graham Center on campus. It was entitled: “A Post-Racial America? White Gazes and Black Bodies”. It can only be described as an expletive-laced, pornographic, racist, anti-biblical screed. His theme? “To be white is to be racist.” Listen to these shocking excerpts from that speech here.

There was no backlash from Wheaton’s leadership. There were no letters sent out by any staff or student government leaders denouncing him or raising concerns about the hostile, f-bomb-laden speech. There was only internal praise by the school’s own Wheaton Record.

Then there’s that second speech. Wheaton College Republicans courageously invited me to speak about abortion and race. Keep in mind, there’s never been anyone—ever—to address racism and the abortion industry at Wheaton. In fact, no one has addressed the issue of abortion at their thrice weekly chapels but once (briefly) in many years. Wheaton, founded by slavery abolitionists, doesn’t lead whatsoever on the abolition of abortion. One would think a school that (sort of) espouses a prolife worldview, at least in text on its website (“followers of Jesus Christ will uphold the dignity of human beings, from conception until death…”), would encourage students to put that into action by attending the March for Life Chicago or volunteering at a local pregnancy resource center.

Needless to say, I did not speak in the center named after the school’s most famous alum. But I did speak to a standing-room only audience in another Wheaton lecture hall. My multimedia talk was entitled “Black Lives Matter In and Out of the Womb”; it was an expletive-free, fact-based, statistics-driven, Biblically-rooted, deeply personal and grace-filled discussion on the systemic racism of the abortion industry and the hypocrisy of the pro-abortion #BlackLivesMatter movement. As an adoptee and adoptive father who was conceived in rape, I challenged students to see the most vulnerable, the most marginalized, and the most powerless among us as having equal intrinsic worth and God-given Purpose.

Six days later, I was severely denounced by a campus-wide email sent out by two Wheaton staff members and signed by three student government leaders. My entire message was branded as “offensive rhetoric” that made “many students, staff and faculty of color” feel “unsafe” on their campus. And now, the school has cancelled the College Republicans’ next event, because leadership claims their speaker approval process needs to change so Wheaton students aren’t exposed to such factivism (aka truth) again.

(Read more at Black Community News)

While this shows that at least one Christian college has gone full-bore liberal instead of full-bore Christian, this will not be the first time a faithful Christian and pro-lifer has been discriminated against. For examples, refer to my blog posts in

Since Wheaton College so flagrantly contradicted the examples of the Old Testament and the commands of the New Testament, maybe a review of how Christians must not discriminate racially and must not discriminate among Christians is in order.

Galatians 3:28 tells us that “(t)here is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” In other words, there are no divisions between Christians (no matter the gender, race, or financial status) due to the uniting properties of Jesus Christ. Let me be more clear: Christ makes all Christians into one body. We must not discriminate against the other parts of our own body any more than the mouth should denounce the nose.

In the Old Testament, we receive the example of a leader who did not consider skin tone and a God who stood by his prophet. In Numbers 12:1, we find …”Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Cushite woman he had married” … In verses 9 and 10, God shows his backing for Moses when we see …”the anger of the Lord burned against them and He departed. But when the cloud had withdrawn from over the tent, behold, Miriam was leprous, as white as snow.” From this, we see that God stood against Miriam’s bigoted disapproval of Moses’ black wife. Not only that — God punished Miriam for her bigotry.

Additionally, Christians are commanded to “(b)e devoted to one another in brotherly love; give preference to one another in honor.” We should love other Christians like brothers and put the needs of other Christians over our own. Similar commands can be found in 1 Thessalonians 5:11; John 13:34; Galatians 5:13; Ephesians 4:2 and 32; 1 Peter 4:8; and 1 John 4:7.

An Old Testament example of a man who was devoted to his fellow believers comes to us through Joseph, who — when presented with a chance to get back at people who sold him into slavery and thereby caused him to go to prison — said “you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good” (Genesis 50:20).

So who is being racist and who is color blind?


 

Democrat Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee stands by remarks suggesting Jazmine Barnes’ killing may have been a ‘hate crime’

As you can see for yourself in the video segment where a Houston reporter for CBS affiliate KHOU asks Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee about her comments, Rep. Jackson Lee does not back down from having called the murder of Jazmine Barnes a “hate crime” in an article by Fox News.

A Texas Democratic Congresswoman is defending her earlier comments suggesting the drive-by shooting of 7-year-old Jazmine Barnes may have been a hate crime, even though both suspects in the case turned out to be black – and not a white individual as police and members of the public initially believed.

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, when asked Sunday by a reporter about some of the comments made in the aftermath of the young girl’s death in Houston on Dec. 30, said it was “absolutely not” irresponsible to make that suggestion.

Barnes was shot and killed while sitting in the backseat of her mother’s car. Witness descriptions of a white man in his forties at the scene of the shooting – and a sketch put out by police – prompted widespread speculation a hate crime had happened.

“I believe – and having written hate crime legislation, knowing the criteria, I believe that this should be looked at as a hate crime,” Lee said during a press conference Friday, in a video posted to the Congresswoman’s Facebook page. “We don’t want to have on the street someone who is willing to kill children and possibly kill them in the name of hate.”

The next day, at a rally calling for justice for Barnes, Lee said “do not be afraid to call this what it seems to be — a hate crime,” according to several news organizations.

Prior to the arrests, Barnes’ family lawyer, Lee Merritt, also said “we do believe that it [the murder] was racially motivated in part because our nation at this moment is highly racially charged.”

(Read more at Fox News)

After a fashion, I think that Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee is correct and wrong. She is correct that a murderer of children deserves the most complete and severe punishment. However, she is wrong in initially crafting “hate crime” laws to punish criminals on the basis of their purported hate (or on the basis of race — and assuming that infers hate). I can tell you without wavering that almost no crimes are committed out of love for the victim.

So, if there is no case here for applying “hate crime” law against the perpetrators of a heinous murder of a little girl, why not just fully prosecute every crime? Why give certain groups postmortem advantages due to the density of melatonin in their skin or their choice of lifestyle?

As a Christian, I rejoice with those who rejoice and weep with those who weep (Romans 12:15 NASB). However, I think the “hate crime” model steps beyond empathy with the victim and steps into trying to assume and assign the unseen (that is, trying to guess motives, emotions, and other unquantifiable variables).

Family of man wrongfully accused by activist Shaun King in Jazmine Barnes’ shooting speaks out

In a 7 January 2019 article by ABC affiliate KTRK, the family of a wrongly-accused man pleads for the death threats to stop.

The family of a man whose photo went viral on social media as a possible suspect in the murder of 7-year-old Jazmine Barnes is telling everyone to “back off.”

Hailey Cantrell says despite the arrests of two suspects in the murder case, as recent as Monday, there have been threatening comments on her Facebook page regarding her uncle, Robert Cantrell.

“I hear, ‘Someone is going to rape, torture and murder the women and children in your family,” Hailey read from one comment.

Photos of her uncle were widely circulated starting last Friday. In a now-deleted Twitter post, activist Shaun King, who has one million followers, posted Cantrell’s mugshot and wrote, “We’ve had 20 people call or email us and say he is a racist, violent (expletive) and always has been. Just tell me everything you know.”

As a white man with blue eyes, he resembles the sketch the Harris County Sheriff’s Office released last week. Even his niece was afraid it was him.

“I’m not going to lie, I teared up,” said Cantrell.

The sheriff’s office now believes the sketch is of a witness that Jazmine’s sisters remembered and has said all evidence shows the little girl and her family were innocent victims.

Eric Black, 20, is charged with capital murder. Larry Woodruffe, 24, is in jail on an unrelated charge, but believed to be the shooter, according to ABC13 sources. Both are African American.

(Read more at ABC)

It would be nice if we could get back to the standards of “one crime, one punishment” and “assumed innocent until proven guilty.”

Robert Cantrell may have had a history that put him far from purity. However, if he currently resides in jail and two other men have been identified by numerous other sources as the murderers, then nobody should be threatening this man or his family.

barnesfuneral

Community remembers “Princess Jazmine” at her funeral service

An 8 January 2019 Houston Chronicle article lays out some of the events of the Jazmine Barnes funeral (but only the events that don’t reflect badly on local Democrats).

The pint-sized casket was adorned with purple and white flowers, with the words “Princess Jazmine” sewn into the fabric.

Hundreds of mourners wore purple — Jazmine Barnes’ favorite color.

And the pews were filled at The Community Faith Church Tuesday as family, friends, dignitaries and perfect strangers turned out to remember a young life cut short by a gunman who apparently mistook her family for someone else.

Her mother, LaPorsha Washington, her voice raw from tears, read a missive she said was 7-year-old Jazmine speaking from Heaven.

“There are no more tears, pain and sadness, just eternal love,” Washington told the congregation. “Do not be unhappy just because I am not by your side.”

In a case that sparked international outrage, Jazmine was gunned down in her mother’s car about 7 a.m. on Dec. 30 as they drove with her three sisters in northeast Harris County. The dogged manhunt began with a description of a white man seen in a red pickup truck amid growing tensions that the shooting had been racially motivated.

But by the time the funeral began Tuesday, two black men — including one suspected gang member — had been charged with capital murder in the shooting. Investigators said the men apparently thought they were aiming at a group with whom they had an altercation hours earlier.

(Read more at the Houston Chronicle)

Thank Heaven that Christ’s church reached out to the suffering mother of this murdered girl.

Likewise, thank God also for the widespread financial contributions that went toward the funeral expenses of Jazmine Barnes — including dollars provided by Shaquille O’Neal, Officer Kenneth Miles, Deandre Hopkins, and others.

However, one of a number of things this article does not mention was the stump speeches offered by Sheila Jackson-Lee, Sheriff Ed Gonzalez, and Mayor Sylvester Turner. Admittedly, campaigning at funerals has been a Democrat mainstay well before the Wellstone memorial; however, until the performances of Jackson-Lee, Gonzalez, and Turner, I did not know how much of an art form it was.

Shaq sends best wishes to Marine impaled in freak accident

Shaquille O’Neal has been reported by the Houston ABC affiliate to have sent an encouraging video to a Houston-area Marine who was recently impaled during a freak accident.

A Marine still in the hospital after being impaled in a freak accident around Christmastime got a much needed boost in the form of basketball legend Shaquille O’Neal.

“Shaq,” who is a friend to one of Fernando Dominguez’s friends, posted a video wishing him a speedy recovery.

“Fernando, it’s Shaq. Get well soon, brother. Everything will be alright. Drink that water. Start working out. Everything will be fine,” the Lakers legend said.

According to Dominguez’s mother, the message brightened his spirits.

The Marine, who suffered his injury on Highway 225 near Scarborough in Pasadena, underwent his sixth surgery since the freak accident occurred in late December.

(Read more at ABC)

While this bit of support has seen less air play, it seems to demonstrate Mr. O’Neal’s giving heart that he would send a supportive message to an injured Marine. Maybe it’s little — but if it gives hope and brightens the Marine’s spirits, it may be more valuable than many medicines.

If Black lives matter, why haven’t we heard of these Black empowerment meetings and movements?


The meeting of the leaders of the Young Black Leadership Summit with President Trump

Although most of us would not have known it from the reporting of the main stream media, the leaders of the Young Black Leadership Summit were meeting in the Oval Office with President Trump when he announced the capture of the mail bombing suspect.

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Candice Owens speaks to the Black Leadership Conference

Of course, one CNN lackey noticed and had to put a negative spin on it

It seems that Al Sharpton not only heard of the meeting of the Young Black Leadership Summit, but also found a way to put a negative spin on it. Thankfully, Candice Owens straightened out the issue.

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

The Black Leadership conference moves to stand in front of the White House

In order that the news gets out, the Black Leadership conference stood in front of the White House. From that vantage point, they told the history of Blacks being under the thumbs of White liberals.

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

David Harris

David Harris celebrates the Black community and BLexit

In the following video, David Harris presents the following inspiring message to American Blacks.

I am part of something absolutely amazing and beutiful: the Black community. The Black community in this country shares a camaraderie and a bond where I can travel almost anywhere in the country and, just seeing another Black American, I can get a head nod and give one in return. That just says, “You’re m brother. You’re my sister.”

That bond has been under attack. I believe that we have allowed something to creep into the hearts and minds of Black Americans around this country that chooses to say, “If you don’t think the way I do, you’re no longer my brother. You’re no longer my sister.”

That saddens me. It saddens me to think that Black Americans have allowed ourselves to divide ourselves and ostracize ourselves based on our beliefs.

I am a conservative. And I’m not a conservative because my mother or my father told me to be. I’m a conservative because of what conservative values stand for and I am so excited to see so many other Black Americans wake up to the revelation that they don’t have to think the way their mothers, their fathers, their aunts, their uncles, or their cousins all told them that they had to think: that they can choose to think for themselves.

I’m part of Blexit, which is a family of Black Americans that choose to say, “I can think for myself and I will love my Black brothers and sisters regardless of what their political beliefs are. Blexit is an awakening of the minds of Black Americans that I think that I believe will change the face of America forever.

It’s a movement of love and of understanding and of thought. It’s a movement that says, “I can choose to think and believe how I want based on my own research and will choose to love my brothers and sisters, regardless. I am so excited for what I see taking place in the hearts and minds of Black Americans around the country.

An awakening has stared and Blacks are exiting from the monolithic thought that has kept us in chains and bondage for far too long.

I am David J. Harris, Junior, and I am part of Blexit.

Relevant Verses

Although I know that not all Blacks are Christian (any more than all Whites are Christian), I supply the following verses for encouragement of my Black Christian brothers and sisters.

So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed. (John 8:36 NASB)

The small and the great are there, And the slave is free from his master. (Job 3:19 NASB)

The Lord performs righteous deeds And judgments for all who are oppressed. (Psalms 103:6 NASB)

Let not the oppressed return dishonored; Let the afflicted and needy praise Your name. (Psalms 74:21 NASB)