Twitter Found To Be Aggressively Biased? : Pro-Life Group Marginalized?

Never forget that nearly every organization that has anything to do with social media is mostly infested with progressive liberal democrats. Which in turn means American citizens that find themselves on the ''right side'' of the political fence, that is believing in freedom of speech and individual freedom to chose, clearly must be seen as ''enemies of the progressive state'' and therefore must be marginalized or destroyed.  

Remember the problems?, it's only a problem if this was a mistake, that surfaced at Facebook for managing the content to reflect the progressive agenda and or ideology?

Pro-Life Group Claims Twitter Has ‘Suppressed’ Its Message
Katrina Willis / June 28, 2017   

A pro-life group is claiming Twitter has “suppressed” its ads. Live Action, a nonprofit organization founded by Lila Rose to promote the end of abortion, released a statement Tuesday about its clashes with the social media giant. Twitter censorship accusations have been growing increasingly frequent in recent years.

“While Planned Parenthood is allowed to advertise on Twitter, the social media company has suppressed Live Action’s ads, calling our pro-life messages offensive and inflammatory,” Live Action wrote. Live Action claims Twitter asked the group to delete many of its tweets regarding Planned Parenthood, the No. 1 abortion provider in the United States.

“While it won’t censor Live Action’s and Lila Rose’s tweets outright, Twitter has banned our ability to advertise our content until we delete all the tweets it deems offensive—or, in reality, all the tweets that offend Planned Parenthood,” the organization wrote.

“Twitter has told us that we must delete all of our tweets: 1. calling for the end of taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood; 2. all of our tweets of our undercover investigations into Planned Parenthood and; 3. any ultrasound images of preborn children,” said Live Action in the June 27 article.

Twitter’s content is monitored by the Twitter Trust and Safety Council. Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry of The Week called the council an “Orwellian nightmare” when it was founded in February 2016.
Mike Gonzalez, a senior fellow at The Heritage Foundation, similarly raised concerns about the council, writing last year that “among the more than 40 organizations that make up the council, one finds such groups as the ‘Dangerous Speech Project,’ a group with ties to the liberal John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and to financier George Soros’ Open Society Institute.”
Twitter did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Insurance Wouldn't Pay for Treatment : But Will Pay for Assisted Suicide(Video)

I believe when it comes to taking a life based on one's own assumptions, or the statistics of what will or might happen if certain conditions are present at a certain point in time, begs for further understanding of even any two situations occurring that can be considered proof that the outcome will be the same is not ethical behavior.

If as the video explains, why not take every measure possible to save a life rather then taking the easy way out just to save some money or worse, the effort that will take to life a possibility?

Doctor: Insurance Wouldn’t Pay for Patients’ Treatments, but Offered Assisted Suicide
Kelsey Harkness / @kelseyjharkness / June 28, 2017   

Dr. Brian Callister, a physician in Reno, Nevada, says two recent patients both needed life-saving treatments. “Not palliative care, not hospice, these would have been curative procedures,” Callister recalls.

One patient was from California and the other was from Oregon, both states that passed physician-assisted suicide laws. Instead of offering to pay for their treatments, Callister says, the insurance medical directors in both states offered to cover his patients’ assisted suicide.

Watch the video to hear more about these cases, and why Callister, who says he’s taken care of “somewhere in four figures worth of terminally ill patients,” now opposes assisted suicide.

Watch the Video : https://youtu.be/JzafMM9QCAg

Louisiana Wants SNAP Recipients to find Work : No Work, No Stamps

Wisconsin wants to demand drug testing of all welfare recipients. Maine has instituted similar requirements for receiving subsistence. The result of the Maine effort has been dramatic as has the Alabama legislation.

Why is this rocket science? If one system has been shown to work, why not use it in all states to help those that have been sucked into Barack's ideology of a welfare state being all things to all people while others have to pick up the tab.

Hey, what about the ''Ogbjma Phones"? How many $100's of $millions of $tax $dollars are being wasted on that boondoggle? Free phones just for showing up? %&#@#@%&#  STOOOOP already with the free stuff!!!!!

Proposed Law Would Require Food Stamp Recipients to Show Proof of Job Search
Rachel del Guidice / @LRacheldG / June 28, 2017

A Louisiana congressman introduced legislation that would strengthen work requirements for recipients of food stamps.  “By putting certain perimeters or requirements on the program where you have to actually do job searches and you have to go do interviews and you have to participate in certain job training activities, it is migrating people from dependence to the workforce and that is a win for everyone,” Rep. Garret Graves, R-La., told The Daily Signal in an interview.
According to a press release from his office, Graves’ legislation:

• Creates additional opportunities to satisfy the work requirement through a supervised job search.
• Reduces the number of SNAP recipients exempt from the work requirement.
• Retains state flexibility for exempting certain individuals from the work   requirement.

Graves, whose legislation is titled “Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Reform Act of 2017,” said the reform of the food stamp program would help both recipients and taxpayers:

It is a win for the taxpayers that are paying for the program … and it’s a win for those people that previously were unemployed and dependent on government assistance, because it puts them back in the workforce and gives them control over their own destiny and it puts them on a pathway to prosperity.  The legislation would, Graves said, require able-bodied food stamp recipients without dependent children to “do job searches and … provide proof of doing the job searches and the amount of time that they are spending doing this.”

Graves’ legislation, introduced Thursday, seeks to piggyback off the success Alabama had in instituting work requirements for food stamp recipients, the Louisiana lawmaker said.
Participation in Alabama’s food stamp program dropped by 85 percent among able-bodied adults without dependents in 13 counties after officials said that those who use food stamps must work, look for work, or get approved job training, The Daily Signal previously reported.
These 13 Counties Started Work Requirements for Food Stamps. Here’s What Happened

Due to changes implemented in the welfare program in 1996, able-bodied recipients of food stamps between the ages of 18 to 49 with no dependents are limited to three months of food stamp benefits without working in a 36-month period, unless they find employment or are involved in a work program part time.  States could waive the requirement in areas they can show to have job shortages or higher unemployment rates than other areas.

When the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was passed in 2009 during President Barack Obama’s administration, the legislation permitted that all states could waive the work requirements for food stamp enrollment, as The Daily Signal previously reported.

Graves’ legislation is similar to a bill introduced earlier this month by Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, called the Welfare Reform and Upward Mobility Act.  Included in Jordan’s bill is a provision for state-run work activation programs to assist SNAP recipients in finding jobs. Graves said instituting work requirements would help curb a program that he says is has grown beyond being a “safety net.”
“While we certainly need to have a safety net … to help provide assistance that are upon hard times and those that have needs, the program … has grown beyond its intention of offering a hand up or a safety net to where it has become a lifestyle in some cases,” Graves told The Daily Signal.

Robert Rector, a senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation who specializes in poverty and welfare programs, said the legislation “represents excellent policy.” “Nearly 90 percent of the public agree that able-bodied adults receiving welfare should work or prepare for work in exchange for receiving that aid,” Rector said in a statement provided to The Daily Signal. “The bill would implement this policy for over 4 million able-bodied adults without dependents, saving taxpayers $80 billion over the next decade.”

Those on welfare would not be harmed, Rector added.

This bill does not simply cut people off from welfare. Only those who refuse to work or engage in ‘work activation,’ including supervised job searching, training, and community service, would have their aid terminated.

California Lawmakers Move Against America : It's Us or The Bus!

Yeah know, life in this country just wouldn't be the same without California. Just try and imagine having to go day after day without that constant source of comedy and mirth that comes from the great state of California that is infested with people that have no clue, living in a self imposed bubble of delusion and misinformation. 

But then, the California lawmakers are all progressive socialist liberal democrats. If any further facts are needed to explanation their seemly ''out of the loop'' behavior, you are not from around here. Did you just fly in from life long stay on Mars?

California Issues ‘Travel Ban’ on Some Red States
Jarrett Stepman / @JarrettStepman / June 28, 2017   

Single-party dominance has made California a little crazy. After a “Calexit” secession effort failed when its leader decided to move back to Russia, the deep-blue state has now turned to other methods to resist the change in political fortunes.

On Friday, the California Assembly narrowly failed to pass a plan to bring single-payer health care to the state, which would have cost more than double the entire current California budget. But in the age of Trump, the Golden State hasn’t been content to focus on its own issues. It has now turned its agenda outward by crafting its own “travel ban,” aimed at punishing sister states for not going along with its views.

California’s Attorney General Xavier Becerra announced on Friday that the state would no longer fund travel to states deemed “discriminatory” toward LGBT people. “While the California [Department of Justice] works to protect the rights of all our people, discriminatory laws in any part of our country send all of us several steps back,” Becerra said in a statement. “That’s why when California said we would not tolerate discrimination against LGBTQ members of our community, we meant it.”

There are now eight states on California’s travel ban list: Alabama, Kentucky, South Dakota, Texas, Mississippi, Tennessee, Kansas, and North Carolina.

What were the policies California found so odious? The Tennessee law California targeted as unacceptable was one that said therapists who work with parents don’t have to counsel same-sex couples on how to have a better marriage. The problematic Texas law was one that allowed adoption agencies to work with parents, but not same-sex parents without penalty. The other state laws California found unacceptable were in a similar vein.

The ban could have wide-ranging consequences, in particular for college sports. For instance, college coaches of University of California schools may not be able to receive funding for travel when their teams play in Texas. California’s travel ban has already caused confusion and chaos for college football schedulers. Tennessee lawmakers wrote a blistering response to California.

Among other comments, the message said,

California’s attempt to influence public policy in our state is akin to Tennessee expressing its disapproval of California’s exorbitant taxes, spiraling budget deficits, runaway social welfare programs, and rampant illegal immigration.

The message mockingly noted appreciation that “California will not be sending its economic development teams to Tennessee to recruit our businesses, but we can still send our teams to recruit their businesses.” Texas lawmakers also lambasted the travel restrictions. “California might be able to stop their state employees, but they can’t stop all the businesses that are fleeing over taxation and regulation, and relocating to Texas,” Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s press secretary, John Wittman, said.

California was among the many states that joined a lawsuit against President Donald Trump’s revised travel restriction on six countries labeled “countries of concern” by Congress and the Obama administration. The list included Sudan, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen—all of which have been deemed terrorist hotbeds.

It would be safe to assume that those countries are not in line with the LGBT agenda. Yet, California seemingly finds red states to be more problematic than terror states.

California’s cultural secession is enormously dangerous to the future of the country and is a prime example of the increasing intolerance of modern progressivism.

When the Founding Fathers scrapped the Articles of Confederation and adopted the Constitution, one of the prime reasons for the switch was to create a system of free trade between the states. This was one of the few expansive powers the Founders placed in the Constitution, and for a very good reason. By doing so, they created the largest and wealthiest free trade zone in the world.

California’s move flirts dangerously with the kind of economic warfare the Founders sought to prevent and will likely be met with punitive actions from other states and constitutional challenges.
Though still a step away from outright secession, California’s message is clear: Join us in the march of history, or we will crush you. And if we don’t get our way, we’ll divorce you.

Congress Sitting On Their Hands? : Economy Needs Congressional Action and Direction

How cool is this, a clear and comprehensive plan to fix the economy : Congressional representatives actually doing the job they were elected to do. WOW - what an easy concept for the people in the trenches to understand.

But what's happening here? Congress is in a holding pattern? How come? Yeah I know, Rome wasn't built in a matter of months either, but we, as those of us living and working the trenches must have a sign of our elected officials actually showing they are at least moving in the right direction.

I have not seen it.

Trump for his part is at least is doing something to start the ball rolling with all of his executive orders, but that's not enough. Congress has to actually do constitutive legislation to reverse the destructive actions resulting in the chaos and conflict we suffer under now because of Barack and the progressive socialist liberal democrats over the a last 8 years.

Dammit, stop whining and forget about recess, stay in Washington and do your job!!! The country is in dyer need of leadership. 

Congress’ Inaction on Trump’s Agenda Costs America Nearly 1,000 Jobs Per Day
Ed Feulner / @EdFeulner / June 27, 2017   

“Drain the swamp!” It was the battle cry of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign.
Many Republican members of Congress echoed that call as well, riding it to victory—and control of both legislative chambers.

The American people rallied around the cry because it reinforced their impression of what Washington had become: a swamp infested with special-interest groups and power-hungry bureaucrats. They rallied, too, because it held the promise of getting our country back on track—by reforming the tax code, repealing Obamacare, cutting spending, and eliminating the needless red tape that stifles entrepreneurship and innovation.

But more than five months into the new Congress and the new administration, precious little draining has occurred. The delay in action is not only frustrating, it’s expensive: With the promised reforms, the U.S. could have created as much as $5 billion per day in economic output. If nothing changes, the swamp will end up costing more than 2 million prospective jobs over the next decade.

Elites argue that piles of regulations and special rules keep everyone safe. But most Americans understand that these policies serve mainly to enrich special interests and keep upstart entrepreneurs from gaining a foothold. All the regulation keeps new businesses from offering innovative goods and services at lower prices. All too often, these regulatory schemes not only fail to protect consumers—they create huge problems, like financial crises and housing busts. And then the elites point to the problems as proof of the need for even further governmental intervention.

The bailouts lead to new programs and federal agencies and, of course, even more rules. But most Americans don’t want more government. Rather, they want relief from big government so that they can make their own decisions and improve their own communities. There is plenty of evidence that people thrive more under limited government than under a vastly more intrusive government.
Had the U.S. economy simply stayed on the same trend during the Obama years that it had followed over the previous 25 years, gross domestic product per person would be nearly 10 percent higher than it is now.

Instead, after years of ever-expanding government control and regulation, the economy dropped off a cliff in 2008. Just getting back on the previous trend would be great, but Americans can do much better. At least three major reforms are now possible that can unleash the power of the American economy.

•Repeal Obamacare: A study by the National Center for Policy Analysis estimates that repealing Obamacare would provide a boost to real GDP of more than 1 percent per year over the next decade.
Based on these projections, personal income would increase by hundreds of billions annually, and the economy would add nearly 1 million jobs by the end of the decade.

A simple division by the number of days suggests that the cost of inaction is nearly $500 million per day in lost output. In terms of jobs, this could translate into as many as 250 lost jobs per day (a relatively small number unless one of those jobs is yours).

• Shrink Regulation: Admittedly, this is a herculean task. The federal government has been burdening people with innovation-killing rules for decades, and it is difficult to estimate the economic effects of a broad deregulation effort. Two Heritage Foundation scholars have estimated the economic impact of reducing just one of the likely effects of Dodd-Frank: excess borrowing costs.

Their study projects that removing these excess costs would grow the GDP by more than 1 percent per year for the next decade, and boost capital stock by nearly 3 percent per year. Inaction on Dodd-Frank costs another $500 million per day.

• Reform the Tax Code: Estimates of tax reform benefits vary widely because there are so many ways to improve the U.S. tax system, but several plans are currently taking shape.

The Tax Foundation studied the House Republican plan and found that it would increase the long-run size of the economy (in terms of GDP) by more than 9 percent. It also projected that the Rubio-Lee plan would grow the economy by 15 percent over the long run. Trump’s plan is not fully detailed yet, but a decent guess is that the benefits would be somewhere near these projections.

The increase in jobs, wages, and wealth from growing the economy through these types of tax reforms would be enormous. The cost of waiting on just tax reform can be conservatively estimated as approaching $2 billion per day in lost output.

Repealing Obamacare, rolling back the regulatory state, and implementing pro-growth tax reform would be a big shot in the arm to the U.S. economy.

Over the next decade, the cumulative effect of making just those three reforms could boost GDP anywhere from $8 trillion to $18 trillion. That translates to a cost of between roughly $2 billion and $5 billion for each day that Americans are denied these reforms. In terms of lost jobs, waiting costs nearly 1,000 jobs per day.

Some have said that because any legislative action taken this year wouldn’t take effect until at least Jan. 1, 2018, it doesn’t matter if it happens now or in September. False: The sooner investors and entrepreneurs can see the changes on the horizon, the quicker they can begin taking actions that benefit the economy.

A filled swamp is expensive to maintain. The American people are waiting for Congress to drain it. And they should expect their elected representatives to stay in Washington and make the real changes they were elected to do.
Originally published in The Washington Times

Fast And Furious Is Hot Again : Deception And Deceit

What a tragic situation. But a great signal to everyone that the federal government is too big and out of control. And a government completely controlled by progressive democrats that used it's power to allow ''Fast and Furious'' to happen, resulting in murder on both sides of the boarder.

Even worse, the president of the United State, Barack Ogbjma willingly and knowingly was complicit in murder? Barack actually used his power as president to stop the investigation.  Barack had to know what was happening other wise why would he step in to save Holder for testifying under oath? It couldn't be just to save Holder.

Government out of control? And then explain how the progressive socialist liberal democrats can tell us that ''single payer healthcare'', that is a health care system completely run by government bureaucrats is a good thing.

Fast and Furious Whistleblower Says He Became an ‘Enemy of the State’
Video Team / June 26, 2017

It’s one of the longest-running congressional investigations of our time: the probe into Fast and Furious. It was the government’s secret operation to watch as thousands of weapons were trafficked to Mexico’s killer drug cartels.

In many respects, the story began when federal agent John Dodson agreed to an interview with investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson in March 2011. It was highly unusual, if not unprecedented, for a sitting federal agent to speak out in such a strong way. In the latest episode of “Full Measure,” Attkisson catches up with Dodson six years later.

Dodson: Part of my mission with the [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives] in Phoenix was to combat a legal firearms trafficking to the Mexican drug cartels. Somehow, in order to achieve that goal, the strategy that had been adopted was to facilitate and allow the illegal firearms trafficking to the Mexican drug cartels. We were essentially flooding the border region with firearms from the U.S. civilian market, and then tracking and tallying the results as they were used in crimes on both sides of the border.
Attkisson: “We” meaning federal agents, who are supposed to be stopping the trafficking?
Dodson: Yes, ma’am, meaning the federal agency that was in charge of combating that very thing.

Dodson had objected internally to the dangerous practice of “gunwalking” secretly allowed by the ATF. But his objections fell on deaf ears.

Attkisson: Was the final straw Brian Terry’s murder?
Dodson: Yes. When Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was killed, I immediately noticed that my agency was attempting to cover up any link between the investigation and the strategy that we employed and the death of Agent Terry.

Illegal immigrants armed with Fast and Furious rifles gunned down Terry in Arizona in December 2010 near the Mexican border. Dodson says Department of Justice officials frantically worked to cover up the killers’ links to weapons trafficked as part of the secret federal case. He agreed to an interview with Attkisson for CBS News in March of 2011.
(Attkisson’s interview with Dodson on CBS aired March 3, 2011.)

Attkisson: Dodson’s job is to stop gun trafficking across the border. Instead, he says he was ordered to sit by and watch it happen. Investigators call the tactic letting guns “walk.” Dodson’s bosses say that never happened. Now, he’s risking his job to go public.

Dodson: I’m boots on the ground here in Phoenix, telling you we’ve been doing it every day since I’ve been here. Here I am. Tell me I didn’t do the things I did. Tell me you didn’t order me to do the things I did. Tell me it didn’t happen. Now you have a name on it. You have a face to put with it. Here I am. Someone now, tell me it didn’t happen.
Attkisson: When you stepped forward, what did you think and hope would happen?
Dodson: When I stepped forward, I thought it would all come to a screeching halt, and that the case would be shut down, the policy would be abandoned, and it would pretty much be over with very, very quickly, as soon as word got to the right people. I was very surprised to learn otherwise.
Attkisson: What did happen?
Dodson: Well, originally the Department of Justice issued what was a letter denying the allegation, categorically denying the allegations. And from that point on, there was a congressional hearing and obstruction and document hiding and it seemed like everything that the United States government could do at the time to avoid showing the allegations that was alleged and proving them and … still continuing to deny that there was any nexus between the investigative strategy and Agent Terry’s death.

The supposed goal of the government’s gunwalking was to see where the weapons ended up and make a big case that took down Mexican cartel leaders. That never happened. Instead, the guns were used in crimes on both sides of the border. Attkisson identified a dozen other federal cases in which agents allegedly allowed guns to walk in places like Florida, New Mexico, Texas, and Arizona, with names like Too Hot To Handle, Wide Receiver, and Castaway.

In a bipartisan vote in 2012, the House of Representatives held Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress for refusing to turn over documents in the Fast and Furious case. President Barack Obama blocked Congress from getting the documents by using executive privilege the one and only time of his presidency. Eighty thousand pages were later released under a court challenge.
At a little-publicized hearing earlier this month, House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, said Congress is still trying to convince the Justice Department to hand over outstanding documents.

Chaffetz: Litigation is ongoing as it continues its unprecedented stonewalling and I’m sorry to report under the Trump administration this has not changed. This has not changed.

Dodson testified at the hearing alongside Terry’s mother, looking back at his decision to blow the whistle.

Dodson: That single action … went from being an agent of the government … to enemy of the state.

Members of both parties, including Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., and the incoming chairman of the House Oversight Committee, said they still don’t think they have all the answers as to what was really behind Fast and Furious.

Gowdy: I’m just struggling to understand how this ever could have turned out any other way. As soon as the gun leaves the parking lot, unless you’re maintaining constant surveillance, then you’ve lost the gun. And then if it crosses the border, God knows what you’re going to do with it. And then when you learn they didn’t even let our Mexican counterparts in law enforcement know what was going on. This is the most imminently predictable tragedy that I’ve been connected with since I’ve been in Congress.
Attkisson: What are some of the outstanding questions today?
Dodson: Well, I think that some of them, and they all might not pertain directly to the Terry family, is the amount of homicides or murders that have been caused by the firearms that we allowed to be trafficked, what the ultimate cost of this strategy was, I think those numbers have been kept and held.

Although the government won’t release information delineating the crimes that have been committed by criminals using guns trafficked during Fast and Furious, Attkisson found evidence of at least 43 killings, including two U.S. federal agents, three Mexican police, and a terrorist torture kidnapping and murder in Mexico.

Attkisson:  Do you think people are still in place in government who are part of what you call the obstruction or the cover-up?
Dodson: I think they are. I think maybe not in the same exact positions. I think many of them moved around. But there is still a good portion of that system, that mechanism that is still in place.
Attkisson: It sounds like your takeaway is that the public should understand it holds the power and use it.
Dodson: Yes, the public does hold the power. They’re supposed, that’s how our entire system is designed, but if we don’t ask the questions, if we don’t hold people accountable, if we don’t get the explanations that we deserve and the answers that are entitled to us, then we don’t. We, we give those reins of power away, alright? And we’re also subjected to a bureaucracy that is so big and so uncontrollable that it answers only to itself, no longer to us.

In case you’re wondering, Dodson still works at ATF today, though he says he’s been marginalized, retaliated against, and transferred around 11 times in six years. In April, U.S. officials arrested one of Terry’s alleged killers. Five others have pleaded guilty or been found guilty by a jury in the case. One suspect is still on the loose. Hundreds of guns that the feds allowed to be trafficked to criminals are still missing and unaccounted for.

Canada's Transgender Laws Challenge Common Sense And Logic

What happens to common sense and good logic when a person assumes a roll in government? Why does a person, a politician become someone else when the people take the time to vote for them because they said something that the people liked, but then totally forget what they said before they were elected?

It is very troubling and frustrating knowing that most politicians have the best intentions when entering public office, but then willingly do just the opposite of what they said they would do if elected.

Understanding these new laws on transgenderism ''begs a willingness to suspend disbelief''. What is 'political correctness' and how does it become the new norm?

Once installed in a government office and meet their fellow politicians, a change comes over them. Common sense and intellectual discourse flies out the window. Is insanity contagious?

This New Law in Canada Could Remove Kids From Parents Who Reject Transgender Ideology
Andrea Mrozek / June 27, 2017   

Canada’s most populous province, Ontario, just passed a law that could allow the government to remove kids from their home if their parents oppose the new transgender ideology.
Could there be anything more terrifying for parents than that?

It’s not hard to see why the passage of Bill 89 captured the attention of so many across the globe.
But how did this bill—which is about foster care and adoption—get caught up in politically correct ideologies about “gender identity” and “gender expression” in the first place? It didn’t come out of nowhere.

Ontario has passed five gender laws in the past five years, few of which received much media attention or even opposition in the legislature. Bill 89 is the latest in this litany of bad legislation.
It was back in 2012 “gender identity and gender expression” were added to Ontario’s Human Rights Code, making Ontario the first jurisdiction in North America to pass such a law. With that initial snowball, the avalanche got rolling.

Facilitated by a majority government and a lame-duck opposition, the following bills sailed through to provincial law in Ontario:

• Bill 13, also in 2012, compelled public schools to have gay-straight alliances and demanded schools combat “homophobia” and “transphobia.”
• Bill 77 in 2015 prohibited particular forms of therapy for minors who struggle with gender dysphoria or other aspects of their sexuality, against the advice of numerous psychiatrists and counsellors.
• Bill 28, which passed into law in December 2016, removed the terms “mother” and “father” from Ontario law, and permits “pre-conception agreements” allowing four unrelated and unmarried people to become parents.

All of this led to the Supporting Children, Youth and Families Act, which passed into law just over a week ago. It is still commonly called Bill 89. Bill 89 is a child protection bill that aims to make changes to our foster care and adoption system across Ontario. It regulates the Children’s Aid Societies, which includes over 40 organizations across the province responsible for responding to child protection concerns. The impetus for Bill 89 was, in part, the murder of a 7-year-old girl while in the care of her Children’s Aid Society-appointed guardians.

The new law makes a number of innocuous changes and even some positive ones to how children who are abused and/or abandoned will be treated. Yet the controversy stems from the inclusion of language from the Ontario Human Rights Code into the new child welfare act. This takes us right back to 2012 when “gender identity and gender expression,” two nebulous terms, were added into the Human Rights Code.

Prior to Bill 89, social workers considered principles in a child protection case—principles like continuity of care, stable family relationships, and respecting cultural, religious, and regional differences.

After Bill 89, social workers attempting to assess a child’s situation must now consider the specifics of the Ontario Human Rights Code, including “[a] child’s or young person’s race, ancestry, place of origin, color, ethnic origin, citizenship, family diversity, disability, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression.” Incorporating the Human Rights Code writ large into Bill 89 is problematic.

The Human Rights Code is intended to be applied to commerce, not families—to employment, housing, and other services. But at the same time, the code also has protections for freedom of conscience and religion. With Bill 89, Human Rights Code language moves into the private domain of the family, but without including specific protections for conscience and religion.

The most serious and immediate risk is not that children will be arbitrarily removed from a home by some kind of gender police, but rather that prospective foster or adoptive parents who disagree with new gender ideologies will be less likely to be chosen. This decreases the pool of loving families who can foster children, doing those kids a disservice. While statistics are hard to come by, in some communities in Ontario, it’s estimated that half of all foster families are practicing Christians.
Parents need to be ever vigilant. The reality today across North America is that fashionable new trends are being pushed into law at a dizzying rate.

All of us need to be on the alert for seemingly small or inconsequential developments in language, policy, or law. Little words like “gender expression” can represent big ideology, and they are worth combatting wherever they crop up. Five gender bills in five years makes Ontario’s story a cautionary tale for our friends and neighbors to the south.

Experts Say Terrorism Is A Reality In Europe : United States Is Next.

Doesn't it seem reasonable to wonder why the progressives socialist liberal democrats are so intent on not stopping unlimited immigration, as well as doing what ever they can to prevent a boarder wall?

Is it reasonable to believe progressives liberals have a desire to commit suicide? What possible reason could the progressives have to hate the country that has  given them everything? Do they just feel good about themselves when they can proudly proclaim their determination to ''fundamentally transform'' America into a failed  society of hateful despots?

What exactly do progressive democrats believe the definition of national security is? As many liberal democrats have stated, they are in favor of open boarders and allowing as many refugees and other immigrants to enter the country as can arrive on our shores unvetted.

And when the worst happens, and it will, who do you think the progressive liberal democrats will blame for not doing enough to stop the terrorist from reeking havoc? Sarah Palin is always a good target the progressive love to hate. WOW - Who Knew?

Terrorism Evolving and on the Rise in Europe, Expert Tells House Panel
Rachel del Guidice / @LRacheldG / June 27, 2017

Europeans who are joining ISIS make up one big reason the rise of terrorism isn’t going to be thwarted anytime soon, an expert on the subject told a congressional panel. “At least 5,000 to 6,000 Europeans who have fought alongside ISIS and other Islamist groups in Syria and Iraq are now returning to their home countries,” Heritage Foundation scholar Robin Simcox testified Tuesday.
Simcox, the Margaret Thatcher fellow at the conservative think tank, specializes in terrorism and national security. He said the terrorist threat is becoming more widespread across Europe, pointing to Germany as an example.

“There was an eightfold increase in plots between 2015 and 2016, largely due to a surge in plots involving refugees,” Simcox said. “In fact, Germany faced more plots last year than it did in the entire 2000-2015 period.”

The House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on terrorism, nonproliferation, and trade held the hearing, titled “Allies Under Attack: The Terrorist Threat to Europe.”

Recent terror attacks in Europe include June 3 on London Bridge; June 19 in North London; May 22 outside a stadium in Manchester, England; April 20 along the Champs-Élysées in Paris; and April 7 in Stockholm.  The British government alone is monitoring 23,000 individuals who may pose a terrorist threat, Simcox said. Terrorist activity has shot up in the past three years, he said:

Between January 2014 and the end of May 2017, there had been 15 separate countries targeted; most commonly, Belgium, France, Germany, and the U.K. This year, there have been multiple attacks on traditional Islamist targets in the U.K. and France.

Despite the growing threat, Simcox said, it isn’t possible to successfully find most of those who are making terror plots.  “While there are certainly trends, it is impossible to build a catch-all profile of who will carry out these attacks,” Simcox said, adding: “It is not just young men, for example. Khalid Masood, the Westminster Bridge attacker, was 52. My research has even shown an uptick in plotting by teenagers and girls.” Also changing is terrorists’ weapons of choice, he said:

Since November 2015, Belgium, France, Germany, and the U.K. have all seen operatives acquiring the expertise and materials to assemble suicide bombs without having their plans thwarted. There has also been a multitude of plots involving firearms, knives, or some other form of edged weapon, such as a machete or an ax, and, of course, the use of vehicles.

The hard truth, Simcox said, is that “the grave danger that terrorism poses to Europe is only likely to increase.”  “The U.S. must work with Europe to defeat this threat,” he told the lawmakers.

Before joining The Heritage Foundation in 2016, Simcox was a research fellow at the Henry Jackson Society, a foreign policy think tank in London.  While there, he wrote about terrorism, including co-authoring a pamphlet titled “Al-Qaeda in the United States,” which profiled every known court conviction in America linked to al-Qaeda.

Rewriting History In The South : Progressives Destroying Our Heritage

Destroying the history of the Confederate Generals and the South's belief that they had a legitimate reason to secede from the union was very similar to what ISIS terrorist are doing destroying the ancient history of the middle east by blowing up the building and the artifacts that tell the people who they are and how they got here.

Also, by destroying the history of the middle east it will be much easier to convince the populations that ISIS is now the only legitimate authority. And so it is now with the progressives intent on destroying the South's history, the progressives are moving to change, rewrite the history of the American struggles of the past that define us.

Destroying our heritage will result in others redefining who we are and what they want us to be.

Were Confederate Generals Traitors?
Walter E. Williams / June 28, 2017   

My “Rewriting American History” column of a fortnight ago, about the dismantling of Confederate monuments, generated considerable mail. Some argued there should not be statues honoring traitors such as Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, and Jefferson Davis, who fought against the Union. Victors of wars get to write the history, and the history they write often does not reflect the facts.
Let’s look at some of the facts and ask: Did the South have a right to secede from the Union? If it did, we can’t label Confederate generals as traitors.

Article 1 of the Treaty of Paris (1783), which ended the war between the Colonies and Great Britain, held “New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and Independent States.”

Representatives of these states came together in Philadelphia in 1787 to write a constitution and form a union. During the ratification debates, Virginia’s delegates said, “The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression.” The ratification documents of New York and Rhode Island expressed similar sentiments.

At the Constitutional Convention, a proposal was made to allow the federal government to suppress a seceding state. James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution,” rejected it. The minutes from the debate paraphrased his opinion:

A union of the states containing such an ingredient [would] provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a state would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound.

America’s first secessionist movement started in New England after the Louisiana Purchase in 1803. Many were infuriated by what they saw as an unconstitutional act by President Thomas Jefferson.
The movement was led by Timothy Pickering of Massachusetts, George Washington’s secretary of war and secretary of state. He later became a congressman and senator.

“The principles of our revolution point to the remedy—a separation,” Pickering wrote to George Cabot in 1803, for “the people of the East cannot reconcile their habits, views, and interests with those of the South and West.”

The Left Is Trying to Rewrite American History. We Must Stop Them.

His Senate colleague James Hillhouse of Connecticut agreed, saying, “The eastern states must and will dissolve the union and form a separate government.”

This call for secession was shared by other prominent Americans, such as John Quincy Adams, Elbridge Gerry, Fisher Ames, Josiah Quincy III, and Joseph Story. The call failed to garner support at the 1814-15 Hartford Convention.

The U.S. Constitution would have never been ratified—and a union never created—if the people of those 13 “free sovereign and Independent States” did not believe that they had the right to secede.
Even on the eve of the War of 1861, Unionist politicians saw secession as a right that states had. Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel of Maryland said, “Any attempt to preserve the union between the states of this Confederacy by force would be impractical and destructive of republican liberty.”
The Northern Democratic and Republican parties favored allowing the South to secede in peace.

Why Cities Shouldn’t Take Down Confederate Statues 

Northern newspapers editorialized in favor of the South’s right to secede. New-York Tribune (Feb. 5, 1860): “If tyranny and despotism justified the revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of five millions of southrons from the federal union in 1861.”

The Detroit Free Press (Feb. 19, 1861): “An attempt to subjugate the seceded states, even if successful, could produce nothing but evil—evil unmitigated in character and appalling in extent.”
The New-York Times (March 21, 1861): “There is a growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go.”

Confederate generals were fighting for independence from the Union just as Washington and other generals fought for independence from Great Britain. Those who’d label Lee as a traitor might also label Washington as a traitor. I’m sure Great Britain’s King George III would have agreed.

High Court Denies Hearing On 2nd Amendment : Judge Thomas Doesn't Agree

This article doesn't name the other members of the high court how they voted on a defense of the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution. Still it seems obvious that the 4 progressive socialist liberals on the court, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Steven Breyer will most of the time vote against the Constitution as they are wholly invested in denying  anything that has to do with the personal freedom to chose.

Socialism is not about choices, socialism is about obedience to authority.

How Kennedy, Roberts and Alito voted and why are also a good questions to ask.

Justice Thomas Calls Out the Supreme Court for Not Believing in the Second Amendment
Thomas Phippen / June 26, 2017   

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas had stern words for his colleagues when the court declined to hear a case challenging California’s handgun laws, saying that the jurists do not understand the importance of self-defense.

The case, supported by the National Rifle Association, involves San Diego resident Edward Peruta, who challenged his county’s refusal to grant him permission to carry a concealed firearm outside of his home.

“For those of us who work in marbled halls, guarded constantly by a vigilant and dedicated police force, the guarantees of the Second Amendment might seem antiquated and superfluous,” Thomas wrote after most members of the court declined to hear the California case.

“But the Framers made a clear choice: They reserved to all Americans the right to bear arms for self-defense. I do not think we should stand by idly while a State denies its citizens that right, particularly when their very lives may depend on it,” Thomas said.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, the court’s newest member, joined Thomas’ statement on the court’s refusal to hear the case, calling the decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Peruta v. San Diego “indefensible.”

A case needs to be approved by at least four justices in order to get on the Supreme Court’s docket.
“The Second Amendment’s core purpose further supports the conclusion that the right to bear arms extends to public carry,” Thomas wrote. “Even if other Members of the Court do not agree that the Second Amendment likely protects a right to public carry, the time has come for the Court to answer this important question definitively.”

The San Diego County Sheriff’s Department has very narrow restrictions for concealed carry permits. Only those who can prove they have a regular need for self-defense against a specific threat are granted concealed permits.  “The whole point of the Sheriff’s policy is to confine concealed-carry licenses to a very narrow subset of law-abiding residents,” Peruta’s attorneys wrote. “And because California law prohibits openly carrying a handgun outside the home, the result is that the typical law-abiding resident cannot bear a handgun for self-defense outside the home at all.”

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

OgbjmaCare's Real Story Told To Pence : Victims Of OgbjmaCare

Goodness. Real life stories of struggle against government overreach and treachery? And what the democrats really wanted is for OgbjmaCare to fail and then institute ''single payer health care'' where the government control all aspects of health care? Barack did make it clear on several occasion that this indeed is what he wanted.

This is astounding, if not completely insane, in that who would ever believe the government could possibly administer a single payer health care plan when nearly every other aspect of government control of American life is a near total failure.

And again remember, OgbjmaCare was developed with no Republican input. None. It was totally done behind closed doors and gave only a few days for reading of the bill before it was put to a vote which no Republican voted for it. 

But as the Republicans struggle now to fix the OgbjmaCare nightmare before the entire system collapses, what do the progressive democrats do but demonize the Republican plan with hateful rhetoric about what death and destruction will result from the Republican efforts to solve the problem.

And who is front and center bringing the most hate and vitriol but the lap dog of the progressive democrats, the main steam media. Who knew!

Americans Struggling Under Obamacare Tell Pence ‘Real Story’
Fred Lucas / @FredLucasWH / June 26, 2017   

Marjorie Weer spent six months negotiating with an insurance company just to clear the way for her 3-year-old son Montgomery to travel from South Carolina to see doctors at Boston Children’s Hospital.

Monty, as the family calls him, has spina bifida, a birth defect that prevents the spinal cord from developing properly. Weer says she had to press his case with the insurer from November into April.
During Monty’s short life, the family has had three health insurance plans—under two different companies—largely because of problems caused by Obamacare, Weer says. Those plans offered the Weers few options for insurers in South Carolina and restricted coverage networks outside that state.

“Whenever you tell a special needs mom ‘No,’ there is no point to that,” Weer said Monday, as she had the ears of Vice President Mike Pence and Seema Verma, administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which oversees Obamacare.

Weer, whose story was first featured by The Daily Signal in February, traveled to Washington to be part of Pence’s listening session with Americans who spoke on behalf of 10 different families who are “victims of Obamacare.” “You make us jump through hoops; I have the strongest legs in South Carolina,” Weer said in the meeting at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, adjacent to the White House. She added:

I’ve jumped through hoops every day for three years. So thankfully they did approve the care, after a long time on the phone, for [Monty] to go to the doctor he wanted to. But he is 3. I have a 17-month-old daughter. I don’t want to be on the phone for hours. I want to pick up Play-Doh off the floor. I want to be a mom to my kids.

One Mom’s Fight for Her Special Needs Son in the Age of Obamacare

It’s ironic, Weer said, that the Democrats who passed Obamacare and staunchly support keeping it in place also tout themselves as “pro-woman” and “pro-choice.” “I’m a woman. My choice is to take my child to a different doctor than Obamacare will let me,” Weer said, with Monty sitting beside her.
After hearing Weer’s story, Pence said to her: “Monty is truly blessed.” She is the one who is blessed, his mother responded.

“This is the real story of Obamacare in America,” Pence said, speaking of all the participants in the listening session.

As Senate Republicans grapple with a health care bill to replace Obamacare, the White House featured the forum for “victims of Obamacare.” Representatives of families talked for more than an hour about skyrocketing premiums, loss of coverage, and a lack of stability when health plans change on an annual basis.

The Congressional Budget Office predicted Monday that 22 million fewer people would have health insurance under the Senate plan than under the Affordable Care Act, popularly known as Obamacare.
However, critics note that too many health insurance plans under Obamacare can’t be used because medical networks are so restricted. And Obamacare mandates that Americans buy insurance even if they don’t want it, or pay a penalty.

Christine McCullough, of Slidell, Louisiana, is among the 6.5 million Americans who chose to pay a penalty and buy their own insurance. At Pence’s event, McCullough spoke about the outrageous expense of Obamacare plans. “Move now,” she implored lawmakers. “Don’t wait until this meeting is over. Move now to let us buy insurance plans across state lines.”

Christine Chalkey of Streator, Illinois, talked about her 22-year-old son, Jacob, who has a rare seizure disorder. When Medicaid expanded in Illinois, it led to less coverage for Jacob’s medication, Chalkey said. “He had tried so many different medicines,” she said. While on a new medication, he had a major, life-threatening seizure. “I’m a living miracle,” Jacob said during the forum. Those around the table applauded him, and he passed written letters about himself to the vice president, including one for President Donald Trump to read.

Pence passed that one along to Kellyanne Conway, counselor to the president, who was at the meeting. Pence gave a hug to another participant, Connie May of Richmond, Ohio, who talked about what she lost in paying for insurance that too many doctors won’t accept. “It’s been ringing in our ears: affordable health insurance for everyone. Well, who is everyone?” May said, tearfully.

Seattle Wage Hikes Brings Problems : More Unemployment - Less Hours

In the news over the last several days are repots that the minimum wages increases for entry level works will be beneficial and rewarding to bring them into the main stream of American life. They will now have a living wage.

But what has transpired is not what the progressive socialist bargain for? Or did they get what they actually wanted in the first place. More unemployment. And not just unemployment, but permanent unemployment as now a machine will take they place, not another worker willing to work for less.

And maybe to compound the problem, a few years after this wage increase those workers will be back on the street wanting more money as their needs went up with their new wages.

What remains is an army of 'rent seekers' that will perpetually be looking for more subsides for their personal survival. Oh, and also voters that will have no other options but to vote for more subsides. A win win situation for progressive socialist democrats.

Seattle Hiked Its Minimum Wage. Here’s How It’s Impacting Low-Income Workers.
Jarrett Stepman / @JarrettStepman / June 26, 2017   

Helping the “forgotten man” was an important and successful message for President Donald Trump in his election campaign. He tapped into the anxieties of many Americans who are struggling to find work and are watching as traditional industries disappear or are gobbled up by automation. While some of this development has been natural, much has been artificially created by bad policies. In particular: the minimum wage.

A bombshell report was released Monday about the impact of minimum wage hikes in Seattle, Washington. The study, conducted by economists at the University of Washington, showed that minimum wage laws significantly decreased employment for lower-income workers.

Additionally, the report found that average hours for low-income employees had also declined since Seattle’s $13 minimum wage law began being implemented in 2015. The original proposal was for a $15 minimum wage—which has been a benchmark for national minimum wage advocates. If the study is accurate, one would imagine a further $2 wage minimum would have even more drastic effects.
Data Show These 6 Big Cities Aren’t Faring Well After Minimum Wage Hikes

Employers, burdened by the newly imposed expenses, are cutting hours and cutting payroll. Under these conditions, many Americans are struggling to find work, or are underemployed when they do. A toxic brew.

One of the more explosive findings was that the “wage increase to $13 reduced hours worked in low-wage jobs by around 9 percent, while hourly wages in such jobs increased by around 3 percent. Consequently, total payroll fell for such jobs, implying that the minimum wage ordinance lowered low-wage employees’ earnings by an average of $125 per month in 2016.”

So low-income employees earned, on average, $1,500 less per year. This is a big deal for someone already living on a tight budget. Let’s also note that this took place during an economic boom in Seattle.

While critics of the study have taken this as a reason to doubt its findings—the argument being that booming economies tend to squeeze out low-income workers—it should be nonetheless significant that while Seattle was undergoing explosive growth, those at the bottom of the income spectrum were getting squeezed out.

The result of the minimum wage hikes shouldn’t be surprising. As The Heritage Foundation noted in 2016:

Companies hire workers when the additional earnings their labor creates exceeds the cost of employing them. Starting wages of $15.00 per hour mean full-time employees must create at least $38,700 a year in value for their employers. Such a high hurdle would make it much harder for less experienced and less skilled workers to find full-time jobs.

Read the report: Raising Minimum Starting Wages to $15 Per Hour Would Eliminate 7 Million Jobs

Even some supporters of minimum wage concluded from the research that the minimum wage rates may at least be too high, even if they agree with them on principle.

The findings could be a critical blow to the “Fight for $15” movement. This group’s national agenda had already suffered a setback when a separate study found a significant number of middle-tier restaurant closures occurred after an increased minimum wage came into effect in San Francisco.
But now there is more hard evidence that minimum wage laws both fail to accomplish the ends they were created for and in fact create more burdens for those they are intended to benefit. Continuing on this path will be enormously destructive for our country.

Minimum wage policies have been billed as a boon for the poor, but the University of Washington study shows how these well-meaning policies can pave the road to unemployment and misery.
Few situations are more destructive to individuals and society than the lack of meaningful work for large swaths of the population—as even a low-paying job is better than no job or opportunity at all.
When President Abraham Lincoln was asked by a friend what the most important value was in carving out a successful career, he responded: “Work, work, work is the main thing.”

Lincoln saw the “opportunity society” and reaping the fruits of one’s labor as fundamental to the growth and underlying goodness of America. It was one of the many reasons he so fiercely opposed slavery.

Barriers to employment will naturally push more Americans out of work and on to the welfare rolls, sapping the skills and dignity of Americans who may already be struggling. Increasing the obstacles for people trying to find a job perniciously turns the country into what political scientist Walter Russell Mead called a “warehouse” society of mass unemployment, an all-encompassing public dole, and no future. This is an outcome that for millions of Americans would destroy “independence founded on achievement, on the human dignity that comes from doing work.”

Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist David Autor called this a “canary in the gold mine” moment—and we must heed this warning. It’s one of many harbingers for how America—renowned for its dynamism—can descend on the stultifying path of decline that Europe has already sailed.

Melania Brings Poise And Class : Class Can't Be Learned. It's Who You Are.

What an interesting contrast to what has gone on before with our first ladies. Would Michelle have done the same, possibly so but still this situation wouldn't have been as significant as it appear here as Michelle's history has a tendency to taint her actions with a sense of indifferent insincerity to others that come into her sphere of influence. 

Maybe one of the reasons the progressive liberal democrats hate Trump so much is that Melania is so stunning and poised. Michelle was nice looking as well but lacked that certain element of believability of her sincerity. And maybe it wasn't all her fault but just collateral damage that brought the unbelief to her position of first lady.

You can't learn class, you just have to understand what it means.

The most memorable moment from the trip in Israel of president Trump and the First Lady was probably that moment at the entrance to the house of President Rivlin.

"Nechama Rivlin, President Rivlin’s wife, welcomed the First Lady Melania Trump at the door. As they were about to walk inside, Nechama whispered to Melania that she will do her best to catch up with the walking pace, but she might be a bit slower because of her medical condition which requires her to use an oxygen tank. Melania took her hand, looked at her and said: “We’ll walk at any pace you choose”.

 And so they walked, slowly, gracefully and proudly, hand in hand.

That, is the moment I choose to cherish. That silent gesture has neither any political significance nor any colorful tone to it, but it is everything.

It is the hope we yearn for when we speak of peace;
It is the kindness we wish to protect when we speak of defeating terror;
It is the dignity we want to teach when we speak of stopping hate;
It is the friendship we pray for when we speak of our unbreakable bond;

In other words, this gesture encompasses everything that is good, kind and human."

- George Deek
from The Jewish Standard

Conservative Hate Groups Listed : Nonprofit ''GuideStar'' Exposed As Biased

As the saying goes to describe the actions of those that claim to be 'neutral' or 'unbiased' in their approach to Republican or Conservative organizations and institutions in the nonprofit arena like GuideStar or any where else for that matter is, ''Integrity once compromised is lost for ever''.

This article doesn't mention how many progressive socialist liberal organizations are listed in GuideStar's ''hate group''? Isn't this similar to the IRS attack on Conservative groups seeking special tax statue during the run up to the 2012 presidential election? Nothing to see here, right?

But it can also be argued that the integrity of this organization was never in question as they never had any to start with. They are, after all progressive democrats or worse, criminals passing themselves off as ''protecting the public interest''. In reality they are motivated to compromise or destroy any and all opposition to the progressive agenda and ideology.

Nonprofit Tracker to Remove ‘Hate Group’ Labels on Conservative Groups for ‘Time Being’
Rachel del Guidice / @LRacheldG / June 25, 2017

The nation’s leading source of information on U.S. charities announced it will modify its use of a controversial “hate group” designation in listings for some well-known and broadly supported conservative nonprofits. “We have decided to remove the SPLC annotations from these 46 organizations for the time being,” read a statement posted Friday on GuideStar’s website. “This change will be implemented during the week of June 26, 2017. In the meantime, we will make this information available to any user on request.”

GuideStar, which calls itself a “neutral” aggregator of tax data on charities, recently incorporated the “hate group” labels produced by the left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center, which inspired 41 conservative leaders to protest the move, asking GuideStar in a letter last week to remove the flagging

In an interview with The Daily Signal last week, William G. “Jerry” Boykin, a retired Army general who is executive vice president of the Family Research Council, said GuideStar’s messaging is not neutral. “GuideStar says that they are neutral, but they are anything but neutral. In fact … I would say at this point, they are becoming an arm of the ultra-left,” Boykin said.
Nonprofit Tracker Smears Dozens of Conservative Organizations as ‘Hate Groups’

The conservatives’ letter, dated June 21 and directed to GuideStar President and CEO Jacob Harold, who is described on GuideStar’s website as a social change strategist, asked the website to drop the “hate group” labels put on 46 organizations. Before joining GuideStar, Harold worked for the Hewlett Foundation’s philanthropy program as a “climate change campaigner” for Rainforest Action Network and Greenpeace USA, and as an organizing director at Citizen Works.

Organizations represented on the letter included the Family Research Council, the American Freedom Defense Initiative, the Immigration Reform Law Institute, the American College of Pediatricians, the National Task Force for Therapy Equality, the American Family Association, the London Center for Policy Research, and the Jewish Institute for Global Awareness.

Signers of the letter pointed to recent history and noted the “hate group” designation propagated by the Southern Poverty Law Center and adopted by GuideStar can have serious implications.
Floyd Corkins, the man convicted of a 2012 attempt to massacre employees at the Family Research Council, was inspired by SPLC’s description of the Christian pro-family research organization as a hate group.

In an interview with the FBI, Corkins said a list on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s website motivated his attack, a connection which the SPLC has acknowledged.


The signers also note that that James T. Hodgkinson, the man who police say tried to gun down Republican lawmakers June 14 during practice for a congressional baseball game just outside Washington in Alexandria, Virginia, liked the Southern Poverty Law Center on Facebook.
House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, R-La., was gravely wounded in the gunman’s attack. Four others were injured.

Among the signers of the June 21 letter was Edwin J. Feulner, founder and president of The Heritage Foundation, the parent organization of The Daily Signal. Two other fixtures of the conservative think tank, Heritage board member Edwin Meese III and Heritage Action for America CEO Michael Needham, also signed the letter.  Heritage is not labeled a hate group by either SPLC or GuideStar.

The signers asked Harold “that GuideStar return to its prior, nonpolitical approach to evaluating nonprofit organizations. Please send your reply within one week of receipt of this letter.”
The self-described “neutral” aggregator announced it would continue to navigate the “political spectrum” and evaluate how to move forward. “We hope to engage in a constructive dialogue with experts from across the political spectrum to help us determine the best way to fulfill this need,” GuideStar’s press release said.

Democrat School Board Chair Rigs Forum On Transgender Issue.

Look no further for legal and moral corruption then the progressive liberal left democrat collective. And the school board chairman in Virginia is just one example of mindless and shameless engineering of outcomes to suit a progressive agenda and ideology that is running rampage in our society, influenced by Barack's religious jihad for ''change and  transformation''.

Fortunately there citizens that will not accept the outrageous malfeasance of the democrats, not locally or nationally. The sad part is these patriots are to few and far between.

Still, it is good to know the war on our civil society by progressive socialist democrats has been joined by people that do not fear the democrats. They know what the freedom speech looks like and are willing to stand up and defend it.

This School Board Leader Tried to Rig a Public Forum in Favor of Transgender Advocates. That’s Unconstitutional.
Caleb Dalton / @JCalebDalton / Jared Dobbs / June 23, 2017   

Stacking the deck at the casino makes for bad feelings among friends. Things get more serious when you’re a government official stacking the deck at public forums with speakers in favor of your personal political views. That not only makes for bad public policy—it violates the First Amendment.

The Prince William County Virginia School Board convened last Wednesday to vote on a proposed rule that would undermine the principle of student privacy between the sexes. It would have laid the groundwork for opening up sex-specific locker rooms, showers, and other private facilities to members of the opposite sex. Many parents have legitimate convictions that maleness and femaleness are essential biological, anatomical attributes, and they would like to openly defend the policy of maintaining privacy between the sexes, despite the claims of gender identity advocates.

Nonetheless, before the meeting, Ryan Sawyers, school board chairman, sent a text to the clerk telling her to frontload a list of favored speakers to comment before those who had already signed up.
This violated local school board rules, which say the public is to speak in the order that each citizen contacts the clerk.

This is particularly significant because at Prince William County Public School board meetings, only 10 to 15 people get to speak before the vote, since initial public comment is limited to 30 minutes. Everybody else has to wait until after the vote to make their views known. But dishing out political leftovers to one’s opponents and frontloading the initial discussion with allies goes beyond violating local school board policy. It’s flatly unconstitutional.

School board meetings must protect viewpoint neutrality to satisfy First Amendment principles of free speech. If a school board chooses to open a forum for public comment, the process of determining who speaks cannot be determined by the viewpoint of the speaker. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit agrees.

In Child Evangelism Fellowship of MD, Inc. v. Montgomery County Public Schools, the majority opinion notes that “‘the state may be justified in reserving [its forum] for certain groups or for the discussion of certain topics,’ subject only to the limitation that its actions must be viewpoint-neutral and reasonable.” And just last week, the Supreme Court reiterated in Matal v. Tam that government officials cannot “regulate speech in ways that favor some viewpoints or ideas at the expense of others.”

The traditional method of letting people speak in the order they sign up with the clerk is an orderly way to achieve these objectives. But giving the chairman the power to decide who speaks before the vote does not satisfy these criteria. If the chairman is not bound by a limiting principle, then he has unbridled discretion to determine who can use the coveted 30 minutes of speech. It will be difficult, over time, for him not to hand-pick allies, particularly since he is a Democratic candidate for Congress.

Indeed, the first speaker on the chairman’s list, Danica Roem, is also a political player, a local Democrat recently nominated to run against incumbent Republican Bob Marshall in a Virginia House of Delegates race. To be clear, after the chairman’s text messages were made public and Alliance Defending Freedom sent a letter to Prince William County Public Schools, the chairman did not stick to his original plan on Wednesday night.

But it remains unclear whether the final speaking order came from a new alternative list he created, or whether he reverted back to school board policy and used the original list of speakers, based on the order that local citizens signed up to speak.

That is precisely the problem. In the American system of ordered liberty, government officials don’t have the power to make that choice. They cannot dish out fast passes for the view they like while relegating opposing views to second-class status. Rather, if officials choose to set up times for public comment, they must set up an orderly process that respects the free speech of all participants.

All voices should equally receive free speech protection, because our Constitution recognizes that when the government plays favorites, everyone’s freedom flounders.