republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

A federal judge has ruled on Monday that the U.S. military must begin
to admit transgenders — those who identify with and behave according to
the opposite sex — into its ranks by January 1, overturning President
Trump’s announcement in July that such individuals would be banned from

U.S. District Judge Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who in October
partially blocked the president’s ban while a lawsuit filed by
transgender soldiers proceeds in court, ruled that her injunction means
the Defense Department must follow through on the order given by
President Obama June 30, 2016 allowing transgender individuals to enlist
beginning January 1.

Defense Secretary Jim Mattis was set to begin processing transgenders into the service branches before President Trump’s July 26 Twitter announcement
that “the United States government will not accept or allow transgender
individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. military. Our military
must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be
burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that
transgender in the military would entail.”

Referring to one of at least four transgender lawsuits against the
Trump ban, Kotelly ruled that “Secretary Mattis is a defendant in this
case, he is directly bound by the injunction, and he cannot change the
policy that existed before President Trump issued his order.”

While the Trump administration is appealing the order, there was no
indication that it would seek to block the January 1 recruiting
deadline. In a statement Justice Department spokeswoman Lauren Ehrsam
simply said: “We disagree with the Court’s ruling and are currently
evaluating the next steps.”

The Department of Justice has contended that the lawsuit for which
Kotelly wrote the preliminary injunction is premature since the Defense
Department has not yet finalized its own plan on transgender troops. The
president had given the Pentagon until March to eliminate costly gender
reassignment surgeries and to determine how to deal with transgender
individuals who are currently serving in the military.

In late November President Trump’s ban was dealt second legal blow
when U.S. District Judge Marvin Garbis in Baltimore ruled that the ban
“cannot possibly constitute a legitimate governmental interest,” saying
that it was not backed by any real concern over military need. “The lack
of any justification for the abrupt policy change,” wrote Garbis,
“combined with the discriminatory impact to a group of our military
service members who have served our country capably and honorably,
cannot possibly constitute a legitimate governmental interest.”

The ACLU, which is representing some of the transgender plaintiffs in
the lawsuit against the ban, applauded the latest legal maneuvers.
“We’re pleased that the courts have stepped in to ensure that trans
service members are treated with the dignity and respect they deserve,”
said ACLU attorney Joshua Block in a statement.

By contrast, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, which has
been a clarion voice for common-sense military policy, responded to
Kotelly’s ruling by noting that “this is where judicial activism is
leading us. The courts have moved beyond legislating on the invented
rights of abortion and same-sex marriage to clearly usurping the
constitutional authority of the executive branch.”

Perkins noted that President Trump “has the primary task of
protecting Americans, but we see the courts weakening his immigration
policies designed to protect America from threats and now telling the
commander-in-chief how to run the military.”
 WASHINGTON — A federal judge appointed to the bench
by then-President Bill Clinton has issued an order clarifying her recent
injunction against the Trump administration’s ban on “transgender”
enlistment in the U.S. Armed Forces, and has outlined that the
government must allow the enlistment beginning Jan. 1.

“[The previous] order was to revert to the status quo with regard
to accession and retention that existed before the issuance of the
presidential memorandum—that is, the retention and accession policies
established in the June 30, 2016 directive-type memorandum as modified
by Secretary of Defense James Mattis on June 30, 2017,” wrote U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly.

“Those policies allowed for the accession of transgender individuals
into the military beginning on January 1, 2018,” she continued. “Any
action by any of the defendants that changes this status quo
is preliminarily enjoined.”


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

On Saturday, December 2, the Donald Trump administration alerted the
office of the United Nations secretary-general that the United States of
America is withdrawing from a UN agreement aimed at handling migrant
and refugee issues.

“Today, the U.S. Mission to the United Nations informed the UN
Secretary-General that the United States is ending its participation in
the Global Compact on Migration,” the U.S. mission to the United Nations
announced in a press release.

In September 2016, the UN General Assembly unanimously agreed on a
resolution — the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants — that
the organization’s member states would be committed to the document,
which “reaffirms the importance of the international refugee regime and
represents a commitment by Member States to strengthen and enhance
mechanisms to protect people on the move,” as described in a UN statement on the goals of the policy.

The UN statement further explains:

In adopting the New York Declaration, Member States:
• expressed profound solidarity with those who are forced to flee;
• reaffirmed their obligations to fully respect the human rights of refugees and migrants;
• agreed that protecting refugees and the
countries that shelter them are shared international responsibilities
and must be borne more equitably and predictably;
• pledged robust support to those countries affected by large movements of refugees and migrants;
• agreed upon the core elements of a Comprehensive Refugee Response Framework; and
• agreed to work towards the adoption of a
global compact on refugees and a global compact for safe, orderly and
regular migration.

The Declaration contains a call to the United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees to propose a “global compact on refugees” by

None of this apparently sits well with President Trump.

“The New York Declaration contains numerous provisions that are
inconsistent with U.S. immigration and refugee policies and the Trump
Administration’s immigration principles. As a result, President Trump
determined that the United States would end its participation in the
Compact process that aims to reach international consensus at the UN in
2018,” the U.S. statement said.

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley said that “America
is proud of our immigrant heritage and our long-standing moral
leadership in providing support to migrant and refugee populations
across the globe,” and that “our generosity will continue.” She added:
“But our decisions on immigration policies must always be made by
Americans and Americans alone. We will decide how best to control our
borders and who will be allowed to enter our country. The global
approach in the New York Declaration is simply not compatible with U.S.

And that is the core issue.

Sovereignty surrendered to the United Nations or to any other
governing body whether it be through resolutions or trade agreements, is
not compatible with the U.S. Constitution which in Article 4, Section 4
guarantees to each state a “republican form of government.”

A republic, as defined by James Madison in Federalist Number 10 is a form of government “in which the scheme of representation takes place.”

No citizen of the United States votes for any representative of the
United Nations, not even the one ostensibly representing the interests
of the United States at the world body itself.

Furthermore, there is but one just basis upon which government is
founded and that is consent of the governed. Americans have no way to
consent to the resolutions debated and adopted by the United Nations,
particularly not one which would force sanctions upon this country for
“racism and xenophobia,” two misdeeds named in the New York Declaration,
but conveniently not defined.

Had the Trump administration not wisely withdrawn from this
agreement, the government of the United States would have been obliged
to provide for the “protection, health, [and] education” of migrants and

It’s not just the federal government that would be put upon by the
General Assembly to facilitate the accommodation of migrants and
refugees, but other institutions and organizations would be likewise
bound to “ease the burdens” of those seeking asylum or a better life in
the United States.

The Declaration requires the cooperation of “government at national
and local levels, international and regional financial institutions, UN
Agencies and NGO partners, and business and civil society actors” in the
migrant support scheme.

Fortunately, for now it appears that the United States — their
government and private banks and businesses — will be free of the
fetters placed on their sovereignty by the New York Declaration for
Refugees and Migrants.


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

MALIBU, Calif. — The designers of the famed fashion
doll Barbie recently released two photos on Instagram of the figure
wearing a “Love wins” t-shirt as a way to show support for homosexual

“Proud to wear this ‘Love Wins’ shirt with @songofstyle!” the Nov. 21 Barbiestyle post
read in part, referring to designer Aimee Song of TwoSongs Los Angeles.
A doll created in Song’s likeness accompanies Barbie in both

“Such an inspiring initiative and fabulous few days I have spent with Aimee; she’s a doll!” the post exclaims.

According to Racked, the Barbiestyle Instagram account is run by Vice
President of Barbie Design at Mattel, Kim Culmone, along with Director
of Design Robert Best and photographer Zlatan Zukanovic.

Song’s tee and sweatshirt company, which she operates with her
sister, Dani, sells tops with messages such as “grlpwr,” “self love” and
a vulgarly titled t-shirt that features an “embroidered naked woman.”
Proceeds support breast cancer research.

“I’m beyond thrilled to have my own @Barbie doll and to wear my
#LoveWins t-shirt from @ShopTwoSongs. I still can’t believe I got to
partner with #Barbie as a brand that also celebrates diversity, kindness
and acceptance,” Song wrote on Thursday, posting a photo of herself holding the doll, the two wearing matching tees.

“Beyond thrilled to be supporting the LGBTQ community with
@BarbieStyle in our sold out #LOVEWINS tee,” the TwoSongs Instagram page
also reads.

50% of proceeds from the shirts are donated to the homosexual advocacy effort The Trevor Project.

The photographs generated various reaction from the public, with some
applauding the idea of Barbie joining in on homosexual advocacy, and
others vowing to stay away from Barbie products after seeing the posts.

“This is really sweet and a good way to show kids that anyone can love anyone,” one follower wrote.

“Who needs Ken?” another remarked.

“Wow. This is so sad,” a third stated.

“Thank God I have no children yet, but when I do they’ll never play
with Barbie,” another shared. “This is an abomination and not normal.

Earlier this month, the makers of Barbie also announced that the
company had released a doll in the likeness of Rio 2016 bronze
medalist Ibtihaj Muhammad, complete with a Muslim hijab.

“We are so excited to honor @IbtihajMuhammad with a one-of-a-kind
#Barbie doll! Ibtihaj continues to inspire women and girls everywhere to
break boundaries. #Shero #YouCanBeAnything #GlamourWOTY,” it wrote on
Nov. 13, sharing a photo of Muhammad holding the doll.

The decision was likewise met with controversy as some stated that
they found it disturbing that Barbie had been dressed as a Muslim.