NEW ZEALAND’S PRIME MINISTER DONS HIJAB, ORDERS NATIONAL BROADCAST OF ISLAMIC CALL TO PRAYER

NEW ZEALAND’S PRIME MINISTER DONS HIJAB, ORDERS NATIONAL BROADCAST OF ISLAMIC CALL TO PRAYER
BY ROBERT SPENCER
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
New Zealanders — men as well as women — are also being asked to wear the hijab this Friday. The shock and horror that Jacinda Ardern and other New Zealanders are feeling over the attack is understandable. The good intentions of these initiatives are obvious. Unfortunately, however, it will henceforth be difficult, if not completely impossible, to discuss the jihad threat in New Zealand; anyone who does so will be accused of fueling the hatred that led to the Christchurch massacre. 
So it can reasonably be expected that in the coming years, New Zealand will be a hospitable place for jihadis and Sharia supremacists, and any resistance to their initiatives will be stigmatized into insignificance.
“NZ Prime Minister orders national broadcast of Muslim call to prayer this Friday,” Michael Smith News, March 21, 2019 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):
On television.
On radio.
In the New Zealand Parliament and government buildings.
There’ll be no escaping Islam’s Adhan (Muslim call to prayer) this Friday, the Muslim sabbath.
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has announced a two-minute silence will be observed on Friday to mark a week since the Christchurch mosque shootings.
Ms Ardern spoke at a press conference in Christchurch this afternoon when she made the announcement.
“I know from many there is a desire to show support to the Muslim community as they return to mosques, particularly on Friday.
“There is also a desire amongst New Zealanders to mark the week that has passed since the terrorist attack.
“To acknowledge this, there will be a two-minute silence on Friday. We will also broadcast nationally via TVNZ and RadioNZ the Call to Prayer.”…
_______________________________________________________________ SEE ALSO: https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/australia/item/31807-new -zealand-plays-into-terrorist-s-hands-embraces-censorship-in-wake-of-deadly -attacks?vsmaid=3922&vcid=3987 

"Allahu Akbar": New Zealand Recognizes Muslim Call to Prayer as News Anchors Wear Hijabs
AND:

“ALLAHU AKBAR”: NEW ZEALAND RECOGNIZES MUSLIM CALL TO PRAYER AS NEWS ANCHORS WEAR HIJABS

Mosque leader calls on governments to ban 

“hate speech”

TRUMP SIGNS EXECUTIVE ORDER ON CAMPUS FREE SPEECH

SHORT VIDEO:
LONGER VIDEO:
TRUMP SIGNS EXECUTIVE ORDER 
ON CAMPUS FREE SPEECH

Colleges and universities that won’t protect free speech may lose federal research grants

BY MATTHEW VADUM
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
President Trump signed an executive order yesterday directing the nation’s colleges and universities to defend free speech on campus or lose federal research funding.
“In America, the very heart of the university’s mission is preparing students for life as citizens in a free society,” the president said March 21 in the East Room of the White House.
“But even as universities have received billions and billions of dollars from taxpayers, many have become increasingly hostile to free speech and to the First Amendment. You see it all the time. You turn on the news and you see things that are horrible.”
Trump continued:
Under the guise of “speech codes” and “safe spaces” and “trigger warnings,” these universities have tried to restrict free thought, impose total conformity, and shut down the voices of great young Americans like those here today. These are great people.
All of that changes starting right now … Taxpayer dollars should not subsidize anti-First Amendment institutions. And that’s exactly what they are: anti-First Amendment. Universities that want taxpayer dollars should promote free speech, not silence free speech.
Addressing college students and recent graduates on the stage beside him who fought for free speech on campus, the president added:
You refused to be silenced by powerful institutions and closed-minded critics, of which there are many. You faced down intimidation, pressure and abuse. You did it because you love your country and you believe in truth, justice, and freedom.
Trump signed the document, titled an Executive Order on Improving Free Inquiry, Transparency, and Accountability at Colleges and Universities, during a ceremony. He described the order as “the first in a series of steps we will take to defend students’ rights” and said it was intended to combat “ideological intolerance on campus.”
The order declares that it is the policy of the federal government to “encourage institutions to foster environments that promote open, intellectually engaging, and diverse debate, including through compliance with the First Amendment for public institutions and compliance with stated institutional policies regarding freedom of speech for private institutions[.]”
The order directs the heads of the Departments of Defense, the Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, Labor, Health and Human Services, Transportation, Energy, and Education; the Environmental Protection Agency; the National Science Foundation; and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, “to ensure institutions that receive Federal research or education grants promote free inquiry, including through compliance with all applicable Federal laws, regulations, and policies.”
The order also, among other things, demands greater transparency in the world of student loans. It directs the Office of Federal Student Aid to develop “a secure and confidential website and mobile application that informs Federal student loan borrowers of how much they owe, how much their monthly payment will be when they enter repayment, available repayment options, how long each repayment option will take, and how to enroll in the repayment option that best serves their needs.”
Trump teased the executive order March 2 during a speech at this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).
“We reject oppressive speech codes, censorship, political correctness and every other attempt by the hard left to stop people from challenging ridiculous and dangerous ideas. These ideas are dangerous,” he said at the time.
“If they want our dollars, and we give it to them by the billions, they’ve got to allow people like Hayden [Williams] and many other great young people and old people to speak. Free speech. If they don’t, it will be very costly.”
Trump was referring to Hayden Williams, a conservative victim of leftist violence on UC Berkeley campus, who was standing beside him on the CPAC stage.
Since Trump was inaugurated his administration has been using legal resources to insist that institutions of higher learning protect freedom of expression on their campuses.
In September 2017, the Department of Justice filed a statement of interest to support students Chike Uzuegbunam and Joseph Bradford in their lawsuit against Gwinnett College in Georgia. The college had an oppressive policy that prevented the communication of religious messages and the distribution of religious material on campus – even in the campus' so-called free speech zones.
“A national recommitment to free speech on campus and to ensuring First Amendment rights is long overdue,” then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions said at the time. “Which is why, starting today, the Department of Justice will do its part in this struggle. We will enforce federal law, defend free speech, and protect students’ free expression.
When Kevin Shaw, a student at Pierce College in Los Angeles, was informed he would only be permitted to distribute Spanish-language copies of the U.S. Constitution in a limited free speech zone on campus, he filed a lawsuit. The Justice Department filed a statement of interest in support of Pierce in late 2017. The case was settled the following year. The college agreed to expand the free speech zone.
In December 2018, UC Berkeley agreed to compensate Young America’s Foundation and Berkeley College Republicans for trampling the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of conservative speakers and students on its campus. The Trump administration sided with campus conservatives against the school. The Department of Justice filed a statement of interest on behalf of the two groups. The department “will not stand by idly while public universities violate students’ constitutional rights,” Associate Attorney General Rachel Brand said at the time.
Will President Trump’s new executive order improve the situation on the nation’s college and university campuses?
It can’t hurt.

CONTACT SENATORS NOW: DEADLY RED FLAG BILL BEING HEARD IN U.S. SENATE ON MARCH 26~CHUCK BALDWIN’S OPEN LETTER TO SENATORS & PUBLIC

CONTACT YOUR SENATORS, 
TRUMP & PENCE NOW!
DEADLY RED FLAG BILL BEING HEARD IN U.S. SENATE 
ON MARCH 26
BY PHILP VAN CLEAVE
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:Virginia – VIRGINIA-(AmmoLand.com)- This Tuesday, March 26, 2019, the U.S. Senate Judiciary committee is going to be hearing a Red Flag gun-control/gun confiscation bill put in by Florida Republican Marco Rubio.  Yes, the Republican controlled Senate is going to hear a bill that a Republican put in.
President Trump said right after the Florida school massacre that he thought Red Flag laws were a good idea.
We need to let our Senators, hear from us on this AND the President and Vice President, too.  I think the President can be swayed if he learns the truth about what Red Flag laws really do and don't do.  The Vice President might be able to help, as he as the President's ear.
I know, I know – we in Virginia are not likely to sway either of our Senators.  But by reminding them in large numbers that we are here, we don't want any more gun control, and we are watching, that might at least slow down any pro-active gun control coming from them.  I'm thinking a Virginia Citizens Defense League protest at some of their district offices this year might also be in order.
Thanks to our sister organization, the Arizona Citizens Defense League, for setting up a special version of their Congressional contact system for us Virginians to use.  The Board is considering getting our own Congressional contact system.
ACTION ITEM 1:
Click here to send the pre-written message to Senators Kaine, Warner, President Trump, and Vice President Pence (NOTE:  uncheck “Email Opt-in” if you don't want to get future emails from the Arizona Citizens Defense League):
Let's get a few thousand emails headed their way to get their attention and to educate them as well!  We dare not ignore Red Flag bills.
ACTION ITEM 2:
Let's contact the Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, so he knows that gun owners do NOT want Red Flag laws.  He can help keep the bill from getting a Floor vote if it clears the committee.
Here's a link to his contact form on the web:
For the Topic, select “Congressional Rules and Procedures”
Suggested subject: “Please do not let any ‘Red Flag' gun bills get a vote on the Senate Floor!
Suggested message:
Extreme Risk Protection Orders, also known as “Red Flag” laws, such as S. 7, are about gun confiscation, not public safety.
Red Flag laws leave the “dangerous” person free to kill himself or others, as the law merely takes away his guns (assuming the police even find all his guns).  If a person is too dangerous to have guns, how is anyone safer if he is still walking around with the rest of us?  Red Flag laws also violate due process, as the accused doesn't have his day in court for weeks after his property (guns) has already been taken and he then has the almost impossible task of proving he's not dangerous.  How do you prove a negative?
Protect America's gun owners and the Constitution – don't let S. 7, or any other Red Flag bills, get to the Floor!
Virginia Citizens Defense LeagueAbout Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc. (VCDL):
Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc. (VCDL). VCDL is an all-volunteer, non-partisan grassroots organization dedicated to defending the human rights of all Virginians. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a fundamental human right.
For more information, visit: www.vcdl.org.
_____________________________________________

Chuck Baldwin’s Open Letter To Senators Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio, Et. Al Regarding Tyrannical Gun Laws

SEE: http://the-trumpet-online.com/chuck-baldwins-open-letter-senators-lindsey-graham-marco-rubio-et-al-regarding-tyrannical-gun-laws/republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has announced that the Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to begin conducting hearings next Tuesday, March 26, on Senate Bill 7, the Extreme Risk Protection Order and Violence Prevention Act of 2019—otherwise known as a national “red flag” gun confiscation bill. The bill was introduced in the Senate by Marco Rubio (R-FL). If this gun confiscation bill passes the U.S. Senate, it will most certainly pass the Democrat-controlled U.S. House of Representatives, and President Donald Trump absolutely WILL sign it into law.
I am writing this open letter to Senators Rubio and Graham, President Trump and the untold numbers of legislators, judges and lawmen that will be working together to facilitate and execute the confiscation of the arms of innocent American citizens—citizens who have not even been charged with a crime.
I have purchased a full-page ad in the capital city newspaper in my home State of Montana, the Helena Independent Record, in which the following letter will appear this Sunday, March 24. I urge readers to feel free to use, copy, promote, publish, etc., this open letter in an attempt to bring this information to the attention of as many people as possible.
The GOP faithful are mostly in denial about what Donald Trump and many Republican senators are up to. They refuse to acknowledge that Trump, Graham, Rubio, et. al are about to enact a gun confiscation bill that rivals anything in Nazi Germany or Stalin’s Russia.
If S.7 becomes law, NO gun owner (and that means YOU) will be protected from the seizure of their firearms. It will not matter that they have not committed a crime; it will not matter that they have not been charged with a crime; and it will not matter that they have never even threatened to commit a crime. And they won’t even realize that it’s happening until the SWAT team bangs on their door at 5am to seize their guns.
The letter below is an in-depth, passionate appeal to everyone involved to STOP S.7 from becoming law. The letter speaks for itself.
Again, I urge everyone to take this open letter and get it into the hands of as many people as you can. If the American people do not arise in massive numbers against this bill, it WILL pass. We are getting NO HELP on this from the NRA or the vast majority of so-called pro-Second Amendment Republicans. Ron Paul, Gun Owners of America (GOA) and a few others are trying to warn the American people about this communistic bill. But that’s about it.
I beg you, folks, distribute this open letter to your friends, your family members, your neighbors, your sheriffs, your chiefs of police, your legislators, your local judges—distribute this letter to EVERYONE. We don’t have much time. And I mean that literally.
[Begin my open letter to Senators Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio, et. al]
I know I am speaking for tens of thousands of my fellow Montanans and tens of millions of my fellow Americans when I say what I’m about to say.
“Red flag” gun confiscation laws violate every principle of liberty upon which our country was founded. There is no due process associated with “red flag” laws. A judge’s order to seize the firearms from an American citizen who has not been accused of a crime, charged with a crime, convicted of a crime—or who never even threatened to commit a crime—based on the accusation of a single individual is anything but due process.
Our accuser could be a disgruntled employee, a bitter ex-spouse or relative, a vengeful neighbor, an anti-gun liberal or even an anti-gun policeman. By definition, “red flag” laws use mere suspicion of what one “might” do as justification to seize a person’s firearms. Tactics such as these have been used in virtually every despotic regime of history. In the name of protecting society, the rights and liberties of individuals were denied. Eventually, these repressive governments included political or religious persuasion as triggering “red flags,” which led to their disarmament—all in the name of public safety, of course.
You know as well as I do that when the rights of ONE American are abridged, the rights of ALL Americans are abridged. This is not yet a communist nation where the rights of the state—or even the rights of a majority of citizens—supersede the rights of the individual.
Furthermore, it is a fallacy to suggest that a mental health diagnosis, by itself, indicates that someone is automatically a threat to himself or others. Dr. Ann Bukacek, a highly respected medical doctor in the community in which I live, recently wrote:
Mental health diagnoses given by physicians or other mental health care workers do not predict firearm violence. As a physician for over 30 years who has treated many patients with mental health diagnoses and some autistic spectrum patients, I have not had one of those patients commit an act of gun violence. I did have a patient who bludgeoned a man to death with a blunt object, and that patient carried no mental health diagnosis. Psychopaths with no conscience, especially the more intelligent ones, usually escape detection and/or a particular diagnosis.
This doctor’s examination of the issue reflects reality.
Besides, under these “red flag” laws, exactly who is it that determines that someone is “crazy”? Is it one judge, who bases his or her conclusion on the accusations of just one individual? Is it up to politicians or government bureaucrats to define who is and who is not “crazy”?
There are some people who believe that anyone who would even own a firearm is “crazy.” Others believe one’s political or religious beliefs qualify him as “crazy.” Heck! We have all read the documentation of various governments (local, State and federal) that have assigned all kinds of “crazy” (even “dangerous”) definitions against people based on their interpretation of Bible prophecy or their association with political candidates such as former Congressman Ron Paul or their opposition to politically correct ideologies, etc.
Does the judge who issues a warrant to seize a person’s firearms under a “red flag” law provide the accused with an opportunity to defend himself BEFORE violating his constitutional and Natural rights? No. Does the judge provide an opportunity for a close examination of the accusations against the accused (including investigating the accuser) BEFORE violating his constitutional and Natural rights? No. Does the judge allow the accused to face his accuser BEFORE violating his constitutional and Natural rights? No.
“Red flag” laws turn the Bill of Rights and the fundamental legal doctrine that a man is innocent until proven guilty completely upside down. “Red flag” laws are a mockery to every constitutional principle of liberty since the Magna Carta. Seizing a citizen’s firearms by force (and thereby rendering him defenseless) without a crime being committed—or even the accusation of a crime being made—is old-fashioned TYRANNY. Such an act presumes a person is guilty until proven innocent.
Then there is this: After the guns are seized, it could take years for the victim to prove his innocence (or competence) and have his guns returned—and in what condition would they be when (and IF) returned? Furthermore, will you legislators, judges and police officers who collaborate to strip an innocent person’s ability to defend himself accept any responsibility when the real bad guys take advantage of this person’s vulnerability and invade his home and bludgeon or rape or even kill his family? Of course you won’t. But mark it down: You will be held responsible in the eyes of Almighty God—and in the eyes of the citizens you have victimized.
And are you really going to try and tell us that police officers are more competent and mentally stable than the rest of us? Are you kidding? The examples of improper, unsafe, careless and even homicidal acts of cops with guns are ubiquitous.
It was an FBI agent who was armed at a nightclub in Denver and then started gyrating and dancing like a madman until his handgun fell on the floor, discharged and wounded a fellow patron. But no official even questioned this officer’s fitness to possess a firearm—even AFTER that event took place.
Then there is the case of the Dallas police officer who walked into the wrong apartment and shot and killed the man who lived inside. Where was the “red flag” regarding this officer? And what about the two police officers in St. Louis who used a revolver to play Russian roulette, and one of the two wound up shooting and killing the other one? Why wasn’t a “red flag” raised about these nincompoops? These stories could go on forever.
Where are the “red flag” laws for the policemen and sheriff’s deputies in this country? The only difference between them and the rest of us who are being victimized by these draconian “red flag” laws is that they wear badges, and we do not—and the other difference is the vast majority of private citizens who carry firearms are not nearly as stupid and incompetent as the policemen mentioned above.
So much for equal justice under the law.
It has taken many of us a lifetime of hard work and labor to be able to obtain our gun collections; we have successfully passed FBI background checks and local and State requirements and obligations for responsible gun ownership, yet our guns are going to be confiscated overnight on the word of someone (an anonymous someone, at that) who claims we “might” be unsuitable to own a gun? Again, such an act turns American history and our Bill of Rights upside down.
Kris Kobach is the former Secretary of State of Kansas. He is a former professor of constitutional law at UMKC School of Law. He wrote an excellent analysis of the constitutional violations of these “red flag” laws:
  1. The seizure of guns without any hearing at all.The laws all contain an ex parte provision that allows the state to temporarily seize a person’s guns without even notifying the gun owner or giving him a chance to be heard. This is the quintessential denial of due process. The Fourth Amendment makes clear that a person cannot be denied of liberty (to exercise one’s constitutional right to bear arms) without due process of law. This confiscation is “temporary,” but it can easily lead to long-term or permanent confiscation.
  2. Based on the testimony of one unrelated person.The confiscation order can be based on the testimony of only one person claiming that the gun owner poses a risk to the safety of himself or others. The law [proposed in Kansas] deceptively says that it has to be the testimony of a “family member.” But “family member” is defined to include “former dating partners” and anyone who has ever lived with the defendant. So a jilted former boyfriend or girlfriend, or even a roommate from years ago, could easily set in motion the disarming of a lawful gun owner.
  3. Using a very low standard of proof.The standard for obtaining an ex parte order against a gun owner is absurdly low – one need only show “reasonable cause” to believe that the person may pose a risk. That’s even lower than the “probable cause” standard for obtaining a search warrant. In addition, the judge is forced to rush his decision and issue the confiscation order on the same day of the ex parte hearing. Within two weeks of the ex parte hearing, a hearing with the gun owner present must occur; the purpose is to put in place a long-term confiscation order. But even at that hearing, the standard of proof is far below the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard used in criminal trials. Rather, it need only be shown by “a preponderance of evidence” that the person poses a risk of injury to self or others. What kind of evidence? Things like the “reckless storage” of firearms and drinking habits can be considered. If you keep a handgun in the bedside table and drink beer regularly, you may [be] in trouble.
  4. Shifting the burden of proof to the gun owner.The long-term confiscation order lasts up to a year, but may be renewed indefinitely. Once it is in place, it becomes very difficult to remove. To have the confiscation order lifted, the gun owner must provehe does not pose a threat to himself or others. Proving a negative is nearly impossible. Adding insult to injury, the bill even authorizes local law enforcement to charge the gun owner a storage fee for confiscating and storing his guns.
The implementation of “red flag” laws (at any level) is unconscionable and totally unacceptable. And I am here to warn you that there are millions of Americans who will never submit to such oppression. None of us wants to see acts of violence committed against law enforcement personnel in America, but when law enforcers begin carrying out these draconian “red flag” laws, they will begin lighting the matches of resistance in the hearts of freedom-loving people in this country like hasn’t been seen in over 150 years.
We have already heard about Gary Willis, the Maryland man who was killed by police officers in his own home as they attempted to carry out a “red flag” order to seize his guns. This man had committed no crime; he had not been accused of committing a crime; he was given no hearing and no due process. Mr. Willis did not attempt to harm the officers; he merely resisted their efforts to disarm him, and he was killed on the spot—in his own home—by police officers who had taken an oath to protect the liberties of this poor innocent man.
I assure you, Mr. Willis will not be the last American to resist the attempted confiscation of his firearms.
Do you legislators, judges, county sheriffs, chiefs of police, sheriff’s deputies and city policemen not realize that “red flag” laws are tantamount to a declaration of war against the American people? Are you so far removed from “the laws of Nature and Nature’s God” that you cannot see this? Do you not realize that in spite of all of Great Britain’s abuses of power, our colonist forebears did not openly rebel against the Crown until King George sent troops to Lexington and Concord to confiscate the colonists’ firearms? You do understand that, right? And you do understand, do you not, that the blood of the colonists flows in the veins of we Americans?
At what point do the American people come to believe that you truly do NOT wish to honor your oath to the Constitution or behave in a manner that truly honors America’s Second Amendment and the heritage of liberty that we all share as Americans? At what point do we Americans lose all respect for our civil magistrates and peace officers? For many Americans, that point will come when policemen bang on their doors at 5am and attempt to seize their guns.
Do you not realize that every single instance of an innocent person being subjected to a “red flag” gun confiscation order will only magnify and strengthen the resentment and animosity in the hearts of the community against these laws—and against the ones who are creating and implementing them? Do you not understand that this is a powder keg that could explode into all-out rebellion at any time? Do you want that? I don’t want that! I don’t want that for my wife and me, my children and grandchildren, my friends or my community.
Why would you legislators, judges and policemen even think about doing such a thing?
In the name of all that we hold dear, in the name of the brave men at Lexington Green and Concord Bridge, in the name of every American who has given his life in defense of the principles contained in our Declaration of Independence, our Constitution and our Bill of Rights—including many of our brave police officers and sheriff’s deputies—and in the name of the Natural Laws of our Creator, please STOP this madness before you literally tear our communities and our country apart.
As a legislator, you must not pass any semblance of a “red flag” law; as a judge, you must not issue a gun confiscation warrant on the basis of a “red flag” law; as a sheriff or chief of police, you must not order your officers to confiscate a citizen’s guns on the basis of a “red flag” warrant; and if you are a sheriff’s deputy or city policeman, you must not obey an order to confiscate your fellow citizens’ guns on the basis of a “red flag” law.
I beg you to realize what you are doing. I beg you to refuse to participate in this madness. I beg you to join your fellow churchmen, clubmen, neighbors, friends and townsmen and help us turn back this dastardly attempt to transform our constitutional republic into another repressive regime that, in the end, would require The People to tear it down.
Again, I beg you to think about what you are doing, about the pain you are causing, about the lives you are ruining and about the potential harm you are inflicting on our country.
“Red flag” laws are on the wrong side of history, the wrong side of our Constitution, the wrong side of liberty and on the wrong side of the laws of God.

MISSOURI VOTES TO BLOCK ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL GUN LAWS WITH SECOND AMENDMENT PRESERVATION ACT

MISSOURI VOTES TO BLOCK ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL GUN LAWS WITH SECOND AMENDMENT 
PRESERVATION ACT 
BY DEAN WEINGARTEN
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Arizona -(Ammoland.com)- -In 2019, Missouri Senator Eric Burlison, Representative Jered Taylor, and representative Jeff Pogue have introduced versions of the Second Amendment Protection Act or SAPA.  Here is a link to SB 367 introduced by Senator Burlison.
The bill uses several legal and Constitutional strategies to protect Second Amendment rights from infringement by both the Federal government and various Missouri governments.
The principle Constitutional strategy is the anti-commandeering doctrine, which has been well established in Constitutional law and in the Supreme Court cases of New York v. United States (1992, decided 6-3) and Printz v. United States (1997) and  Independent Business v. Sebelous (2012).
These cases validate the doctrine that the Federal government has no power to force state agencies or officers to do what the Federal government orders them to do. The Federal government can require actions for the state to receive funds from the Federal government, but that is all.
Legislatively, the bill would protect Second Amendment rights by refusing to allow any state officers to enforce any Federal laws considered infringements on Second Amendment rights by the definitions of the bill.  Those include any taxes, stamps, or fees exclusively applied to firearms, accessories, or ammunition.  It applies to any registration or tracking of those items.
No person would have the authority, under the State of Missouri, to enforce those measures.

The proposed bill has teeth.

Text from MO SB 367, the MO Second Amendment Act Takes No PrisonersText from MO SB 367, the MO Second Amendment Act Takes No Prisoners
Anyone who deprives a citizen of Missouri of Second Amendment rights under color of law would be subject to lawsuit or other redresses. Sovereign, official or qualified immunity would not apply.  State officers who violate the law would be ineligible for employment by the state in any law enforcement or law enforcement supervisory capacity, or by any political subdivision of the state.
This is a very tough, very comprehensive bill.
It seems to nullify several existing federal statutes, such as the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, and the Brady law. Such measures could be enforced by federal agents, but not by people employed by the State of Missouri or its political subdivisions.  Very few cases could be brought by Federal Agents alone.
This is not the first time SAPA has been pushed in Missouri.  In 2013, a very similar bill to SB 367 was passed by the House and the Senate. Governor Jay Nixon vetoed it. A veto override failed because two senators switched their votes.
In 2014, a similar bill had passed the House. It looked likely to pass the Senate, but legislative maneuvering by the House leader, John Diehl allowed for an amendment of the bill just minutes before the end of the session. According to mofirst.org:
John Diehl chose none of those options. Instead, he waited, and waited, until 5:40 pm when there was only 20 minutes left, to pass an amended HB 1439 and send it to the Senate. That made the bill an easy target for a liberal filibuster. HB 1439 was on the senate floor with ultra-liberal Sen. Jolie Justus filibustering it when the final bell rang on the last day of the year's legislative session..
The final entry on HB 1439's Action page tells the rest of the story: “Taken Up – Time expired pursuant to the Constitution.” John Diehl purposely killed the Second Amendment Preservation Act and tried to make it look like it was the Senate's fault.
Several of the key players who opposed SAPA in 2013 and 2014 are gone. John Diehl resigned over a sex and text scandal. Senators who opposed the bill have left.
Both the current Governor, Mike Parson, and Lt. Governor Mike Hehoe supported the bill previously.
Exactly what will happen if the bill passes is unknown.
If signed into law I am sure law enforcement officers in Missouri will not be sending people found with short barreled rifles or silencers to the BATFE for prosecution since under this law they would lose their jobs.
Exactly what else will happen remains to be seen.

Bonus Video Explanation of SB 367

About Dean Weingarten:
Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of constitutional carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and recently retired from the Department of Defense after a 30-year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.
_______________________________________________________________
SEE ALSO:
https://www.ammoland.com/2019/03/deadly-red-flag-bill-being-heard-in-u-s-senate-on-march-26/

TOP MILITARY OFFICIAL SLAMS GOOGLE WORKING WITH CHINA~SAYS COOPERATION HELPING COMMUNIST PARTY CONTROL ITS POPULATION

TOP MILITARY OFFICIAL SLAMS GOOGLE WORKING WITH CHINA~SAYS COOPERATION HELPING COMMUNIST PARTY CONTROL ITS POPULATION
BY INFOWARS.COM
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
America’s top military officer stressed that Google’s ventures in China are aiding its military and communist regime’s ability to control its people.
Companies doing business in China are required to have a cell of the Communist Party present, said Gen. Joseph Dunford during a forum at the Atlantic Council in D.C. Thursday.
“That will to lead to intellectual property from that company finding its way to the Chinese military,” said Dunford. “This is not about me and Google.”
“This is about us looking at the second and third-order effects of our business ventures in China, China’s form of government, and the impact that’s going to have on the United States’ ability to maintain a competitive military advantage and all that goes with it.”
Last year, Google drew the ire of politicians like Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) for refusing an artificial intelligence contract with the Pentagon less than a year after starting an AI research center in China.
“All of it will be shared with the military and with the repressive forces that are doing this,” said Rubio. “[Google] doesn’t want to give AI technology to the [U.S.] military because, God forbid, we may use it someday to target a terrorist or someone who wants to harm America. But [Google] has no problem opening up a center of AI in China, knowing full well how anything you do in China — if it’s a benefit to the military, they’re going to use it; if it’s a benefit to the security services, they’re going to use it.”
Correspondingly, Dunford further expressed his concern on how China is using developments in artificial intelligence to “control” the vast majority of its people, indirectly referring to the country’s Orwellian social creditsystem that blacklists people based on “trustworthiness.”
“My concern when you think about things like artificial intelligence… They’re gonna help an authoritarian government assert control over its own population,” said Dunford. “What China is able to do is identify patterns of behavior amongst people and determine who’s reliable and who’s not reliable.”
“There is no question in my mind that China will leverage technology to assist the 6% of the Chinese population in controlling the other 94%.”

SUPREMES: FEDS MUST ARREST, DETAIN CRIMINAL ALIENS, EVEN YEARS AFTER THEY’RE RELEASED FROM JAIL

SUPREMES: FEDS MUST ARREST, DETAIN CRIMINAL ALIENS, EVEN YEARS AFTER 
THEY’RE RELEASED FROM JAIL
BY R. CORT KIRKWOOD
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled this week that the law means what it says.
The nut of its 5-4 ruling in Nielsen v. Preapis this: Pursuant to federal law, immigration authorities must detain, without the possibility of release on bond, a deportable criminal immigrant until his immigration status is settled. And no matter long how he was free from custody for the criminal offense, the government can lock him up again.
Those who don’t want to read the whole decision can skip down to Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s laconic concurring opinion.
The Case Writing for the majority, Associate Justice Samuel J. Alito explained that the case involved plaintiffs who challenged the federal law, passed in 1996, that says criminal immigrants must be arrested “‘when [they are] released’ from custody on criminal charges and ... must be detained without a bond hearing until the question of their removal is resolved.”
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the law requires immigration authorities to arrest those criminal foreigners nearly the minute they are released, say, from jail. In other words, immigration cops can’t arrest a criminal immigrant a year after his release.
Alito wrote that “four other Circuits have rejected this interpretation of the statute, and we agree that the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation is wrong.”
The question the court had to settle, Alito wrote, was whether or not “the executive branch’s mandatory duty to detain a particular noncitizen when the noncitizen is released from criminal custody remains mandatory if the executive branch fails to immediately detain the noncitizen when the noncitizen is released from criminal custody.”
That, he wrote, can’t be, because Congress cannot have intended that immigration authorities lose their legal power to detain a criminal alien “if the executive branch fails to immediately detain the noncitizen because of resource constraints or because the executive branch cannot immediately locate and apprehend the individual in question.”
“Especially hard to swallow,” Alito continued, is the notion that “for an alien to be subject to mandatory detention ... the alien must be arrested on the day he walks out of jail (though respondents allow that it need not be at the jailhouse door — the ‘parking lot’ or ‘bus stop’ would do).”
Why is that hard to swallow?
Assessing the situation in realistic and practical terms, it is inevitable that respondents’ unsparing deadline will often be missed for reasons beyond the Federal Government’s control.... To give just one example, state and local officials sometimes rebuff the Government’s request that they give notice when a criminal alien will be released. Indeed, over a span of less than three years (from January 2014 to September 2016), the Government recorded “a total of 21,205 declined [requests] in 567 counties....
Under these circumstances, it is hard to believe that Congress made the Secretary’s mandatory-detention authority vanish at the stroke of midnight after an alien’s release.
Thus, Alito wrote, “an official’s crucial duties are better carried out late than never.”
Kavanaugh’s Opinion In less than 600 words, Kavanaugh explained the “narrowness of the issue before us” and, in particular, to emphasize “what this case is not about.”
The case was not about the authority of the government to deport criminal immigrants, or “whether Congress may mandate that the Executive Branch detain noncitizens during removal proceedings or before removal, as opposed to merely giving the Executive Branch discretion to detain.”
Rather, Kavanaugh wrote, “the sole question” is whether immigration authorities’ “duty to detain a particular noncitizen when the noncitizen is released from criminal custody remains mandatory if the Executive Branch fails to immediately detain the noncitizen when the noncitizen is released from criminal custody.”
Noting that the question before the court was strictly statutory, not constitutional, with regard to the 1996 immigration law, Kavanaugh explained that “it would be odd [if the law] mandated detention of particular noncitizens because the noncitizens posed such a serious risk of danger or flight that they must be detained during their removal proceedings,” yet “allowed the noncitizens to remain free during their removal proceedings if the Executive Branch failed to immediately detain them upon their release from criminal custody.”
But the law “does not require such an odd result,” he continued. “On the contrary, the relevant text ... is relatively straightforward, as the Court explains. Interpreting that text, the Court correctly holds that the Executive Branch’s detention of the particular noncitizens here remained mandatory even though the Executive Branch did not immediately detain them.”

BIG: KENTUCKY GOVERNOR STANDS AGAINST FORCED VACCINATIONS

Big: Kentucky Governor Stands Against Forced Vaccinations
BIG: KENTUCKY GOVERNOR STANDS AGAINST 
FORCED VACCINATIONS

Republican attacked for naturally exposing his nine children to chickenpox

BY KELEN MCBREEN
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Kentucky’s Republican Gov. Matt Bevin made headlines after revealing he purposely exposed his nine children to chickenpox during an interview with Bowling Green radio station WKCT on Tuesday.
“Every single one of my kids had the chickenpox. They got the chickenpox on purpose because we found a neighbor that had it and I went and made sure every one of my kids was exposed to it, and they got it. They had it as children,” Bevin said in the interview.
“Why are we forcing kids to get it?” he continued. “If you are worried about your child getting chickenpox or whatever else, vaccinate your child. … And in many instances, those vaccinations make great sense. But for some people, and for some parents, for some reason they choose otherwise.”
The governor addressed his stance on vaccinations as his home state of Kentucky is in the midst of a controversy about students being banned from school for being unvaccinated.
Click the screenshot below to read more about a Kentucky high schooler’s battle for religious freedom:
Governor Bevin and his wife, Glenna, have nine children, four of whom are adopted.
Despite the fact that most people alive today were naturally exposed to chickenpox as children, the establishment is pushing vaccination as a safer alternative while condemning those who choose not to.
Addressing parents who opt-out of the chickenpox vaccine, Dr. Robert Jacobson, a Mayo Clinic pediatrician, said, “I would never recommend or advise it. It’s just dangerous.”
Left-wing media outlets like Salon are criticizing the governor’s comments, saying he’s “setting a dangerous precedent.”
According to the CDC website, “chickenpox can be serious and can lead to severe complications and death, even in healthy children.”
Less than 100 people die from chickenpox every year in the United States, however, the number of vaccine-related deaths is unknown.
What is known is that a secret federal vaccine court has paid billions of dollars to victims of vaccine injuries.
Even Salon, the same leftist publication now pushing for mandated vaccinations, admitted just months ago that over 6,000 injury and death claims have been compensated since 1989.
The vaccination debate is heating up and Governor Bevin’s stance against forced vaccinations is sure to infuriate authoritarians who wish for them to be made mandatory.
Follow the author on Twitter: @Kelenmcbreen
______________________________________________________________

The Case Against Mandatory Vaccination

BY Peter T. Szymonik
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Public policy in our country and state today is being driven by many dangerous elements and forces. Of substantial concern are policies, agendas and legislation being driven by claims of crises, which do not exist and are unsupported by reality, fact or science. It is dangerous when these claims are driven by the politics of fear mongering, hate and division. This is especially concerning when specific groups of people are targeted and attacked to incite fear and to promote misguided and harmful policies.
Our country’s system of checks and balances is being circumvented and ignored by those we have placed in positions of authority and accountability. Intelligent and rational debate have fallen victim to hysteria and the politics of misinformation and fear. It is precisely this kind of politics that is being used by legislators across the country to promote government mandated vaccination in response to a manufactured crisis—one based on dated or misleading information.
To be clear, I am not anti-vax. I have worked in the pharma industry and now work in the healthcare insurance industry. My family came here from a former communist country. We understand well what happens when government is allowed to deny individual liberties and personal freedoms. We know quite well what happens when the state considers its interests to be more important than protecting the rights of its citizens.
The scientific benefits of vaccination are not in dispute. However, concerns regarding vaccine injury, today’s vaccine schedule and our government’s much too close relationship with the vaccine industry—should also not be in dispute. When it is well documented, admitted and scientific fact that many children have been severely injured or even killed1 as a result of adverse vaccine reactions—then government has no right or authority of any kind to place parents in a situation where our government forces them to expose their children to admitted risk and risk they deem to be unacceptable.
Our system of modern medicine only works because it was founded on the concept of doing no harm and importance of informed consent. A person has a fundamental and protected right to control what happens to their own bodies. Parents have a fundamental right to the care, custody and control of their children and their family’s medical care. Not the state.
Once we hand over that control, where does it stop?
The solution to the vaccine issue is not government mandates and more draconian government infringement of parental rights and decision-making.
If our state and federal governments want people to vaccinate, the solution is better education and promoting informed consent. It would start promoting full disclosure. By addressing and responding to the valid concerns being expressed by concerned parents who are asking all of the right and legitimate questions. The answer is not by engaging in the politics of hate and fear. It is not found in labeling parents raising these issues as being “crazy,” “uninformed” or worse, to promote a political agenda.
A further serious concern is that the vaccine issue has made the recent headlines in some states not due to any crisis or emergency of any kind. A few dozen cases of measles in Washington state or 1,200 parents opting not to vaccine, or to vaccinate on a limited schedule in Connecticut, is not a medical crisis or threat to the national health. It certainly does not justify sensationalist news media headlines designed to scare people using words like “Outbreak!”
All of us should also be very concerned that some legislators are using this issue as a basis and justification to allow states to further infringe upon and deny parental rights and parental decision-making.
A very dangerous combination indeed.
Note: This article was reprinted with the author’s permission. 
This article or commentary provides referenced information and perspective on a topic related to vaccine science, policy, law or ethics being discussed in public forums and by U.S. lawmakers. The websites of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) provide information and perspective of federal agencies responsible for vaccine research, development, regulation and policymaking.
References:
1 Health Resources & Services Administration. Data & Statistics. HRSA.gov.


MAINE GOP LEADER ATTACKED FOR OPPOSING OPEN BORDERS

MAINE GOP LEADER ATTACKED FOR OPPOSING 
OPEN BORDERS

Party vice chairman Nick Isgro is under fire 

for daring to be a conservative

BY MATTHEW VADUM
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
The vice chairman of the Maine Republican Party, Nick Isgro, is under fire for inveighing against open borders and the health problems that unvaccinated migrants from Third World countries are bringing with them to America.
This blowback against Isgro is part of the Left’s ongoing effort to stigmatize conservatives by presenting their views as abnormal, antisocial, racist, and xenophobic. Isgro hasn’t said anything millions of conservatives haven’t said before, but the open-borders movement and its attack dogs in both political parties are always on the lookout for new scalps.
Some Republicans like Maine Senate Minority Leader Dana Dow attack Isgro for standing up for America and American values, while others praise him for his principled stands. Isgro, who said he has received “a massive outcry of support,” is also mayor of Waterville, Maine. He survived a recall election in June.
Isgro said he wrote the controversial tweets “to open a dialogue concerning all of the things that are in play when affecting public health policy.”
As the father of five children, I know exactly what it's like to be a parent up in the middle of the night, with a child with high fever and wondering if things are going to be okay. It angers me to see families like mine attacked for simply wanting to do with [sic] they know what is best for their own children rather than the government. Families should be engaged and respected - not attacked. [M]y own family will always be my first priority and I will continue to defend the families of Maine and their freedoms.
Senate Republicans reportedly demanded that “swift action” be taken against Isgro. Dow said March 18 that he did not approve of Isgro’s statements and was “in the process of taking some actions.” Later that day, Isgro issued a statement in which he made it clear that his tweets, although published on the Maine Republican Party’s Twitter page, “came from me and not the GOP at large.”
A hatchet job of a report by Rachel Ohm in the Waterville-based Morning Sentinel attempts to turn Isgro into a caricature. She writes that Isgro “falsely blamed immigrants for outbreaks of infectious diseases.”
But there is more to the real story than Ohm’s simplistic telling of it.
Using the Maine Republican Party’s account, Isgro tweeted three times on March 14.
The first tweet reads:
We need a serious talk not only about vaccination but migration. Portland, & many US cities, have homeless crises driven by asylum claims & a record number of migrants crossing the border from countries lacking vaccinations. This causes certain diseases to return. 1/3 #mepolitics[.]
The second tweet reads:
.@GovJanetMills & far-left elites are reacting to this with demands for more vaccines for #Maine citizens and demands that Maine families relinquish their longstanding natural rights-despite the risk of over-vaccination-to please financial backers. Wrong policy. 2/3 #mepolitics[.]
The third tweet reads:
Even in states with strict vaccination laws, like California, near-extinct diseases are making a comeback. To protect Mainers & Americans, we need a pause on migration from countries that haven’t eradicated these diseases until we can figure out what is going on. 3/3 #mepolitics[.]
Isgro’s statements are well within the conservative mainstream and not much different from President Trump’s.
Trump has said a border wall is needed to prevent a “tremendous medical problem” related to the flow of migrants into the U.S.
“One of the problems that people don’t talk about, you have a tremendous medical problem coming into our country,” Trump said in December. “Tremendous problems. People don’t want to talk about it.”
Contrary to open-borders propaganda and mainstream media disinformation, these concerns are legitimate.
Andrew R. Arthur, Resident Fellow in Law and Policy at the nonpartisan Center for Immigration Studies who served eight years as an Immigration Judge, wrote in a report that Americans are right to be concerned about the importation of diseases.
In fiscal 2018 the Yuma Border Patrol Sector of the United States Border Patrol in Arizona apprehended 1,700 aliens who required medical care, Arthur wrote.
Aliens “show up sick, particularly children, some of whom are suffering from illnesses not generally seen in modern American society, including mumps, measles, and tuberculosis, as well as others with influenza, scabies, and other skin diseases.”
Arthur makes it clear he is opposed to border-busting caravans and unlawful entry into the United States, not to immigration in general.
None of this should be understood as a stigmatization of children or of migrants from Central America. Regular immigration, in which a foreign national obtains a visa from a U.S. consulate abroad and travels to this country through a port of entry, however, provides for the screening of foreign nationals before they arrive in this country and interact with the public, including other foreign nationals lawfully present.
Irregular migration, on the other hand, by which a foreign national enters the United States illegally between the ports of entry, does not provide any of those safeguards. Once they are here, they are here, regardless of whether they are apprehended and detained, or make their way to their final destinations without apprehension.
Arthur recounts an article by Peter Edelstein, M.D., in Psychology Today in January 2017.
Edelstein wrote:
In the end, it is hard to completely ignore the health risks posed by those whose entry into the country avoids medical examination and treatment. Whether you sit on the ‘build a wall’ end of the spectrum or the ‘they’re just seeking a better life’ end, accepting that treatable major health risks are freely entering into our general population is an unwise strategy, regardless of your political leaning (assuming those risks are meaningful, a debate we can have).
Few have considered the issues raised by Edelstein, Arthur writes.
“The danger posed by communicable diseases … is yet another reason to discourage a wave of aliens who are only apprehended after they have entered the United States, as we have seen in recent months. Especially from places that have recently been under ‘medical state[s] of emergency’ for contagious diseases.”
There is plenty of evidence that illegal aliens are bringing illnesses into America.
As of March 7, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) had 2,287 detainees in quarantine for infectious diseases including mumps.
“The numbers of immigrants in custody with a contagious diseases [sic] has spiked in the past year,” CNN reports. “For the previous two years, the agency has not encountered a single case of mumps among its detainees.”
“In the past 12 months, there have been health investigations at 51 ICE detention facilities for mumps, chickenpox and influenza,” according to an ICE spokesman. “There have been 236 reported cases of mumps, with another 16 suspected cases during this time period.”
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that “[t]ravelers with measles continue to bring the disease into the U.S.” So far this year the CDC has confirmed 268 individual cases of measles in 15 states, including three states that border Mexico (Arizona, California, and Texas).
Nick Isgro has the facts on his side, but when have facts ever mattered to leftists and open-borders fanatics?

PENNSYLVANIA STUDENT FILES COMPLAINT WITH DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AFTER ENCOUNTERING BOY IN GIRLS’ LOCKER ROOM

PENNSYLVANIA STUDENT FILES COMPLAINT WITH DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AFTER ENCOUNTERING 
BOY IN GIRLS’ LOCKER ROOM 
BY HEATHER CLARK
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
HONESDALE, Pa. — A high school student in Pennsylvania has filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights after a male student who identifies as female was permitted to change his clothes in the girls’ locker room.
The unnamed female complainant, who attends Honesdale High School, outlined in a video posted to social media that she was changing her clothes before gym class in September 2018 when she heard a male voice, and turned to see the student, also partially undressed, looking at her.
“I glanced down and I could tell that he was wearing women’s underwear and what was underneath it,” she stated. “When I knew that a man was looking at me, I felt very violated and very scared, especially [since he was] looking at me while I am getting dressed.”
According to the complaint filed with the Department of Education, the male student is “female attracted” as he “has been seen at school events holding hands with girls.”
The girl told her parents what had occurred, who in turn called the principal and superintendent and were advised that the district attorney had counseled them to allow students to use the locker room that correlates with their gender identity.
However, officials sought to address the concern by approaching the male student and asking him to change behind a shower curtain. The female complainant was also permitted to wait outside of the locker room until after the male student exited.
Her attorney, Andrea Shaw of Carlisle, says that the arrangement did not completely assuage the concerns.
“This hardly remedied the girls’ right to privacy, because the female attracted male student can still view all of the girls while they are in various stages of undress [as he walks through the locker room],” the complaint reads.
“Second, … [w]hile she was no longer required to remove her clothing in front of a male student, her only option was to take refuge outside of the locker room, a place designated by state law to be used exclusively by her sex, while the male student used the girls’ locker room,” it states.
While the female student no longer has gym class with the male student, she does still have to share the locker room with him as both run cross country, and says that she has decided to “hide[] while she changes her clothes.”
Her attorney contends that the entire reason that there are separate male and female locker rooms and restrooms is so that girls and boys can feel that they have the privacy to undress without being in the presence of the opposite sex.
“All girls in the Wayne Highlands schools, once they learn of the school’s practice … will have reason to fear that they cannot participate in school life without being at risk of loss of their bodily privacy and without fear and apprehension of being confronted by a male in a private setting for girls,” the complaint reads. “The school’s practice thus creates a hostile environment for girls.”
Wayne Highlands School District Superintendent Gregory Frigoletto told local television station WNEP that he is not able to comment on the case, but stated that district policy is in consonance with a recent court ruling permitting students to use the facilities that correlate with their gender identity.
____________________________________________________________

Girl Finds “Transgender” Boy Staring at Her in Locker Room~

Told to Go OUTSIDE Until He Was Done

BY SELWYN DUKE
Proving again that “the eye altering alters all,” a Pennsylvania high-school girl recently found a boy’s lustful eye fixed upon her in her locker room — then was told her only recourse was to wait outside until he was done changing.
Of course, at issue is changing school policy that allows a boy who changes his so-called “gender identity” and claims girlhood status to use the girls’ facilities. As the Family Research Council reports:
There are at least 787 students at Pennsylvania’s Honesdale High — but only one of them seemed to know about a major change in the school’s rules. The others found out the most traumatic way possible: when they walked into the girls’ locker room and found a teenage boy in women’s underwear.
For at least one 15-year-old sophomore, the situation was terrifying. “It was first period,” she remembers, “and I had gym class. And I walked in [to change] with all my friends, and while I was putting on my pants, I heard a man’s voice. So I turned around, and he’s standing there on the opposite aisle looking at me. I glanced down, and I could tell that he was wearing women’s underwear and what was underneath it.” When the boy stared back at her — and the entire group of partially-dressed girls — she was horrified.
When she got home that afternoon, she told her mom and dad what happened. Turns out, the students weren’t the only ones who’d never been notified about the policy. Still in shock, they called the principal and Wayne County superintendent. Neither were particularly sorry about the girls’ experience. And to prove it, they refused to lift a finger to help. The girls’ only option was to wait outside the locker room — a place designated for them — until the boy inside was finished.
The girl’s family has since obtained legal representation and has filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education’s Civil Rights Division. Her lawyers have also “posted a video online [below] along with their complaint alleging the school’s policy on transgender use of locker rooms violated the girl’s civil rights,” informs WNEP.com.
“‘Opening up restrooms and locker rooms to members of the opposite sex is sexual harassment. Like most forms, the girls have little power over their situation,’ said attorney Andrea Shaw,” WNEP further informs.
“The Wayne Highlands superintendent says he’s not able to comment on this incident or complaint but does say the district’s policy is in keeping with a recent court decision allowing trans students to use the facilities of their choosing. Now, the Supreme Court is expected to take up that case,” the site continues.
It should first be said here that there’s no such thing as a “transgender” student, not any more than there could be a “trans-species” student who’d really become a cat (and there is a woman who thus masqueraded, by the way). As Australian Alan Finch, who’d once claimed trans status, put it in 2004, “You fundamentally can’t change sex…. Transsexualism was invented by psychiatrists.” 
Weighing in likewise just last year was philosopher Dr. Ryan T. Anderson, who wrote that “transgenderism” is delusion and just amounts to playing “pretend,” since sex change is biologically impossible. As I reported at the time:
“Modern science shows that our sexual organization begins with our DNA and development in the womb, and that sex differences manifest themselves in many bodily systems and organs, all the way down to the molecular level,” writes Anderson in his March 5 article, which was adapted from his new book, When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment.
“Cosmetic surgery and cross-sex hormones can’t change us into the opposite sex,” Anderson, a Heritage Foundation senior fellow, further explains. “They can affect appearances. They can stunt or damage some outward expressions of our reproductive organization. But they can’t transform it. They can’t turn us from one sex into the other.” They merely amount to the donning of “counterfeit sexual garb,” as Johns Hopkins University (JHU) psychiatrist Dr. Paul McHugh put it.
But what of the “transgender” diagnosis? It is made by actual people of medical science, but there’s nothing scientific about it.
Note that when a doctor diagnoses someone with “gender dysphoria” — the persistent sense that you’re a member of the opposite sex but are stuck in the wrong body — there’s no way for him to determine that at issue is a biological phenomenon as opposed to a psychological one. There is no brain-scan; genetic test; blood, urine or any other body-chemistry test for “biologically induced gender dysphoria.” The physician will make his diagnosis based only on feelings — strong feelings of “cross-gender identification” lasting for at least six months. On this basis alone he may ultimately recommend the patient undergo body-rending sex-mutilation surgery.
It’s as if you went to a cardiologist and said, “Doc, I’m certain I have heart disease! I can just feel it!” and he replied, without performing any diagnostic tests, “Oh, have the feelings been strong and persistent? Have they lasted for at least six months? Alright, then, I’ll cut open your chest and perform a bypass!” 
So while Professor Harold “Hal” Lewis said in 2016 that “the global warming scam” is the world’s “greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud,” the “transgender” scam may soon contend for that title.
This Made-up Sexual Status (MUSS) agenda’s unscientific nature raises another issue: Why are the feelings of a majority of people — e.g., the high-school students uncomfortable with having opposite-sex classmates invade their spaces — subordinated to the feelings of less than one percent of the population?
Answer: Because the feelings-based prejudices of pseudo-intellectual pseudo-elites are holding sway.
Meanwhile, Democrat-sponsored House bill “the Equality Act” would force even churches to allow faux (same-sex) weddings and MUSS people to use the opposite sex’s facilities, according to WND.com, and a British Catholic mother is being investigated by police for “misgendering” a MUSS individual.
So what’s really going on here? At bottom, this has nothing to do with compassion, equality, legitimate tolerance, or inclusiveness. Moreover, the problem with it isn’t mainly, as conservatives aver, that predators will use a MUSS ruse to access women’s private spaces (though this is an issue).
Rather, “This is about socially reengineering society — about changing hearts and minds — by legitimizing made-up sexual statuses,” as I wrote in 2016.
This is the real cause of the Bathroom Wars. It’s also why traditionalists shouldn’t budge an inch on this issue. If you can make people believe an objective reality such as sex is mere illusion, you can make them believe anything.