Amazon Is Blocking Therapy Books

As the largest book publisher in the world, Amazon has the strangulation power to prevent information from ever being published. It is actively wielding that power to suppress therapeutic books that relate to curing "transgenderism" (gender dysphoria) and homosexuality. The number of genres that it buries will continue increasing over time. Leftists are never satiated as perpetual conflict is another aspect of their associated disorders. The establishment has been working to suppress cures for a variety of diseases for over a century, so in a sense, nothing in this is new. Get reliable notification options and further information at Sarah's home site:

South Florida Sun-Sentinel: No mask, no custody. COVID is a new factor in family law

Rumble — Real America - Dan W/ Florida Mother, Melanie Joseph



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

Melanie Joseph wants to see her son, but a judge won’t let her — for no reason except that she won’t wear a mask.

Joseph’s 14-year-old son has asthma, a condition that could put him at risk of contracting COVID-19 during this pandemic, court filings show.

Broward Circuit Judge Dale Cohen called the mother an “anti-mask person” who had the “audacity” to brag about it on Facebook.

Conservatives take issue with the decision, but it illustrates how judges in family court now must consider the health risks of COVID-19 on top of juggling the interests of feuding ex-spouses, single parents and reluctant child-support payers.

COVID first made family law news in South Florida early in the pandemic, when an emergency room doctor treating coronavirus patients was stripped of custody of her 4-year-old daughter.

An appeals court quickly overturned the decision, and the child’s estranged parents eventually resolved their custody disagreement.

The doctor’s attorney, Steven Nullman, conceded that judges face a challenge when balancing parental rights and health concerns.

“There are so many unknowns with this disease,” he said. “Making the right decision is not easy.”

Other cases followed across the country, most involving at least one parent working on the front lines of the crisis. An Orlando woman didn’t want her ex-husband, a firefighter newly engaged to an emergency room nurse, to share custody of their son. The judge sided with the father. And in a Deerfield Beach case in April, a dermatologist had to fight for visitation with his 6-year-old son.

Broward Chief Administrative Judge Jack Tuter said he expects COVID-19 to come up in family cases for the foreseeable future.

“You might have one parent who’s casual about the risk and the other who’s hyper-careful,” he said. “We’re going to see them coming to judges to resolve their differences.

"I think we’re going to see more cases arise when schools open, depending on what happens next with the virus.”

Judges have been patient in considering both sides of coronavirus cases, said Nicole Alvarez, who practices family law mainly in Broward and Miami-Dade.

“The bar is still pretty high for a judge to change time-sharing schedules,” she said. “From my experience, judges are not going to deviate from agreements for hypothetical reasons.

"You don’t get to say you live in a low-risk area and you don’t want to let the child visit Miami or some other area with more cases. Unless someone comes out positive, judges are sticking with the existing agreements.”

That doesn’t mean they’re not willing to step in when they think the child’s health might be at risk.

Joseph, who moved to North Carolina from Coral Springs at the outset of the pandemic response, drew Judge Cohen’s ire by posting a picture of herself, maskless, in the waiting room of her oral surgeon’s office in June.

“She’s one of those anti-mask people and she’s got the audacity to post that on social media," the judge said. "She’s going to wear a mask. If she doesn’t, time-sharing is not going to happen.”

Cohen’s pointed criticism came in an online hearing Sept. 8 and prompted Joseph’s attorney, Meaghan Marro, to ask him to remove himself from the case, which has dragged on for 13 years (the child at the heart of it is 14). Cohen declined.

Melanie Joseph, formerly of Coral Springs, posted this selfie with the caption "no mask for this girl" on social media, drawing the ire of the Broward judge handling her custody case. She says she was alone in a doctor's waiting room in North Carolina, where there was no mask requirement at the time.
Melanie Joseph, formerly of Coral Springs, posted this selfie with the caption "no mask for this girl" on social media, drawing the ire of the Broward judge handling her custody case. She says she was alone in a doctor's waiting room in North Carolina, where there was no mask requirement at the time. (Melanie Joseph, courtesy)

The judge said in-person visits would have to be supervised because he doesn’t trust Joseph, 43, to wear a mask. And he would not consider a long-distance parenting plan — which outlines each parent’s rights when they don’t live in the same state — between Joseph and her son until the COVID crisis has passed.

“When this pandemic is over and there are no cases and there’s a vaccine ... the mother is going to need to get a vaccine as well. When I have proof that everybody’s safe and the child’s not at risk or danger, then we can talk about a long-distance parenting plan.”

The judge’s comments raised eyebrows among some right-wing libertarians who blame coronavirus for what they believe is government abuse of authority.

“You see them using opinion grounded in science to justify government overreach,” said Tho Bishop, editor at the Mises Institute, a splinter of the Cato Institute. “They’ve far overstepped the justified power of their office under the premise that we’re in this emergency.”

Ultimately, the issue of masks never made it into Cohen’s written ruling, issued late last week, and he softened the vaccine mandate.

“After a safe and reliable vaccination against COVID-19 is available, the mother may be vaccinated and the child may be vaccinated, thus eliminating that particular danger,” the order states.

Joseph acknowledged in an interview this week that she posted a selfie taken at her oral surgeon’s office in June. “No mask for this girl,” she wrote in the caption. At the time, Joseph said, there was no mask mandate in North Carolina and she was alone in her doctor’s waiting room.

She accused the judge of letting his personal political views cloud his judgment in the case. “My case has been in the court system for a number of years and I have experience with court proceedings,” she said. “What occurred is unconstitutional and should never happen to a parent.”

The child’s father thinks Cohen made the right decision. “My client has a legal obligation to protect his son,” said Donna Goldman, the father’s attorney. “This case has been going on a long time, and the judge weighed more than just COVID. He made the right decision to protect the child’s health.”

Judges are not permitted to discuss their ongoing cases.


The global Climate Czar is here to save the planet.

n this new video, Paul Watson showcases the world's new 'Climate Czar' Bill Gates -- who preaches about how we all need to transform how we live, while he lavishly indulges in everything from his 66,000 sq ft mansion to his private jets and sports cars. Don't miss it!

Boulder jihad mass murderer had planned to hit Trump rally, also checked churches as potential targets~FACEBOOK PAGE SCRUBBED~FAMILY MEMBERS DETAINED~FAKE NEWS CALLS HIM WHITE~LIBERALS CALL FOR GUN CONTROL

Ahmad Al-Issa:





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


Welcome to Joe Biden’s America.


Boulder Shooter is ISIS Sympathizer, Leftists Hardest Hit

Another opportunity to shore up their sagging “white terror threat” narrative is lost.



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

A man murdered ten people in a Boulder, Colorado supermarket Monday. No details were immediately released about the shooter, but Leftist “journalists,” working from a photo of the shooter, seized upon the shooting to shore up their sagging narrative of “white supremacist terrorism.” There was just one problem: the massacre was actually, after a four-year hiatus, a new incidence of Islamic jihad on American soil.

Even after the shooter’s name was revealed as Ahmad Al Issa (which is how he himself wrote it on his Facebook and Twitter accounts), establishment media reports continued to give his name as  “Alissa,” which of course is a common first name for women in the U.S., and thus gives the impression that he is an American non-Muslim. Were “journalists” trying to obscure the fact that he is a Muslim migrant ISIS sympathizer? Of course, they were.

And that was after they had already decided that he was one of those “right-wing extremists” who are, according to DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, the “most lethal and persistent” threat the U.S. faces today. Julie DiCaro, a senior writer and editor at Deadspin, tweeted: “Extremely tired of people’s lives depending on whether a white man with an AR-15 is having a good day or not.” As of this writing on Tuesday afternoon, DiCaro has not taken down the tweet, as some media hacks are still, like a captain going down with his sinking ship, insisting that Al Issa is white. Prominent race-baiter Tariq Nasheed tweeted: “White supremacists are trying their hardest to deflect from the fact the Boulder suspect is WHITE. Syrians in America are legally, politically & socially WHITE. Their white status is well documented in court cases Terms like ‘Muslim, ‘Arab’, ‘Islamic doesn’t change whiteness.”

Of course, Al Issa really is white, as he is an Arab Muslim migrant from Syria, and Arabs have been considered “white” ever since they began arriving in this country. Nasheed’s tweet, however, still pointed up the Left’s inconsistency and hypocrisy: up until this shooting, Leftists considered Arab Muslims to be “brown,” after the fashion of Linda Sarsour, who memorably identified as white until she put on a hijab and miraculously became a “person of color.” If the Boulder shooter had been a white non-Muslim American and his victims had been white Arab Muslims, Tariq Nasheed would be railing against the persecution of “brown” people in the United States.

But as it is, Nasheed is trying desperately to shore up a failing narrative. The reality is that Ahmad Al Issa is a deeply religious Muslim with pro-ISIS sympathies. He complained bitterly about “Islamophobia,” hated Donald Trump with passionate intensity, and had scouted out churches and Trump rallies as possible targets for his jihad massacre.

All this makes it abundantly clear that not only is Ahmad Al Issa not a “white supremacist,” but he is a living manifestation of the effects of Leftism in America today. After migrating from Syria as a child during the Obama administration, he, and many others like him, has been inundated with relentless propaganda about how he is a victim of a racist and “Islamophobic” society that will never give him a fair shake, and is institutionally determined to make sure he will never succeed. He has been told that Trump hated Muslims and that his followers were precisely the people who were keeping him down and denying him access to the privilege that they themselves enjoyed at the expense of the “brown” people they despised.

The Democratic Party has been stoking this kind of resentment and feeding it to young people in schools, colleges and universities for years. Ahmad Al Issa is a product of their indoctrination. That in itself may be one reason why Leftist “journalists” and professional agitators such as Tariq Nasheed are so intent on driving home the point that this was a “white” shooter acting out of the hatred that is intrinsic to American culture: to deflect attention away from the fact that he is not a product of American culture at all, but of the Left’s subculture of hatred and resentment. If we had a sane political environment in the country today, that is the hateful subculture the Justice Department would be concerned about. Instead, even as Antifa continues to make the Great Northwest into a radioactive wasteland, this hateful subculture isn’t even on the radar screen. And Ahmad Al Issa isn’t going to put it there.


A Muslim Terrorist From the Capital of ISIS Shot Up a Supermarket. Biden Blames Guns

Biden ended Trump’s Muslim ban claiming it “undermined our national security.”



The Boulder Jihad and Jihad Denial

Why U.S. authorities and the establishment media are trying to obscure who Ahmad Al Issa is and what he believes.







2 Massachusetts Towns Create Legal Polyamorous Partnerships



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

What could the left possibly want after same-sex marriage and transgenderism? Try polygamy.

The media laughed off groups like the Family Research Council when we warned about that 15 years ago. Now, a decade and a half later, with American parents in the fight of their lives over girls' sports and city councils endorsing three-person relationships, it turns out we were right.

The LGBT’s fight was never about marriage—it was about every sexual and social norm.

Justice Antonin Scalia predicted as much in 2003. With prophetic insight, he pointed to the threat to state laws “based on moral choices” against “bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution … adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity” in his dissent from Lawrence v. Texas.

Want to keep up with the 24/7 news cycle? Want to know the most important stories of the day for conservatives? Need news you can trust? Subscribe to The Daily Signal’s email newsletter. Learn more >>

People thought he was being dramatic or exaggerating. But they don’t think so anymore. An astounding 20% of Americans now think polygamy is “morally acceptable”—tripling the number who held those beliefs when Scalia issued that warning.

America’s slippery slope is even icier now, with the news that another city council has officially recognized polyamorous relationships as an acceptable form of domestic partnership. Somerville, Massachusetts, was the first to do so last summer—followed by the Cambridge City Council this month.

In the same town that’s home to Harvard University, The Christian Post’s Brandon Showalter points out, a relationship of “two or more persons” who are not related and “consider themselves to be a family” are now considered legitimate partnerships in the eyes of the local government.

Massachusetts was the first state to usher in same-sex marriage, so it only makes sense that it would also be the first to tear down the barriers to open relationships too.

After all, if “love” and “consent” are all that define a relationship, then proponents of incest, pedophilia, and group marriage can follow the LGBT playbook all the way to legitimacy.

“If my liberal friends recognize the legitimacy of free people who choose to form romantic partnerships with multiple partners,” Fredrik deBoer wrote in Politico right after Obergefell in 2015, “how can they deny them the right to the legal protections marriage affords?”

It was a surprisingly candid look at where this debate was headed. These days, the movement that promised to quit once it won marriage through the courts doesn’t bother pretending anymore. The only limits that exist are your own reality—unless you’re a Christian. And then it isn’t “live and let live.” It’s conform or be punished.

Even the American Psychological Association is fighting to give open relationships “protected legal status” because, as far as it’s concerned, monogamy is “bigotry.”

Once a culture rejects God’s design, basic biology, and thousands of years of civilization, there are no boundaries. Regardless of what the extremists say, they’ll never be satisfied until society acquiesces to what they want: a complete and total surrender of all moral standards.

Originally published in Tony Perkins’ “Washington Update,” which is written with the aid of Family Research Council senior writers.

The Daily Signal publishes a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Heritage Foundation.

Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email [email protected] and we will consider publishing your remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature.

Equality Act Could Become Classroom Bully With Unscientific Curriculum

How Equality Act Could Become Classroom Bully With Biased, Unscientific Curriculum

BY Sarah Parshall Perry 


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

The Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings Wednesday on the so-called Equality Act, a piece of legislation unparalleled in its hostility to religious liberty and that elevates sexual orientation and gender identity to a protected-class status alongside race, sex, and national origin in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The Equality Act also expands the definition of “public accommodation” under federal law, and recipients of any federal funding—such as schools—would be directly affected by the act if it becomes law. It has already passed the House of Representatives.

Plenty of ink has been spilled on the disastrous consequences the Equality Act would have on the administration of school sports, locker rooms, and bathrooms.

But what of the curriculum the Equality Act might force schools to teach? Could it compel teachers to peddle unscientific notions that gender is “fluid,” or that a student’s subjective self-identity is superior to the biological reality of his or her chromosomal makeup?

Want to keep up with the 24/7 news cycle? Want to know the most important stories of the day for conservatives? Need news you can trust? Subscribe to The Daily Signal’s email newsletter. Learn more >>

Unfortunately, due to some legal sleight of hand, the answer is very likely “yes.”

As a general matter, the federal government is prohibited from meddling with school curriculums, something better left to local and state education associations as part of the 10th Amendment’s assurance that the powers not specifically delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states.

The federal Department of Education Organization Act states:

No provision of a program administered by the Secretary or by any other officer of the Department shall be construed to authorize the Secretary or any such officer to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system … except to the extent authorized by law.

However, federal courts have recognized that in certain circumstances, federal involvement in education is warranted. To remedy past segregation, for example, some federal courts have required schools to remove educational materials considered racially-biased, or to expand curricula to include black history. Both are reasonable means to meet the congressional goal of eliminating discrimination against blacks as articulated in the Civil Rights Act.

Those cases stem from a body of law focused on “equity jurisdiction.” Under this principle, once the legal right of an individual (or class of individuals) and a violation of that right have been proven, a federal court’s power to remedy past wrongs is quite broad.

It can include (and has included) changes to curriculums and teaching materials in order to eliminate both actual (“de facto”) and legal (“de jure”) segregation of school students.

In United States v. School District 151 (1968), a federal district court concluded it had the power to decide all issues concerning alleged discrimination in public education, including school board policies, the allocation of faculty and staff, the location and construction of schools, the transportation of students, and the general educational structure and process.

In order to remedy ongoing discrimination, another federal district court judge in Hoots v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (2000) “ordered that remedies for the constitutional violation proceed along several fronts … [and] ordered a comprehensive redesign of curriculum and testing, so that the curriculum would be appropriate for heterogeneous, multicultural, sidetracked classrooms and that the effectiveness of [the] redesigned curriculum would be carefully monitored through proper assessments.”

While—thus far—federal courts have yet to flex their “equity” muscle within the context of LGBTQ students and rectifying ongoing discrimination, the Equality Act would amend Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to give sexual orientation and gender identity the same legal protections as immutable characteristics like race, sex, or national origin. Those have been historically recognized as nothing more than due to an accident of birth, and therefore deserving of heightened protection and stricter analysis.

Now substitute the words “gender identity” for “race,” and there’s nothing to prevent a court from ordering the same kind of equitable remedy—curricular or otherwise—with respect to what a student might argue is a discriminatory educational setting.

Neutral education policies don’t always cut it, either. In Adams v. United States (1980), the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sitting en banc held that a “racially neutral” assignment plan proposed by school authorities was inadequate because it failed to “counteract the continuing effects of past school segregation.”  

Organizations such as the Human Rights Campaign have cleverly drawn unflinching parallels between LGBTQ and black youths, using the buzzwords of American jurisprudence on anti-discrimination law, likening the struggle of pre-Civil Rights Act segregated blacks to LGBTQ individuals who are themselves segregated and denied equal protection under the law.

In so doing, they’ve teed up a post-Equality Act legal challenge for students whose educational environment isn’t sufficiently desegregated. (That is, it still teaches the “discriminatory” scientific notion that male and female are unchanging biological distinctions.)

In a pre-Equality Act era, educational dissenters—who, like millions of Americans holding faiths that dictate a gender binary and heterosexual marriage as a societal ideal—would have had the right to object to forced action or offensive curriculum pursuant to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. 

Indeed, Congress expressly applied the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to all federal law, statutory or otherwise, whether adopted before or after its enactment—including all laws governing education programs, such as Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, and the Higher Education Act. 

However, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act contains a critical exception: It does not apply if the statute explicitly excludes its application.

As is all too evident now, the Democratic drafters of the Equality Act took careful measures to make sure that under the bill, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act could not be used as a shield by the millions of individuals—whether teachers, students, parents, or school administrators—holding sincere objections of conscience based on their religious beliefs.

How about religious schools? Surely, students in parochial schools won’t be subjected to dogma eliminating any recognition of male and female, right?

Wrong again. The Equality Act could very well steamroll propaganda touting the political agenda of sexual orientation and gender identity advocates through the schoolhouse doors if the religious schools accept any funding under federal law.

Take, for example, free and reduced-price lunch programs for low-income students, or admission of students on federally funded scholarships according to Title VI.

Therein lies another Equality Act “gotcha.”  

Liberal University of Virginia law professor Douglas Laycock (in whose class I once sat) has recognized the breathlessly slim religious liberty exemptions that could still be maintained by religious schools post-Equality Act:

Schools would still have the ministerial exception … which should protect them with respect to teachers teaching a religion class, or leading chapel services, but courts have generally held that other teachers are not ministers for purposes of the exception.

Think a federalized sexual orientation and gender identity curriculum would be too hard to implement?

Arne Duncan, secretary of education under President Barack Obama, used a carrot-and-stick funding approach to incentivize states to adopt the Common Core state standards and oversaw development of two testing consortia to assess whether uniform standards were being met. The result? Equivalent teaching geared toward the same outcomes across the country.

The Equality Act doesn’t just rewrite the entire canon of American law on discrimination. It takes a swing at long-standing protections for religious liberty and local control of education.

Just like the bully it is.

Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email [email protected] and we will consider publishing your remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature.