Posted on

U.S. Marines Raised American Flag During Battle for Iwo Jima on This Day in 1945

United States Marines raised the American flag atop Mount Suribachi during the battle for Iwo Jima 75 years ago today.

“During the bloody Battle for Iwo Jima, U.S. Marines from the 3rd Platoon, E Company, 2nd Battalion, 28th Regiment of the 5th Division take the crest of Mount Suribachi, the island’s highest peak and most strategic position, and raise the U.S. flag,” according to History.com.

Marine photographer Louis Lowery was with the men as they ascended the peak and recorded the initial event. The Americans cheered as the first flag was raised, and hours later more Marines came up the ridge with a larger one.

The second flag-raising was photographed by Associated Press (AP) photographer Joe Rosenthal and is considered one of the most famous war pictures in U.S. history, according to the National Archives website.

The first wave of Marines rushed onto the beaches of the small Pacific island to fight for control and establish a base for aircraft and an emergency-landing site for bombers on February 19, 1945.

In the months prior, Japanese General Tadamichi Kuribayashi expected the Allies to move in and had constructed a system of underground tunnels, fortification, and artillery to withstand the impending bombardment.

However, 30,000 U.S. Marines established a solid beachhead on the first day and advanced inch by inch under heavy fire and suicidal charges by the Japanese infantry.

Many of the American’s enemies were never seen because they “remained underground manning artillery until they were blown apart by a grenade or rocket, or incinerated by a flame thrower,” according to History.com.

Despite the extreme danger, the brave Marines continued to advance across the island and on February 23, victoriously took Mount Suribachi.

When the fighting ended on March 26, more than 6,000 Americans had lost their lives and nearly 17,000 were wounded.

U.S. Marines tweeted a video to honor the 75th anniversary of the battle on Wednesday.

The picture of the flag being raised atop Mount Suribachi “triggered a wave of national hope that Japanese forces would soon be crushed, and peace was near,” according to CNN.

The AP’s Former Executive Photo Editor Hal Buell called the iconic photograph “exquisite.”

He continued:

You have this strong, diagonal line made by the flag staff. You have the flag snapping in the breeze. You have the pyramid-like shape of the Marines pushing the flag up. The men obviously are separate, but they appear as one. The blank background enhances the action by providing no distractions.

Also, the photo is gifted with a softly filtered light. A very thin haze of clouds filters the light so that the shadows aren’t harsh, but there is detail in all the shadows on the uniforms and the flag.

Rosenthal’s photo “captured the heroism of the whole World War,” Buell said, adding that “It captured a moment during a ferocious battle, and it looked to the future — to victory and the end of the war.”

via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.breitbart.com

Posted on

MSNBC Suggests FBI Should Track Young White Men Online, Radicalize Them, Provide Resources for Creating Explosives, Then Arrest Them

In a shocking segment, MSNBC’s Katy Tur suggested that the FBI should be tracking young white men online to radicalize them, provide resources for creating explosives, and then arrest them.

Tur was comparing young white men to ISIS terrorists in an interview with Frank Figliuzzi, the former Assistant Director for Counterintelligence at the FBI.

“When you’re looking at ISIS or you’re looking at radical Islamic terrorism, I covered a number of stories where the FBI would track young kids or young men and they would talk to them online and say ‘you know, here’s how you build a bomb,’ or ‘here’s where you get your bomb making materials,’ and they track that person as that person radicalized and then arrested them before they could do anything bad,” Tur said. “Why is the same not being done for white extremists or is the same being done and we just don’t know about it?”

Figliuzzi responded that it is “time to ask that question” and to “wrestle with it” because politics “does enter in.” He then mocked people who would defend the First Amendment and claim that this is the act of “thought police.”

New Jersey’s annual Terrorism Threat Assessment report, released Friday, raised the threat of “white supremacists” higher than ISIS or al Qaeda.

The network seems to believe that everyone who does not support Democrat establishment candidates is a dangerous racist — not only if you are right-wing, but even if they are leftists.

MSNBC recently claimed that “racist liberal whites” support Democratic socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders. Contributor Jason Johnson made the charge last week during an interview on SiriusXM radio.

“I do find it fascinating that racist, liberal whites seem to love them some Bernie Sanders. [They] consistently and always have a problem with any person of color who doesn’t want to follow the orthodoxy of their lord and savior, Bernie Sanders. The man cares nothing for intersectionality. I don’t care how many people from the island of misfit black girls you throw out there to defend you on a regular basis, it doesn’t mean your campaign is serious,” Johnson said.

The post MSNBC Suggests FBI Should Track Young White Men Online, Radicalize Them, Provide Resources for Creating Explosives, Then Arrest Them appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

via The Gateway Pundit

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com

Posted on

American Adults Have More Than $20 Billion In Unused Gift Cards, Study Finds

American Adults Have More Than $20 Billion In Unused Gift Cards, Study Finds

In the US, gift cards are widely seen as a way to give somebody a gift that’s ever-so-slightly more thoughtful than simply giving them an envelope full of cash. They’re also increasingly an option for consumers to redeem credit card rewards. Unfortunately, many American adults also misplace or forget about the plastic gifts, essentially handing the seller free money.

Over the past couple of decades, American companies have pushed gift cards because of the tremendous benefit they provide to a company’s bottom line. Not only are they essentially an interest-free loan, but since a percentage of gift cards typically aren’t ever redeemed before they expire, companies can pocket the difference.

How big is the difference, exactly? Well, it’s probably larger than most Americans would expect. According to a recent survey by BankRate, right now, American adults have some $20 billion in unused gift cards or store credit just sitting there.

One of the analysts who worked on the report said adults hoping to form good personal finance habits should be to make sure that if they aren’t going to use a gift card, they either trade it in or sell it to a friend or acquaintance.

"Gift cards and store credits are real money, so treat them as such," said Ted Rossman, industry analyst at Bankrate.

According to a survey that BankRate conducted along with its research, 25% of American adults have let a gift card expire, and 22% have lost a gift card. More than half have held onto an unused gift card or store credit for more than a year.

The average value per unused gift card is $167.

Often, this is the result of forgetfulness rather than intent, because most American adults surveyed (64%) told Bankrate that they expect to use their gift cards eventually. Only one-third acknowledge that they won’t use all of their gift card balance before they expire.

If you, dear reader, happen to fall into this latter camp, there are other options that can at least help you recover some of the value from the gift card, as one financial planner explains. These include selling your cards in the secondary market, or simply donating them to charity.

"Gift cards don’t take up much space in a drawer, but that doesn’t mean you should let them sit forever," says Charles H. Thomas III, financial planner and founder of Intrepid Eagle Finance.

If you have unused gift cards collecting dust in your wallet, consider turning to the resale market. According to the survey, 23 percent of U.S. adults have regifted a gift card and 8 percent have resold a gift card.

"You can sell unwanted gift cards at sites such as Cardpool.com, CardCash.com and GiftCardSpread.com," Rossman says. "You can also buy discounted gift cards from these sites. That’s a great way to save on an upcoming purchase."

Rossman also suggests reading up on each site’s consumer protections. Cardpool, for example, offers a one year purchase guarantee on resold gift cards. Your gift card will be valid for up to 12 months, and if you don’t use the entire balance, you can contact Cardpool for a refund (up to $1,000 per customer per lifetime).

As an alternative, Thomas suggests donating unwanted gift cards to charity.

"Your local charity of choice or a website like GiftCards4Change will be glad to accept your unwanted card," Thomas says. "You also have the potential for a charitable tax deduction when you do this as well."

To sum up: Before giving your friend that gift card to Costco or Starbucks or wherever, consider: Might it just be easier and simpler to give them cash instead? At least they can redeem their banknotes at the Federal Reserve for gol…oh wait.


Tyler Durden

Sun, 02/23/2020 – 16:25

via ZeroHedge News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.zerohedge.com/fullrss2.xml

Posted on

Disney’s Animated Movie ‘Onward’ To Feature First Explicitly LGBTQ Character

Disney’s Pixar will be breaking revolutionary ground on March 6 with the release of “Onward” – the studio’s first animated movie to feature an openly LGBTQ character.

The character, voiced by Lena Waithe, will be a lesbian police officer whose sexuality will be explicitly pointed out in the movie as opposed to just being implied, such as the alleged lesbian couple in “Finding Dory” or the “exclusively gay moment” in the “Beauty and the Beast” live-action remake.

According to Slate, Pixar has largely kept the reveal of Waithe’s character under wraps by not making a huge media splash about it, opting instead to have it leaked slowly through varying reports. Here’s how the reveal unfolded:

There’s a lesbian character in Onward, a police officer voiced by Lena Waithe, but the most revolutionary thing that Pixar has done in advance of the movie’s release is not tell anyone about it. A day before the review embargo on the movie lifted, the closest thing to a relevant search result was a Reddit post from a user with the subject ‘possible lesbian couple in Pixar’s Onward??’ featuring an ambiguous-at-best screenshot from the movie’s trailer…

That being said, the inclusion of Waithe’s character will probably satisfy nobody who truly craves total representation in the LGBT community, being that Waithe’s moment of explicit lesbianism is a brief, throwaway line of little consequence:

But we don’t need to speculate about Waithe’s Officer Spector. We know because she tells us. When she and her partner, voiced by Ali Wong, pull over a driver who claims he was distracted because his girlfriend’s sons have been acting up, she commiserates, “My girlfriend’s daughter got me pulling my hair out.”

That line isn’t the point of the scene. In fact, it goes by so fast you could barely notice it. But that’s why it works so well. The film doesn’t pause to let it sink in or isolate the moment with a cut for emphasis. It passes unremarked, because in this world, it’s accepted as a fact of life. Some babies have two daddies, and some babies have two mommies, even if those mommies happen to be centaurs or elves.

The inclusion of Waithe’s character comes amid a wave of LGBT representation at Disney via the studio’s various intellectual properties and distribution platforms. In just a few months, Marvel’s “The Eternals” will be breaking new ground by not only featuring the first openly gay superhero, but also the franchise’s first gay kiss.

“It’s a beautiful, very moving kiss,” said actor Haaz Sleiman. “Everyone cried on set. For me, it’s very important to show how loving and beautiful a queer family can be. Brian Tyree Henry is such a tremendous actor and brought so much beauty into this part, and at one point I saw a child in his eyes, and I think it’s important for the world to be reminded that we in the queer community were all children at one point. We forget that because we’re always depicted as sexual or rebellious. We forget to connect on that human part.”

via The Daily Wire

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.dailywire.com

Posted on

Conservative 2020 Wave Grows as Record Number of GOP Candidates File to Run

Fed up with liberal extremists, a record number of Republicans are waging an all-out fight to reclaim the House of Representatives after the 2018 Democratic wave took it away from the GOP.

Federal Election Commission paperwork shows that in 2019 alone, a record 781 Republicans filed required forms to run for the House, up from 593 GOP candidates in 2017, according to Fox News

Many echo the message of Gavin Rollins, a captain in the Florida National Guard who will be seeking the House seat being vacated by Republican Rep. Ted Yoho.

“I say ‘fight alongside our president.’ I chose that phrase very carefully because a lot of candidates who are Republican will say, ‘I support our president.’ But it’s not enough to support him. We need people in Congress fighting alongside him. He had my back in a combat zone. Do you think I’ll have his back to Congress? Absolutely,” he told Fox.

Rollins, 33, said new, young voices need to counteract what he called the “socialism” of liberals such as Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York.

TRENDING: UK Outlet Runs Pictures of Grinning Bill Clinton with Sex Slave and Epstein’s Pimp on ‘Lolita Express’

“I get frustrated by AOC. She’s a millennial who just jumped in and is spouting off all these things. But what has she done to give back to the community?” Rollins said.

“What has she done to serve and make the world a better place at the local level or within her community before she’s now lecturing the rest of us on our country should be? And as a millennial who has served in the classroom, who has served overseas, I want to push back against that narrative.”

George Republican Marjorie Greene said Trump needs reinforcements.

“I’m tired of seeing my president attacked every day,” she said, according to Fox. “I’m tired of seeing our future threatened. I’m tired of seeing my children’s future extremely threatened, and it’s time to get off the bench and really step up to the plate.”

Greene said her campaign shows women are not all what she termed “tyrannical socialist Democrats.”

“These are radical women that will not bend. They do not want to work across the aisle. They only want their policies of the Green New Deal, ‘Medicare-for-all’ and socialism for America,” Greene told Fox. “Oftentimes, it takes a woman to put another woman in her place.”

Collectively, 1,761 people are planning to run for Congress, with 874 Republicans and 842 Democrats, according to Fox.

RELATED: Trump Suggests Schiff Leaked Russian Interference Intel To Hurt Sanders Campaign

“It’s all about enthusiasm driven by the president, both negative and positive,” Sarah Bryner, research director at the Center for Responsive Politics told Fox, adding the Republicans “saw the Democrats do it last cycle. So they know that it is possible. They saw some seats picked off that I think shocked the party and the public. They want to get those back.”

Retired Army captain Sean Parnell said Republicans have an edge that Democrats lack.

“The Democrats don’t really have an inspiring figure at the top of the ticket,” said Parnell, who is running to unseat Democratic Rep. Conor Lamb in western Pennsylvania. “They don’t really have a message but higher taxes and banning entire sectors of our economy and hatred of Trump. That’s not going to be enough for them to win.”

Parnell told Fox this election will make history, and he wants to be part of it.

“This is the first time in American history, where the president was impeached and he’s going to be on the ballot,” Parnell said. “The GOP turnout is going to be through the roof this election cycle. Everywhere we go, people are excited to vote.”

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

via The Western Journal

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.westernjournal.com

Posted on

More sleeping with sources in the swamp: Trump-hating DIA analyst pleads guilty to leaks to honeytrap reporter

Ali Watkins, it seems, wasn’t the only one.

The still-employed New York Times reporter set a new low bar in swamp journalism by sleeping with her sources, in her case Senate intelligence staffer James Wolfe, who got a two-month jail sentence for leaks to her, but for her ended only in her reassignment to the Times’ New York City desk. 

Now we have a less-politically prominent official, 30-year-old Defense Intelligence Agency bureaucrat Henry Kyle Frese, who’s in the news for pleading guilty to leaking big classified secrets surrounding the defense capabilities of North Korea and China to his lover-reporter, CNBC national security correspondent Amanda Macias, and then, at her request, to her good pal NBC national security correspondent Courtney Kube. Court documents show that he had 630 phone calls and at least 57 text messages with Macias, and 34 phone calls and 151 text messages with Kube. The two women were both Trump haters based on their Twitter posts, slanting their coverage to make the president look bad through the use of classified secrets as if to contradict him, leaving him unable to use Twitter to either trick our enemies or else dismiss the reports. They took the eight top-secret reports Frese leaked to do that, and then boosted each other publicly on Twitter while communicating privately through its messaging system.

Here’s the lovelorn trio of Macias, Frese and Kube, from their social media presence:

The Times, for one piously characterizes this whole sorry picture is an issue about the importance of protecting "whistleblowers," (sound familiar?), the First Amendment, and the press’s right to do its job:

The intensive pursuit of government workers who share classified information has unsettled First Amendment advocates, who say it could have a chilling effect, persuading public employees to stay silent rather than alert journalists to wrongdoing.

The rest of us see lovebird honeytrap journalism becoming more and more the norm as none of these reporters ends up seriously punished. Apparently, the managers up at the top of these organizations sees nothing wrong with this news standard other than a little bit of egg on their faces, probably hiring these comely women forjust  this purpose.

The reporters, having made an industry of soliciting secrets from lovelorn mooks like Frese, carry on.

From the government side, nobody among them gets busted, either, although that may change with this one, at least according to this dogged Twitterer File414 who’s got a big series of tweets on this.

Macias got a brief suspension in October from CNBC but seems to be back on the job, looking for more honey to trap, maybe. She appears remarkably cold in her absence of Twitter posts about her erstwhile roomate-lover who’s now got a ruined career, all his money taken away, and a stretch in prison for leaking secrets to boost her career. 

She’s instead tweeting pictures of what looks like her Paris vacation till the end of the month (hiding out till this blows over maybe?) and filing a single low-content story on the French wine industry derived from a press release, not actual interviews or street reporting, the PARIS dateline likely an argument to get the trip written off on her taxes. Kube, too, who benefited from Frese’s leaks, has also moved on to other things, pity about Frese. 

Don’t think that they are outliers breaking the rules, either. Here’s a gag-inducing piece of fluff touting Kube on her birthday in 2018 from Politico. To Politico, she’s a celebrity.

As for Frese, what stands out is how easy it must have been for the FBI to get him.

Classified reports leak out. Look at byline. Find leaked report. Check who had access to the leaked report (it was only 26 people, so one likely did it). Find out one is literally living with one of the 26. Bug phone. Find out about first reporter’s friends, find that one friend is also a printer of classified links — that can be traced to same DIA man. Easy as pie then to bug Frese’s phone and find out what else they all want to leak out for Getting Trump and Getting Ahead.

The Times tut-tutted the use of the phone surveillance slipping in an editorial comment to its story:

If the bureau can’t bug someone for doing this kind of activity, why have classified information at all.

Outside the patriotic perspective – and apparently Frese had none, he seemed to have been a Canadian until he had to give that up to get his clearance, not a reason of the heart – the U.S. secrets were supposed to be for the benefit of the American people, not someone’s private gain up the career ladder. They were expensively obtained, and if this was North Korea, obtained at extremely great risk. Pubishing those under such circumstances — to Get Trump – is simply outrageous.

Frese must have watched how James Wolfe had his Ali Watkins episode and got let off fairly easily, so no problem in doing it himself. He must have been sure no one was checking his social media, the easiest thing in the world to check, and therefore would get away with this. With anti-Trump bureaucrats leaking all over the place and getting away with it, it must have seemed to him that risking his career and livelihood (his plea deal pretty well leaves him ruined) was no big deal.

Maybe that’s changing now. But it’s reasonable to wonder how much more of this is going on. Apparently there’s a lot of it, given the Watkins, Kube and Macias examples. Maybe ending honeytrap journalism needs to be an issue.  

Images credit: shareable Twitter, Facebook posts

 

 

Ali Watkins, it seems, wasn’t the only one.

The still-employed New York Times reporter set a new low bar in swamp journalism by sleeping with her sources, in her case Senate intelligence staffer James Wolfe, who got a two-month jail sentence for leaks to her, but for her ended only in her reassignment to the Times’ New York City desk. 

Now we have a less-politically prominent official, 30-year-old Defense Intelligence Agency bureaucrat Henry Kyle Frese, who’s in the news for pleading guilty to leaking big classified secrets surrounding the defense capabilities of North Korea and China to his lover-reporter, CNBC national security correspondent Amanda Macias, and then, at her request, to her good pal NBC national security correspondent Courtney Kube. Court documents show that he had 630 phone calls and at least 57 text messages with Macias, and 34 phone calls and 151 text messages with Kube. The two women were both Trump haters based on their Twitter posts, slanting their coverage to make the president look bad through the use of classified secrets as if to contradict him, leaving him unable to use Twitter to either trick our enemies or else dismiss the reports. They took the eight top-secret reports Frese leaked to do that, and then boosted each other publicly on Twitter while communicating privately through its messaging system.

Here’s the lovelorn trio of Macias, Frese and Kube, from their social media presence:

The Times, for one piously characterizes this whole sorry picture is an issue about the importance of protecting "whistleblowers," (sound familiar?), the First Amendment, and the press’s right to do its job:

The intensive pursuit of government workers who share classified information has unsettled First Amendment advocates, who say it could have a chilling effect, persuading public employees to stay silent rather than alert journalists to wrongdoing.

The rest of us see lovebird honeytrap journalism becoming more and more the norm as none of these reporters ends up seriously punished. Apparently, the managers up at the top of these organizations sees nothing wrong with this news standard other than a little bit of egg on their faces, probably hiring these comely women forjust  this purpose.

The reporters, having made an industry of soliciting secrets from lovelorn mooks like Frese, carry on.

From the government side, nobody among them gets busted, either, although that may change with this one, at least according to this dogged Twitterer File414 who’s got a big series of tweets on this.

Macias got a brief suspension in October from CNBC but seems to be back on the job, looking for more honey to trap, maybe. She appears remarkably cold in her absence of Twitter posts about her erstwhile roomate-lover who’s now got a ruined career, all his money taken away, and a stretch in prison for leaking secrets to boost her career. 

She’s instead tweeting pictures of what looks like her Paris vacation till the end of the month (hiding out till this blows over maybe?) and filing a single low-content story on the French wine industry derived from a press release, not actual interviews or street reporting, the PARIS dateline likely an argument to get the trip written off on her taxes. Kube, too, who benefited from Frese’s leaks, has also moved on to other things, pity about Frese. 

Don’t think that they are outliers breaking the rules, either. Here’s a gag-inducing piece of fluff touting Kube on her birthday in 2018 from Politico. To Politico, she’s a celebrity.

As for Frese, what stands out is how easy it must have been for the FBI to get him.

Classified reports leak out. Look at byline. Find leaked report. Check who had access to the leaked report (it was only 26 people, so one likely did it). Find out one is literally living with one of the 26. Bug phone. Find out about first reporter’s friends, find that one friend is also a printer of classified links — that can be traced to same DIA man. Easy as pie then to bug Frese’s phone and find out what else they all want to leak out for Getting Trump and Getting Ahead.

The Times tut-tutted the use of the phone surveillance slipping in an editorial comment to its story:

If the bureau can’t bug someone for doing this kind of activity, why have classified information at all.

Outside the patriotic perspective – and apparently Frese had none, he seemed to have been a Canadian until he had to give that up to get his clearance, not a reason of the heart – the U.S. secrets were supposed to be for the benefit of the American people, not someone’s private gain up the career ladder. They were expensively obtained, and if this was North Korea, obtained at extremely great risk. Pubishing those under such circumstances — to Get Trump – is simply outrageous.

Frese must have watched how James Wolfe had his Ali Watkins episode and got let off fairly easily, so no problem in doing it himself. He must have been sure no one was checking his social media, the easiest thing in the world to check, and therefore would get away with this. With anti-Trump bureaucrats leaking all over the place and getting away with it, it must have seemed to him that risking his career and livelihood (his plea deal pretty well leaves him ruined) was no big deal.

Maybe that’s changing now. But it’s reasonable to wonder how much more of this is going on. Apparently there’s a lot of it, given the Watkins, Kube and Macias examples. Maybe ending honeytrap journalism needs to be an issue.  

Images credit: shareable Twitter, Facebook posts

 

 

via American Thinker Blog

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/

Posted on

Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor rages that colleagues are conservative

Supreme Court Justice Sonia “Wise Latina” Sotomayor once was explicit that she values feelings over the law. She is discovering to her chagrin that this approach does not work when a majority of Justices believe in the Constitution. On Friday, her frustration erupted in an angry dissent attacking her colleagues for partisanship.

In 2009, Sotomayor gave a speech trumpeting life experience rather than the Constitution and the law as her guiding judicial principles:

Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.

Sotomayor disavowed the speech during her nomination hearing. Nevertheless, her a navel-gazing analysis was at the forefront when she wrote a dissent accusing her strict constructionist Supreme Court colleagues of improperly favoring the Trump administration.

To understand her dissent, you need to know about a January concurrence from Justice Gorsuch. Gorsuch wrote a strong rebuke to lower courts that have routinely issued blanket injunctions against the Trump administration, rather than limiting themselves to the parties before them:

But when a court goes further than that, ordering the government to take (or not take) some action with respect to those who are strangers to the suit, it is hard to  see how the court could still be acting in the judicial role of resolving cases and controversies. Injunctions like these thus raise serious questions about the scope of courts’ equitable powers under Article III.

Given Gorsuch’s powerful Article III argument against overly-broad injunctions, it’s appropriate that, in Wolf v. Cook County, the Supreme Court stayed a state-wide preliminary injunction in a case challenging the Trump administration’s new rules refusing admission to immigrants likely to be “public charges.” (Under the old rule, only cash payments were public charges; under the new rule, all public benefits are public charges.)

Cook County challenged the rule change and the lower court, rather than issuing an injunction as to Cook County, issued the injunction to cover all of Illinois. The government sought to stay the injunction and the Supreme Court agreed.

Sotomayor’s dissent angrily said courts have always been able to issue nationwide injunctions and it’s unfair to reverse that practice. It’s really unfair when the injunction applies only to one State. And it’s super unfair when the appellate court will hear the matter within a short time and the government doesn’t make a good substantive argument. And the worst thing of all is that the policy “benefited one litigant over all others” – i.e., the Trump administration that has for years now been at the mercy of every two-bit “resistance” district court judge.

By contrast, said Sotomayor, the Court often refuses to issue stays of executions, even though the harm of a wrongful execution really is irremediable. In this regard, she misses that the Article III argument that Gorsuch advanced to stop global injunctions is inapplicable when a single petitioner’s case is at issue. Hers is an apples and oranges argument. The principle that the Court’s majority advanced in Wolf is that lower courts have authority only over the case before them, which is always the case with an individual’s execution. End of story.

Although Sotomayor’s dissent was foolish and poorly written, it was a battle cry to Slate Magazine:

Put simply: When some of the most despised and powerless among us ask the Supreme Court to spare their lives, the conservative justices turn a cold shoulder. When the Trump administration demands permission to implement some cruel, nativist, and potentially unlawful immigration restrictions, the conservatives bend over backward to give it everything it wants. There is nothing “fair and balanced” about the court’s double standard that favors the government over everyone else. And, as Sotomayor implies, this flagrant bias creates the disturbing impression that the Trump administration has a majority of the court in its pocket. 

Article III Supreme Court justices following the Constitution. Wise Latinas and leftist online writers delve deep into victim politics and Trump Derangement Syndrome. In November, think very carefully whether you want more justices like Gorsuch on the Court, in which case you must vote for Trump, or more justices like Sotomayor, which is what a Bernie presidency promises.

Supreme Court Justice Sonia “Wise Latina” Sotomayor once was explicit that she values feelings over the law. She is discovering to her chagrin that this approach does not work when a majority of Justices believe in the Constitution. On Friday, her frustration erupted in an angry dissent attacking her colleagues for partisanship.

In 2009, Sotomayor gave a speech trumpeting life experience rather than the Constitution and the law as her guiding judicial principles:

Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.

Sotomayor disavowed the speech during her nomination hearing. Nevertheless, her a navel-gazing analysis was at the forefront when she wrote a dissent accusing her strict constructionist Supreme Court colleagues of improperly favoring the Trump administration.

To understand her dissent, you need to know about a January concurrence from Justice Gorsuch. Gorsuch wrote a strong rebuke to lower courts that have routinely issued blanket injunctions against the Trump administration, rather than limiting themselves to the parties before them:

But when a court goes further than that, ordering the government to take (or not take) some action with respect to those who are strangers to the suit, it is hard to  see how the court could still be acting in the judicial role of resolving cases and controversies. Injunctions like these thus raise serious questions about the scope of courts’ equitable powers under Article III.

Given Gorsuch’s powerful Article III argument against overly-broad injunctions, it’s appropriate that, in Wolf v. Cook County, the Supreme Court stayed a state-wide preliminary injunction in a case challenging the Trump administration’s new rules refusing admission to immigrants likely to be “public charges.” (Under the old rule, only cash payments were public charges; under the new rule, all public benefits are public charges.)

Cook County challenged the rule change and the lower court, rather than issuing an injunction as to Cook County, issued the injunction to cover all of Illinois. The government sought to stay the injunction and the Supreme Court agreed.

Sotomayor’s dissent angrily said courts have always been able to issue nationwide injunctions and it’s unfair to reverse that practice. It’s really unfair when the injunction applies only to one State. And it’s super unfair when the appellate court will hear the matter within a short time and the government doesn’t make a good substantive argument. And the worst thing of all is that the policy “benefited one litigant over all others” – i.e., the Trump administration that has for years now been at the mercy of every two-bit “resistance” district court judge.

By contrast, said Sotomayor, the Court often refuses to issue stays of executions, even though the harm of a wrongful execution really is irremediable. In this regard, she misses that the Article III argument that Gorsuch advanced to stop global injunctions is inapplicable when a single petitioner’s case is at issue. Hers is an apples and oranges argument. The principle that the Court’s majority advanced in Wolf is that lower courts have authority only over the case before them, which is always the case with an individual’s execution. End of story.

Although Sotomayor’s dissent was foolish and poorly written, it was a battle cry to Slate Magazine:

Put simply: When some of the most despised and powerless among us ask the Supreme Court to spare their lives, the conservative justices turn a cold shoulder. When the Trump administration demands permission to implement some cruel, nativist, and potentially unlawful immigration restrictions, the conservatives bend over backward to give it everything it wants. There is nothing “fair and balanced” about the court’s double standard that favors the government over everyone else. And, as Sotomayor implies, this flagrant bias creates the disturbing impression that the Trump administration has a majority of the court in its pocket. 

Article III Supreme Court justices following the Constitution. Wise Latinas and leftist online writers delve deep into victim politics and Trump Derangement Syndrome. In November, think very carefully whether you want more justices like Gorsuch on the Court, in which case you must vote for Trump, or more justices like Sotomayor, which is what a Bernie presidency promises.

via American Thinker Blog

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/

Posted on

Obama DHS Whistleblower Found Dead On Side Of California Highway, Police Rule Suicide

Obama DHS Whistleblower Found Dead On Side Of California Highway, Police Rule Suicide

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) whistleblower Philip Haney was found dead on the side of a desolate California highway on Friday with a single gunshot would to the head, according to local authorities.

Haney’s death has been ruled a suicide by an Amador County coroner, who noted that a firearm was observed next to the 66-year-old, who was found lying next to his vehicle.

"Upon their arrival, they located and identified 66-year-old Philip Haney, who was deceased and appeared to have suffered a single, self-inflicted gunshot wound. A firearm was located next to Haney and his vehicle. This investigation is active and ongoing. No further details will be released at this time," reads the report.

So, Haney supposedly parked his car on the side of the road and shot himself in the head just after 10 a.m. on Friday. And while his death is clearly suspicious to some, it should be noted that his wife, Francesca, passed away eight months ago in June 2019 following a battle with cancer. The couple had one daughter named Sara, an ordained minister who previously served as the chaplain for the Cobb Detention Center according to Francesca’s Facebook page (via Heavy).

Haney lived in Plymouth, California – approximately 40 miles east of Sacramento.

He notably authored "See Something, Say Nothing: A Homeland Security Officer Exposes the Government’s Submission to Jihad," a scathing criticism of the Obama administration’s handling of radical Islamic terrorism. In 2016, he testified that the Obama administration could have prevented the Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando, Florida if they had not acted in favor of "political correctness."

Haney, who retired in 2015, studied Arabic culture and language while working as a scientist in the Middle East before becoming a founding member of the Department of Homeland Security in 2002 as a Customs & Border Protection (CBP) agriculture officer.

After serving as an armed CBP officer, he was promoted to its Advanced Targeting Team. He specialized in Islamic theology and the strategy and tactics of the global Islamic movement. –Fox News

Haney, a founding member of DHS, described his work at the agency like dealing with bugs – saying he "followed the trail and found the nest."

News of Haney’s death rocked those who knew him.

"Somebody I deeply respected and considered a friend Phil Haney – a DHS whistleblower during the Obama Admin was apparently killed yesterday in Southern California," wrote journalist Sara Carter in a Saturday tweet. "Pray for his family and pray they find the person who murdered him. Still trying to get confirmation on details."


Tyler Durden

Sun, 02/23/2020 – 11:25

via ZeroHedge News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.zerohedge.com/fullrss2.xml

Posted on

Disney to Feature First LGBTQ Character in Movie ‘Onward’

Disney is slated to openly embrace Hollywood’s descent into the world of woke and feature its first openly lesbian character in its upcoming film Onward.

The upcoming film, which is described as taking place in “a magical universe whose fantastical citizens — think elves, dragons and manticores — have lost their connection to the magical arts,” will feature a lesbian character — a Cyclops police officer named Officer Spector.

While the character, voiced by “openly gay” actress Lena Waithe, only appears in one scene in the movie, it signals a huge shift for Pixar.

“It just kind of happened,” the film’s producer, Kori Rae, told Yahoo Entertainment. “The scene, when we wrote it, was kind of fitting and it opens up the world a little bit, and that’s what we wanted.”

The film centers around two brothers, Ian and Barley, who lost their father but receive a gift he left behind, “which turns out to be a 24-hour resurrection spell.” According to Yahoo, “the spell immediately goes haywire, forcing the duo to embark on a ticking-clock quest to find a replacement element before their father vanishes again.”

Officer Specter, the lesbian cop, makes an appearance amid the brothers’ journey.

As Yahoo details:

Officer Specter enters the narrative in mid-quest as Ian and Barley are en route to the magical mountains outside of their otherwise ordinary town. The brothers’ reckless piloting of Barley’s beloved van, Guinevere, brings them to the attention of one-eyed Specter and her faun sidekick, Officer Gore (Ali Wong), who pull the boys over. Not wanting to be escorted home, Ian casts a masking spell that temporarily disguises him and Barley as Colt. The ruse fools Specter, who listens as “Officer Bronco” complains about his girlfriend’s kids and the difficulty of being the new guy in their mom’s life. She immediately sympathizes with him, saying: “My girlfriend’s daughter got me pulling my hair out,” but suggests that the best thing they can do is try to be there for them. In that moment, both Ian and Barley start to understand that their family’s new arrangement is as difficult for Colt as it is for them. As Ian’s illusion starts to break down, the brothers make a quick exit… but not quick enough to avert Specter’s suspicions. She gets a message to the real Colt through the police switchboard and the chase resumes.

Pixar’s move coincides with the LGBT lobby putting pressure on studios to boost representation of queer characters on screen. A few years ago, many speculated that two passing characters depicted in Pixar’s Finding Dory were a lesbian couple. Left-wing fans of Frozen also pushed for Pixar to make the film’s princess, Elsa, a lesbian. The effort took off on Twitter, with #GiveElsaAGirlfriend trending at the time. Despite the pleas, Disney did not give Elsa a girlfriend in the film’s sequel. Disney did feature a lesbian kiss in its blockbuster

Onward is slated to hit theaters March 6.

via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.breitbart.com

Posted on

Sexualization, Pornography, and Grooming in the Schools

WARNING: This article has sexually explicit content.

Concerned citizens all over the country are joining the resistance to what the sexual-radical Left calls "comprehensive sex education" (CSE).  One such group is Informed Parents of Washington (IPOW), who describe themselves as "a coalition of parents dedicated to fighting Comprehensive Sexxx Education in our schools and legislation that [infringes on] parental rights."

They point out that 58% of participants in a statewide survey said they do not want CSE mandated in the schools.  But the Democrats controlling the state Legislature are ignoring the will of the people.  From IPOW:

Currently, Washington State Legislators have introduced 4 bills to mandate CSE to every school in Washington, grades K-12. While … districts will not be mandated to use one particular curriculum … we provide examples from each of the most popular choices. Make no mistake, they are all bad.

We are not against sexual education, but we are absolutely against the inappropriate, pleasure based components within CSE that we feel harm our children[.] … Elementary age children do not need to learn about masturbation. Teens should not be told that the pull out method is more effective than they think. Kids should not be taught that sexting is as innocent as watching a movie together, schools should not be suggesting co-bathing as an alternative.

We maintain that because CSE is not appropriate for any child, it should not be given as an option to opt-in or opt-out[.] … We reject the Legislature’s false attempt at appeasement by offering to allow kids to "opt-out" because we know that is never truly an option. It is impossible to guarantee that subjects will not be brought up in other classes and one can never opt out from the talk amongst students.

Another IPOW post explains:

OPT OUT DOESN’T WORK! Not only does Laurie Dils, Sexual Health Education Program Supervisor for the state of Washington, want to teach your children about sexual pleasure, she wants to weave comprehensive sexual education into other subject areas. For example, "Romeo and Juliet."

Good for these parents to oppose CSE. But really, any "sex education" in the schools should be opposed! All any high school student needs is a basic human physiology class. Many conservatives don’t grasp that allowing anything beyond that opens the door to abuse by Planned Parenthood and LGBT activist messages (always in the name of "safety").

But the capitulation to "good" sex ed came long ago.  And so, we’ve arrived at the sexualized school culture described by two young girls below.  They went to the Washington State House on Feb. 20 to testify against S.B. 5395 (which would make CSE mandatory in all public schools).

These 8th-grade girls were subjected in earlier grades to a curriculum called FLASH (Family Life and Sexual Health).  Planned Parenthood has contributed materials to that CSE curriculum (and others).  In grades 4–6, for example, boys and girls (in class together) will learn to properly name their genitals: penis, scrotum, labia, vulva, vagina.  They will fill in a worksheet including the terms circumcision, conception, ejaculation, erection, genitals, intercourse, nocturnal emission, semen, sperm, etc.  (See more details here.)  It’s a great way to break down modesty and get young children thinking and talking about sex during the school day.

Here’s just one paragraph from the FLASH curriculum for grades 4–6:

Intercourse is the kind of sexual touch when the penis is in the vagina. It is sometimes called "vaginal intercourse" or "lovemaking"…but "lovemaking" can mean different things to different people.  [Hint, hint…like anal intercourse?]  Ejaculation is what you call it when semen, the fluid carrying sperm, comes out of the penis.  If he ejaculates during intercourse — or even if he ejaculates onto her labia, without ever putting the penis inside — sperm can swim up into her uterus[.] (p. 12–13)

No wonder little boys are grabbing at the girls’ crotches during recess.

My sources with IPOW, Kim Wendt and Randall Rathbun, preserved the testimony of the two 8th-grade girls.  Though they weren’t allowed to testify before the Education Committee at the Feb. 20 hearing, they read their statements afterward at the State House.  They describe how the whole school culture was changed because of the sex ed.

Here’s what one girl described:

In 6th grade our school started the FLASH curriculum.  I will never forget the day our MALE teacher taught us what intercourse was.  That was mortifying.  We had to sit and hear very personal things with boys constantly joking about it.  It made me feel violated, like I was just an object.  Since the sex ed curriculum started, those kinds of things go on all year long.  Sexual comments are common.  Boys will even grab girls’ butts at school, including mine.  When addressed, they simply move on to someone else.  I want it to stop but if you say anything you are made fun of and no one takes you seriously.  This is wrong but everyone seems to just accept it and girls suffer in silence.  Sexual harassment is being tolerated and actually encouraged by the culture that has been fueled by sex being in every day at school.

Girls already have a hard time being respected and having sex discussed every day just makes it hard.  I, and many others, prefer to have these sensitive discussions at home with those we trust, not in front of our peers and teachers.  And by the way, opting out is not really an option.  Anyone who does that gets teased and bullied even more.  This really should be an elective class that you CHOOSE to take.  Why can’t it be that way?  We should have a choice.

In my other class we are learning about our first amendment rights.  I am supposed to have the right to exercise my religious freedom yet every day I am being forced to go against it in order to pass a class.  I am a pastor’s daughter.  Where are my rights?  Where is my right to have safe boundaries?  I don’t want this mandated on me and I certainly can’t imagine making younger kids go through this.

Today I ask you to guarantee that ALL kids’ voices are heard.  Please vote no and give us a real choice, a choice to keep our honor.

The second girl told of her experience:

I’d like to tell you what the sex education curriculum has done to our school in the last couple years.  Feeling violated is our new norm.  Sexual harassment is the new norm.  Lack of respect is the new norm.

Graphic details, pornographic images, and inappropriate assignments have become a part of every day.  Sex has now become the main topic of every conversation from the start of the school day to the end.  Boys make lewd and demeaning comments and it’s treated like no big deal, after all — it’s just our homework right?  This is very confusing and the whole culture in our school has turned toxic, especially to girls.

Imagine if your classroom activity for the day was to play bingo with words like sperm, erection, and ejaculation and your homework was to look up "penis too large" on the Internet. This is disturbing and very embarrassing but I don’t get to say no.  I don’t get to have boundaries.

The lines between sexual harassment and sex ed class are very blurry.  Think about this: It is now ok for male teachers to talk to us about sex and every aspect of it when just a few years ago that would have gotten them fired.  And if a boy tells us to "Look up page 34," is that harassment or discussion about homework?  Where is the line?  We have lost our ability to advocate for ourselves and demand better.

Sex is very private and should be handled with respect.  But that’s not happening in our schools.  We deserve safe boundaries and we need you to provide them.  After all, we have to live with the laws you pass.  Please vote no on this bill and protect our dignity.

A high school sophomore who spoke at the hearing opposed the bill for the same reasons (at 47:20 in the State House video).  Following her classmates’ exposure to 5th-grade sex ed, "[d]egrading sexual jokes were made about my body, constantly.  I felt confused and violated[.] … It didn’t empower me nor educate me as a future woman[.]"


Pro-family citizens gather before the Washington State House on Feb. 20, 2020 in opposition to mandated "comprehensive sex education." (Photo: Kenny Smith.)

The resistance is growing.  Radio talk show host Todd Herman (in Seattle) posted this (Feb. 11, 2020) about the CSE curricula:

I asked a career law enforcement official, Jim Fuda, of Crime Stoppers Global Solutions (which fights sex trafficking) what he thought of some of the so-called "Sex-Ed" "curriculum" the Democrats are trying to force into schools.  Jim agrees it sounds like grooming; Jim said he would have his hands around the throat of a man who said these things to kids.  I DEMAND A REAL PROTEST FROM REPUBLICANS ON THIS.  Here are some ideas:

1. READ THIS TRASH INTO THE LEGISLATIVE RECORD — if the Dems block it, scream it into the record.  Make them physically remove you from the House chambers: we are literally talking about a program that ERASES the natural boundaries kids have about talking to random adults about sex acts.

2. GET EVERY REPUBLICAN MEMBER TO DO FACEBOOK LIVES: Show the pictures they want our kids to see!  The pictures are porn and parents who see them will FREAK.  The media is HIDING THESE BILLS. GO AROUND THE MEDIA[.] …

If Republicans sit passively by while this trash is passed I see no reason to support the party[.]

OK, Republican legislators.  Where are you on this?  Why aren’t you helping us out?  How about overturning all those laws (in almost every state) that exempt schools from obscenity bans?

All sex ed in the schools — not just CSE — is obscenity.  It has become downright pornographic.  It is grooming the next generation for any act imaginable.

Amy Contrada is with MassResistance and author of Mitt Romney’s Deception.

WARNING: This article has sexually explicit content.

Concerned citizens all over the country are joining the resistance to what the sexual-radical Left calls "comprehensive sex education" (CSE).  One such group is Informed Parents of Washington (IPOW), who describe themselves as "a coalition of parents dedicated to fighting Comprehensive Sexxx Education in our schools and legislation that [infringes on] parental rights."

They point out that 58% of participants in a statewide survey said they do not want CSE mandated in the schools.  But the Democrats controlling the state Legislature are ignoring the will of the people.  From IPOW:

Currently, Washington State Legislators have introduced 4 bills to mandate CSE to every school in Washington, grades K-12. While … districts will not be mandated to use one particular curriculum … we provide examples from each of the most popular choices. Make no mistake, they are all bad.

We are not against sexual education, but we are absolutely against the inappropriate, pleasure based components within CSE that we feel harm our children[.] … Elementary age children do not need to learn about masturbation. Teens should not be told that the pull out method is more effective than they think. Kids should not be taught that sexting is as innocent as watching a movie together, schools should not be suggesting co-bathing as an alternative.

We maintain that because CSE is not appropriate for any child, it should not be given as an option to opt-in or opt-out[.] … We reject the Legislature’s false attempt at appeasement by offering to allow kids to "opt-out" because we know that is never truly an option. It is impossible to guarantee that subjects will not be brought up in other classes and one can never opt out from the talk amongst students.

Another IPOW post explains:

OPT OUT DOESN’T WORK! Not only does Laurie Dils, Sexual Health Education Program Supervisor for the state of Washington, want to teach your children about sexual pleasure, she wants to weave comprehensive sexual education into other subject areas. For example, "Romeo and Juliet."

Good for these parents to oppose CSE. But really, any "sex education" in the schools should be opposed! All any high school student needs is a basic human physiology class. Many conservatives don’t grasp that allowing anything beyond that opens the door to abuse by Planned Parenthood and LGBT activist messages (always in the name of "safety").

But the capitulation to "good" sex ed came long ago.  And so, we’ve arrived at the sexualized school culture described by two young girls below.  They went to the Washington State House on Feb. 20 to testify against S.B. 5395 (which would make CSE mandatory in all public schools).

These 8th-grade girls were subjected in earlier grades to a curriculum called FLASH (Family Life and Sexual Health).  Planned Parenthood has contributed materials to that CSE curriculum (and others).  In grades 4–6, for example, boys and girls (in class together) will learn to properly name their genitals: penis, scrotum, labia, vulva, vagina.  They will fill in a worksheet including the terms circumcision, conception, ejaculation, erection, genitals, intercourse, nocturnal emission, semen, sperm, etc.  (See more details here.)  It’s a great way to break down modesty and get young children thinking and talking about sex during the school day.

Here’s just one paragraph from the FLASH curriculum for grades 4–6:

Intercourse is the kind of sexual touch when the penis is in the vagina. It is sometimes called "vaginal intercourse" or "lovemaking"…but "lovemaking" can mean different things to different people.  [Hint, hint…like anal intercourse?]  Ejaculation is what you call it when semen, the fluid carrying sperm, comes out of the penis.  If he ejaculates during intercourse — or even if he ejaculates onto her labia, without ever putting the penis inside — sperm can swim up into her uterus[.] (p. 12–13)

No wonder little boys are grabbing at the girls’ crotches during recess.

My sources with IPOW, Kim Wendt and Randall Rathbun, preserved the testimony of the two 8th-grade girls.  Though they weren’t allowed to testify before the Education Committee at the Feb. 20 hearing, they read their statements afterward at the State House.  They describe how the whole school culture was changed because of the sex ed.

Here’s what one girl described:

In 6th grade our school started the FLASH curriculum.  I will never forget the day our MALE teacher taught us what intercourse was.  That was mortifying.  We had to sit and hear very personal things with boys constantly joking about it.  It made me feel violated, like I was just an object.  Since the sex ed curriculum started, those kinds of things go on all year long.  Sexual comments are common.  Boys will even grab girls’ butts at school, including mine.  When addressed, they simply move on to someone else.  I want it to stop but if you say anything you are made fun of and no one takes you seriously.  This is wrong but everyone seems to just accept it and girls suffer in silence.  Sexual harassment is being tolerated and actually encouraged by the culture that has been fueled by sex being in every day at school.

Girls already have a hard time being respected and having sex discussed every day just makes it hard.  I, and many others, prefer to have these sensitive discussions at home with those we trust, not in front of our peers and teachers.  And by the way, opting out is not really an option.  Anyone who does that gets teased and bullied even more.  This really should be an elective class that you CHOOSE to take.  Why can’t it be that way?  We should have a choice.

In my other class we are learning about our first amendment rights.  I am supposed to have the right to exercise my religious freedom yet every day I am being forced to go against it in order to pass a class.  I am a pastor’s daughter.  Where are my rights?  Where is my right to have safe boundaries?  I don’t want this mandated on me and I certainly can’t imagine making younger kids go through this.

Today I ask you to guarantee that ALL kids’ voices are heard.  Please vote no and give us a real choice, a choice to keep our honor.

The second girl told of her experience:

I’d like to tell you what the sex education curriculum has done to our school in the last couple years.  Feeling violated is our new norm.  Sexual harassment is the new norm.  Lack of respect is the new norm.

Graphic details, pornographic images, and inappropriate assignments have become a part of every day.  Sex has now become the main topic of every conversation from the start of the school day to the end.  Boys make lewd and demeaning comments and it’s treated like no big deal, after all — it’s just our homework right?  This is very confusing and the whole culture in our school has turned toxic, especially to girls.

Imagine if your classroom activity for the day was to play bingo with words like sperm, erection, and ejaculation and your homework was to look up "penis too large" on the Internet. This is disturbing and very embarrassing but I don’t get to say no.  I don’t get to have boundaries.

The lines between sexual harassment and sex ed class are very blurry.  Think about this: It is now ok for male teachers to talk to us about sex and every aspect of it when just a few years ago that would have gotten them fired.  And if a boy tells us to "Look up page 34," is that harassment or discussion about homework?  Where is the line?  We have lost our ability to advocate for ourselves and demand better.

Sex is very private and should be handled with respect.  But that’s not happening in our schools.  We deserve safe boundaries and we need you to provide them.  After all, we have to live with the laws you pass.  Please vote no on this bill and protect our dignity.

A high school sophomore who spoke at the hearing opposed the bill for the same reasons (at 47:20 in the State House video).  Following her classmates’ exposure to 5th-grade sex ed, "[d]egrading sexual jokes were made about my body, constantly.  I felt confused and violated[.] … It didn’t empower me nor educate me as a future woman[.]"


Pro-family citizens gather before the Washington State House on Feb. 20, 2020 in opposition to mandated "comprehensive sex education." (Photo: Kenny Smith.)

The resistance is growing.  Radio talk show host Todd Herman (in Seattle) posted this (Feb. 11, 2020) about the CSE curricula:

I asked a career law enforcement official, Jim Fuda, of Crime Stoppers Global Solutions (which fights sex trafficking) what he thought of some of the so-called "Sex-Ed" "curriculum" the Democrats are trying to force into schools.  Jim agrees it sounds like grooming; Jim said he would have his hands around the throat of a man who said these things to kids.  I DEMAND A REAL PROTEST FROM REPUBLICANS ON THIS.  Here are some ideas:

1. READ THIS TRASH INTO THE LEGISLATIVE RECORD — if the Dems block it, scream it into the record.  Make them physically remove you from the House chambers: we are literally talking about a program that ERASES the natural boundaries kids have about talking to random adults about sex acts.

2. GET EVERY REPUBLICAN MEMBER TO DO FACEBOOK LIVES: Show the pictures they want our kids to see!  The pictures are porn and parents who see them will FREAK.  The media is HIDING THESE BILLS. GO AROUND THE MEDIA[.] …

If Republicans sit passively by while this trash is passed I see no reason to support the party[.]

OK, Republican legislators.  Where are you on this?  Why aren’t you helping us out?  How about overturning all those laws (in almost every state) that exempt schools from obscenity bans?

All sex ed in the schools — not just CSE — is obscenity.  It has become downright pornographic.  It is grooming the next generation for any act imaginable.

Amy Contrada is with MassResistance and author of Mitt Romney’s Deception.

via American Thinker

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/