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/

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

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

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/

Obama DHS Whistleblower Found Dead with ‘Gunshot Wound’ to the Chest

Philip Haney, a former Department of Homeland Security (DHS) official during the Obama administration who blew the whistle on shortcomings within his own agency, was found dead in California on Friday with a “gunshot wound” to the chest, several news outlets report, citing a statement from the law enforcement.

Although authorities have said the gunshot wound “appears” to be “self-inflicted,” stressing that the investigation is ongoing, 66-year-old Haney had been missing since February 19. and died from a gunshot wound to his chest two days later, Red State and Heavy reported.

Gunshot wounds to the chest are uncommon in the case of suicides, data reportedly show. Haney’s death has triggered a wave of claims suggesting he may have been a victim of foul play.

Echoing some of the whistleblower’s friends, a number of senior congressional officials have expressed alarm to Breitbart News about this, noting that they do no believe Haney was suicidal.

Law enforcement found Haney’s body 40 miles east of Sacramento, California.

While testifying as a whistleblower before the Senate Judiciary Committee in June 2016, Haney asserted that DHS ordered him to delete hundreds of files of people with links to Islamist terrorist groups. He argued that authorities could have prevented several terrorist attacks in the U.S. if DHS had not scrubbed specific data.

The Washington Examiner learned from the Amador County Sheriff’s office that “deputies and detectives responded to reports Friday morning at 10:12 a.m. of a male subject on the ground with a gunshot wound in the area of Highway 124 and Highway 16 in Plymouth, California.”

“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,” the sheriff’s office reportedly declared in a statement.

Rep. Steve King (R-IA) said Haney “didn’t kill himself” as claimed by law enforcement who ruled his death a suicide. Haney was in possession of an archive of information he considered an insurance policy in case he was ever found dead, King asserted.

“Phil Haney was a friend & patriot. He was a target because of all he knew of Islamic terrorist coverups,” King wrote Saturday on Twitter. “He insured his life by archiving data that incriminated the highest levels of the Obama administration. Phil Haney didn’t kill himself. RIP, Phil.”

“If I am found dead, it wasn’t suicide,” Haney told multiple people, confirmed by two anonymous sources, the NOQ Report learned.

One America News Network (OANN) reporter and veteran intelligence officer of the U.S. Navy, Jack Posobiec, suggested on Twitter that Haney’s death could be a homicide.

“I can confirm at @OANN we are investigating the suspicious death of DHS whistleblower Phil Haney,” Posobiec tweeted on Saturday. “We have spoken with local sources that suggest this may have been a homicide”:

Authorities found Haney dead ahead of his plans to publish another book exposing problems within the Obama administration, according to the Examiner.

Citing unnamed sources, however, the Examiner also revealed that Haney “was recently in contact with top officials about returning to work for the DHS. Additionally, Haney was engaged to be married.”

via Breitbart News

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

DEMOCRACY DIES IN DARKNESS: Nevada Democrats Requiring Caucus Volunteers To Sign Non-Disclosure Agreements

Nothing says “transparency” like forcing election volunteers to sign confidentiality agreements insisting they won’t say anything bad about a political party.

Ahead of Saturday’s Nevada caucus, the Nevada State Democratic Party (NSDP) is requiring volunteers leading caucus sites to sign non-disclosure agreements that insist they won’t speak to the media or disclose “confidential information of the NSDP,” CNN reported. Democrats and election watchers have been wondering whether Democrats will fail spectacularly in counting caucus delegates as they did in Iowa.

To ensure Nevada Democrats don’t fail, operatives tied to former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have been put in charge, because we all know that guy never did anything shady in his lifetime. An NSDP official told CNN that non-disclosure agreements are standard procedure and said it also required them in 2018.

A copy of the NDA obtained by the outlet states, in part, “I will take all measures necessary to protect the secrecy of, and avoid disclosure and unauthorized use of, Confidential Information of the NSDP.”

As CNN reported, the NDA refers to other NDSP activities and suggested it is used for other purposes as well.

“If I am a volunteer and answering phones at the NSDP office or volunteering at an official NSDP event, I am a representative of the NSDP and am not authorized to speak to the press unless given permission by the Executive Director or Communications Director,” the NDA says.

The NDA then reminds volunteers that they may be contacted by members of the media and that any inquiries must be passed on to the Executive Director of Communications Director of the NDSP, saying, “THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS.” It also says volunteers are not allowed to provide background or off-the-record information to reporters.

CNN spoke to volunteer Seth Morrison, who said he was planning to become a site leader but quit after he was presented with the NDA.

“The wording of that agreement is very broad,” Morrison told CNN. “If I were to quote disparage the party or talk to the media without their permission, they could sue me for everything I own.”

He also told the outlet that the NDA covered more than just election information, including information about the NDSP’s business practices and methods. Further, he said the media should be aware of the NDAs

“Since I felt that there are elements of this process that need to be reported, I could not in good conscience sign that document,” Morrison told CNN.

The outlet suggested that the “possibility that even a small number of volunteers could be quitting the day before the Nevada caucuses is yet another cause for concern that vote can been pulled off in the wake of the fiasco with the Iowa caucuses.”

Iowa Democrats didn’t require volunteers to sign NDAs. As The Daily Wire previously reported, the Democrats’ Iowa caucus was marred by chaos and incompetence, as an app designed to collect and report caucus data failed. By Tuesday, just 62% of data had been released, and it would take days for the full results to be tallied.

via The Daily Wire

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

Study: Most Venezuelans Using Foreign Currency to Survive

Over half of monetary transactions in Venezuela take place using dollars, and nearly two-thirds use any type of foreign currency, according to data obtained by the Caracas-based research firm Ecoanalitica.

The analysis, which studied around 16,000 transactions carried out from February 9th to 14th across ten cities in Venezuela, found that 55.7 percent of all transactions now took place in dollars, while over 64 percent of sales in foreign currency. The most popular currency after the dollar is the Colombian peso, as the neighboring country is experiencing relative economic prosperity compared to the shattered economy of Venezuela.

Credit card readers accepting Venezuela’s bolívar currency are regularly rendered useless by repeated power cuts, The most affected cities, such as San Cristobal and Maracaibo, reported usage of foreign currency as high as 94 and 92 percent, respectively.

The figures mean that despite the fierce opposition of Nicolás Maduro’s socialist regime to all things American, the U.S. dollar has effectively become the country’s unofficial currency. As well as the total collapse in value of the bolivar, which has lost well over 99.99999 percent of its value in the past decade, a major reason for this change is because four million people have fled Venezuela’s economic and humanitarian crisis over the past five years.

Many of these exiles send foreign currency back to their friends and relatives in Venezuela. Ecoanalitica estimated around $4 billion in annual remittances. That figure is highly likely to rise given the thousands of Venezuelans who continue to flee the country each day in search of economic refuge.

Currency inflation in Venezuela began to soar as early as 2007 under the rule of socialist dictator Hugo Chávez and in recent years has reached levels similar to Germany’s Weimar Republic or Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe, where some people were seen using a wheelbarrow to buy products and the government introduced a 100-trillion-dollar banknote.

The study also found that 81 percent of sales now take place in cash, creating problems for local businesses unable to store their money in Venezuelan bank accounts.

“I do not believe that the economy will be completely dollarized but it is showing a growing trend that is difficult to reverse,” Asdrubal Oliveros, director of Ecoanalitica, said. “We will continue to have a dual economy in which the dollar has an increasing weight.”

Another popular trend in Venezuela is the use of cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin Cash, Litecoin, and Ethereum. Increasing numbers of businesses are accepting payments based on various blockchain technologies, although these can be problematic due to their rapidly fluctuating value.

In a bid to interfere in this market – often touted by free marketeers as the key towards a stateless, libertarian future – the socialist regime has introduced its own scam cryptocurrency known as the “petro,” supposedly backed by the country’s extensive natural resources and oil reserves. Maduro has previously claimed that the currency has received over a billion dollars’ worth of investment, although this figure is highly disputed by cryptoanalysts, many of whom question whether it has any value whatsoever.

You can follow Ben Kew on Facebook, on Twitter at @ben_kew, or email him at bkew@breitbart.com.

via Breitbart News

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

Tim Allen Uses Show ‘Last Man Standing’ to Explain the Beauty of Capitalism to Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders

Actor Tim Allen used his hit sitcom, Last Man Standing to humorously school Democrat presidential candidates Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren about the dangers of socialism and how capitalism is the “recipe for economic success.”

In the episode, “Baked Sale,” Allen’s Mike Baxter teaches foreign exchange student Jen (Krista Marie Yu) about the wonders of capitalism as the teenager begins running a bake sale to benefit her school geology club. In the series, Baxter is the boss of Outdoor Man, an outdoor supplies store. Allen closes each episode of the Fox show with a video blog (vlog) for his store. In this week’s vlog, Baxter takes a swipe at Sanders and Warren by name, slamming them for their attacks on capitalism.

“Hey, Mike Baxter, for Outdoor Man to talk about one of my favorite passions. No, no, no, not gutting a deer while listening to the Lovin’ Spoonful. I’m talking about capitalism,” Baxter starts out on his vlog. “Now, old Bernie and young Elizabeth tell the folks capitalists are coldhearted, money-grubbing vultures. When you put it that way, you make it sound like a bad thing. But we’re also human beings with a conscience. Conscience. You remember those?”

Watch Below via MRC: 

Baxter winds up his lesson on capitalism with a few more amusing jabs but adds a serious message.

“I mean, sure, paying your workers with baseball cards and bubble gum would increase profits, but it’s wrong! Listen, a good boss should know how to make a buck and still be a human being,” Baxter said.

“You see, capitalism, it’s just a recipe for economic success, and it doesn’t taste quite right until you sprinkle in a little morality,” the star said. “That’s why, here at Outdoor Man, we provide benefits for our part-timers, paid medical leave and all-you-can-eat chili at the Annual Meat Summit. Which sadly leads to a lot of paid medical leave. Happy employees make good employees, and that’s good business. Baxter out.”

Last Man Standing continues to earn top ratings for Fox Television after being booted from ABC in 2017. Fox picked up the canceled series and continued it in a rare example of a series jumping from one network to another.

Follow Warner Todd Huston on Facebook at: facebook.com/Warner.Todd.Huston.

via Breitbart News

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

BOZELL & GRAHAM: Another Corrosive Correspondents’ Dinner

Washington journalists are rejoicing that celebrity glitz and glamour are returning with their self-celebrating soiree, the White House correspondents’ dinner. They announced that longtime “Saturday Night Live” player Kenan Thompson will host the April event, and Muslim comedian Hasan Minhaj will perform the Republican-bashing “comedy” routine.

“The dinner has a serious message, but we also believe it is as important as ever to be able to laugh — at ourselves, as well as at the people we cover,” said White House Correspondents’ Association President Jonathan Karl. “I’d argue that humor is more important now than ever.”

Liberals cling desperately to humor, “now more than ever,” just as The New York Times advertises by saying, “The truth is more important now than ever.”

The biggest joke of this dinner is Karl’s claim that it is “a nonpartisan event.” Just look at the last three presidents. Leftists like Stephen Colbert famously roasted President George W. Bush. But when Barack Obama became president, a series of comedians oozed their appreciation of the Almighty Barack, spelunking to the all-time low of Larry Wilmore, who proclaimed in 2016: “Yo, Barry. You did it, my n——!”

The “nonpartisan” newscasts on ABC, CBS and NBC covered that event with 35 sound bites that celebrated Obama’s comedy routine and touted him as “the funniest president of all time,” compared with only two sound bites from Wilmore. One clip was a supine tribute to Obama, not even a joke.

Minhaj was hired for this gig in 2017, so we know Karl must be joking that this man is going to attempt to be nonpartisan. Back then, the association’s president, Jeff Mason of Reuters, claimed it would be unfair “to roast President Trump in absentia.” But it was inevitable.

Minhaj dribbled out lame jokes about President Donald Trump’s aides who were not in attendance including “Nazi Steve Bannon” and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, who was “busy curating her collection of children’s tears.” Then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions was busy with a “pre-Civil-War reenactment.” Minhaj joked that Sessions said no to attending, and that “no” is “his second favorite N-word.”

Minhaj compared Trump to amoral, sadistic, inbred King Joffrey of “Game of Thrones” and joked: “The leader of our country is not here, and that’s because he lives in Moscow. … As for the other guy, I think he’s in Pennsylvania because he can’t take a joke.”

Then Minhaj mocked the media for criticizing Trump’s golfing habits, since any distraction prevents war with North Korea. He suggested that the headline should read, “Trump Golfing. Apocalypse Delayed. Take the W.”

Minhaj goaded the press to stay tough: “We are living in the golden age of lying … and Donald Trump is liar in chief! And remember you guys are public enemy No. 1. You are his biggest enemy. Journalists, ISIS, normal-length ties. And somehow, you’re the bad guys. That’s why you have to keep your foot on the gas.”

Jon Karl heard it all and clearly wants another heaping helping of this kind of “comedy.”

Last time around, Minhaj worried out loud saying that in the Trump era, “trust is more important than truth.” And many people don’t trust the press, which he equates with truth, just like The New York Times does.

These highly educated, well-read policy nerds somehow can’t imagine that a comedy routine like this mixed in with candid shots of Wolf Blitzer or Brian Stelter guffawing along isn’t helping the idea that the press is nonpartisan, that it doesn’t see itself as valiantly taking a side. They’re urged to keep their “foot on the gas” and excuse most of us for not daring to hitchhike.

Tim Graham is director of media analysis at the Media Research Center and executive editor of the blog NewsBusters.org. To find out more about Tim Graham, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

via The Daily Wire

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

Warren Feeds Anti-Cop Hate, Makes It Sound Like Cops Have Abused Every Black Woman in US

Someone needs to tell Sen. Elizabeth Warren that unctuous moneybags Michael Bloomberg isn’t an existential threat to her campaign.

Don’t get me wrong, it was entertaining to see the Massachusetts Democrat essentially stop the former New York mayor’s path to the presidency before it even really began at the Nevada debate this week.

However, she should have been done at that point.

Do the “Waiting to Exhale” thing and walk away from misogynist idiot’s BMW after you’ve set it aflame. Don’t keep kicking the doors and then cursing because your feet are getting burned.

But no.

TRENDING: Bolton Breaks Silence on ‘Grossly Partisan’ Impeachment, Blasts Dems Who Wanted Him To Testify

Instead of going after, oh, I don’t know, that guy who shares the same beliefs you do who’s in the lead and who’s also hated by the party establishment — which gives you an opening, Sen. Warren — you’re going to try and resuscitate your near-moribund campaign by going after a) Michael Bloomberg and b) police officers. Good work.

Warren spent Thursday and Friday hitting Bloomberg on pretty much everything, including the stop-and-frisk policy the New York City Police Department had in place during Bloomberg’s time as mayor.

Stop-and-frisk, described in a desultory manner, involves police temporarily detaining a person if they deem their behavior suspicious, questioning them and then searching them if they have reasonable suspicion the suspect may be armed.

A 2013 court ruling found the city’s application of the policy to be unconstitutional, in part because it said the stops were racially discriminatory.

Bloomberg now disavows the policy, because he’s a Democrat running for president so of course he does.

This is a pretty easy target which Warren managed to bomb with such frightening intensity during a campaign stop in Nevada — where, by the way, Bloomberg isn’t even on the ballot — that she managed to inflict a whole lot of collateral damage that I don’t think she even noticed.

She began by noting Bloomberg’s shift on the issue: “So to suddenly, years later, days before he announces that he wants to be president of the whole United States, he suddenly comes up with, ‘Oh, I’m so sorry that I had a plan that inadvertently hurt people,’” Warren said Thursday on “The View,” according to Politico. “No, that is just simply not good enough.”

And then she decided it was time to go after police officers — although, again, I’m not sure she noticed

“It reveals his character. It reveals his understanding of race in America,” she said,

“Look, I am not a person of color. I have not lived with that. I have not been thrown across the hood of a car in my own neighborhood, but I try to learn from the people who have, and it is clear that what Mayor Bloomberg has learned so far is that he can hire enough ads, have enough money that he can insulate himself from any recognition of what his actions did to other human beings. And it was wrong and he has not accounted for it.”

RELATED: Warren Betrays Few Supporters She Has Left, Hops in Bed with Big Money

She said virtually the same thing while campaigning in Las Vegas that day: “I am not a woman of color. I never got thrown across a hood. I have the privilege of never having been slammed into the wall by a police officer. But I tell you this, I listen to people who have.”

So the NYPD’s policy was to stop black women and just throw them across the hood of a car for no good reason?

Do you think Elizabeth Warren went too far with her latest remarks?

0% (0 Votes)

0% (0 Votes)

This is a new one.

And she’s “try[ing] to learn from the people who have” had that happen to them, because apparently this is just what police do. If you’re a black woman, apparently you’ve been thrown across the hood of a car.

That’s the takeaway from this ill-constructed thought which she just decided to throw out there.

Again, I’ve given a short description of stop-and-frisk. If you want a longer, more detailed version of of what this entails, Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute has a more thorough writeup on the legal niceties of the practice.

In New York City’s case, the court ruled that the way stop-and-frisk was being applied violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The court did not rule that cops were just taking random people and throwing them across the hood of their cruiser for possession of melanin.

This is such a reflexive liberal talking point that nobody seems to grab the subtext: The men and women of law enforcement are mindless attack animals with an eye for people of color who are kept on the leash of local, state and federal politicians.

If police do something illiberal, it’s because calculating politicians let the hyenas off the chain to feast upon innocent prey.

There’s never, it seems, a Democrat who describes how police act in quotidian terms.

Warren didn’t say, for example, “I have not been stopped and temporarily detained for questioning in my own neighborhood” because she’s white. (It is, by the way, endlessly refreshing to see her have to admit she isn’t a person of color.) Rather, she would just be thrown over a hood, no questions asked.

And then there’s the amazing part: You get the feeling the offensive part didn’t even register with Warren.

She didn’t even bother prefacing this with the boilerplate “I know most police officers are good people who do their jobs without prejudice, but…” to cover herself.

Warren went straight for the progressive cliché that police are racist automatons looking to harm people of color at any opportunity, physically if possible.

Feeding into anti-cop prejudice isn’t going to help in the general election if, by some incredible chance, Warren’s campaign is able to throw a Hail Mary pass and get the nomination by beating up on Michael Bloomberg and law enforcement.

It’s not going to help the Democratic Party even if she doesn’t.

Beyond that, it doesn’t help our society.

Police put their lives on the line to help keep communities safe.

Where there are abuses, they should be dealt with, but that doesn’t obviate the overwhelming majority of police officers who conduct themselves with nothing but the purest intentions.

I understand that admitting this on the left is political suicide, but feeding into an anti-cop narrative that’s been festering on the left for the better part of a decade is only going to divide us further.

It’s not going to heal communities that feel stop-and-frisk targeted them. On the contrary, it merely deepens the wound in the hope that the wounded cling to the left for political succor.

From the past few days, it’s clear Elizabeth Warren’s campaign is going to remembered for everyone she’s torn down.

In fact, judging by this week’s debate and the aftermath, that includes everyone but Bernie Sanders. (Apparently, she’s forgotten all about that whole Bernie allegedly telling her a woman can’t win the presidency angle, much to the detriment of whatever possible chance she has left.)

If she wants to tear down Michael Bloomberg over stop-and-frisk, fine. I have no love for the man or his shifting positions. Taking cops down with him is a step too far and one that Elizabeth Warren ought to be called out on.

Don’t count on her fellow Democrats to do that, however.

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