Chalk one up for the Church

Chalk one up for the ChurchFour years of holding the fort against local government attack, while continuing to rely on faith to get through the siege, has finally yielded good fruit.

Hyperbole? Perhaps, but the Christian ministry that weathered the blockade employed by a county planning commission ignorant of the Church’s mission can testify to the battle that was fought just to make one very important point—that the Church is called to love and assist those in need and is not just a building that stands empty except on Sunday.

via CanadaFreePress.Com

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website:

Liz Warren Tells Iowa Audience She’s “Strong Supporter” of Green New Deal… But Did NOT Vote For It 3 Days Earlier in Senate Vote

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) campaigned in Mashalltown, Iowa on Friday.

The far left Democrat told the Iowa audience she was a strong supporter of the Green New Deal.

But three days earlier — On Tuesday — Warren refused to vote in support of the Green New Deal.
She voted present.

The post Liz Warren Tells Iowa Audience She’s “Strong Supporter” of Green New Deal… But Did NOT Vote For It 3 Days Earlier in Senate Vote appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

via The Gateway Pundit

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website:

Retired Female Champion Comes Out Against Transgender Athletes in Elite Sports: ‘Has To Be Protected’

Paula Radcliffe is a very controversial woman right now. She’s controversial because apparently, she still believes the elite tiers of women’s sports should be reserved for those who were born as, well, women.

Radcliffe, a retired British long-distance runner with the world record for fastest marathon time by a female, made similar comments earlier in the month, according to The Daily Wire.

During an appearance on BBC Radio 5 on Friday, she refused to back away from those remarks, at least as far as elite sports go.

Radcliffe said there are “absolutely probably hundreds of transgenders who want to take part in sport, for all the other benefits that it brings.”

“And all we’re saying is, ‘That’s fine, but not elite sport, because elite sport, that female section of elite sport, has to be protected so that females can genuinely reach the top of it.’”

TRENDING: Trump Legal Aide Gives Chris Cuomo Humiliating Crash Course in Law

“I’m a parent. I have a young daughter, and I want her to be able to compete in sports should she so choose, to the top level,” she said.

“And I think I’ve reached this stage in my life now as well where I’m thinking, ‘OK, I’ll stand up and I’ll say what I think, because if no one else is going to do it and then we get to a situation where we’re all criticizing,’ it’s a bit like … if you don’t do something in the beginning, you can’t really moan about it further down the line.”

Do you think athletes born as men should be able to compete in women’s sports?

0% (0 Votes)

100% (1 Votes)

Radcliffe contrasted the situation transgender athletes face with those of intersex athletes, who are born with variations in sexual characteristics, be they anatomical and/or chromosomal.

As the retired runner noted, “they haven’t chosen to make that change, which is what is happening in transgender because they should be in male sport, and if they have chosen to transition, then they’re asking to compete in female sport, and I think that is a much more clear-cut and easier rule to rule on.”

Radcliffe’s remarks echoed the statements she made earlier in March to BBC Radio 4, when she said male-to-female transgender athletes have “certain advantages that women will not ever get.”

“First of all you have to explain that it’s part of a much bigger issue, and there are more elements around that, so there is a difference between transgender and (disorders of sex development),” she said, according to the U.K. Independent.

“There is also the different levels of transgender, so whether they’re fully transitioned, or whether they are taking hormone suppressants or not.”

RELATED: HS Student Files Civil Rights Complaint After Being ‘Violated’ by Transgender

“You have to start looking at the advantages that athletes who transition, after they’ve gone through male puberty, have over other female athletes and what can be done to level that playing field, which is when they’re bringing in the hormones, so to suppress the levels of testosterone,” she added.

Radcliffe’s biggest critic — then as now — is cyclist Rachel McKinnon, who became the first transgender individual to win a world title in track cycling in the women’s division.

“Paula continues to ignore facts: trans women are legally female (and) trans women have been permitted to compete in Olympic-eligible sports since October 2003,” McKinnon told PinkNews.

“In the Olympic Games, since 2004, there have been over 52,000 Olympians and not a single trans person has ever qualified, let alone won a medal.”

“The very idea that we must ‘protect’ cis women’s — or ‘female’ — sport from trans women, who are legally female, too, is an irrational fear of trans women, which is the dictionary definition of transphobia,” McKinnon added.

McKinnon had called out Radcliffe in a controversial tweet after her earlier remarks. She also criticized Sharron Davies and Martina Navratilova, two other athletes who suggested they didn’t think transgender females should be competing in women’s sports.

“If Sharron Davies, Paula Radcliffe, or Martina Navratilova had said we need to keep black women out of sport to ‘protect it’ and the ‘integrity of women’s sport,’” McKinnon tweeted, “That would be obviously racist.”

“That’s why it’s obviously transphobic to exclude trans women now,” McKinnon said. “Not ‘name calling.’”

McKinnon’s point seems to be that Olympic rules regarding transgender athletes prove there’s no athletic advantage conferred by being born a male because no male-to-female transgender athletes have made the Olympic Games yet.

This hardly proves McKinnon’s argument, however, particularly given the increase in participation for transgender athletes in the overall sports world — as well as a marked increase in victories.

That’s why people are noting the problems inherent in transgender athletics now. As Radcliffe said: “If you don’t do something in the beginning, you can’t really moan about it further down the line.”

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

via Conservative Tribune

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website:

WTH? Obama-Appointed Judge Tosses Out Trump Executive Order – Restores Obama Offshore Drilling Ban Executive Order

Another day, another radical Obama judge legislating from the bench.

U.S. District Court Judge Sharon Gleason tossed out Trump’s executive order that overturned Obama’s offshore drilling bans in the Arctic Ocean and many canyons in Atlantic Ocean.

In a court ruling late Friday, Gleason, an Obama appointee, said Presidents have the power under federal law to remove certain lands from development but cannot revoke those removals, the Washington Times reported.

In other words, Obama can pass an executive order banning offshore drilling, but President Trump’s reversal of Obama’s EO is not allowed and only Congress can reverse the order.

Via The Washington Times:

“The wording of President Obama’s 2015 and 2016 withdrawals indicates that he intended them to extend indefinitely, and therefore be revocable only by an act of Congress,” said Gleason, who was nominated to the bench by Obama

The American Petroleum Institute, a defendant in the case, disagreed with the ruling.

“In addition to bringing supplies of affordable energy to consumers for decades to come, developing our abundant offshore resources can provide billions in government revenue, create thousands of jobs and will also strengthen our national security,” it said in a statement.

Erik Grafe, an attorney with Earthjustice, welcomed the ruling, saying it “shows that the president cannot just trample on the Constitution to do the bidding of his cronies in the fossil fuel industry at the expense of our oceans, wildlife andclimate.”

Earthjustice represented numerous environmental groups that sued the Trump administration over the April 2017 executive order reversing the drilling bans. At issue in the case was the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.

Acting Assistant U.S. Attorney General Jeffrey Wood said during a hearing before Gleason in November that environmental groups were misinterpreting the intent of the law written in 1953. He said it is meant to be flexible and sensible and not intended to bind one president with decisions made by another when determining offshore stewardship as needs and realities change over time.

In 2015, Obama halted drilling and exploration in nearly 6,000 square miles of canyons in the Atlantic Ocean with the intention of ‘saving marine mammals and corals.’

In 2015 and 2016, Obama banned drilling and exploration of the Beaufort and Chukchi seas and the Hanna Shoal in the Arctic to ‘protect the polar bears and walruses.’

Now his radical judges are saving his ‘environmental legacy.’

Last week, radical Obama-appointed US District Judge Rudolph Contreras blocked oil and gas drilling across almost 500 square miles in Wyoming.

Judge Contreras said the oil drilling projects must take global warming junk science into account.

The post WTH? Obama-Appointed Judge Tosses Out Trump Executive Order – Restores Obama Offshore Drilling Ban Executive Order appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

via The Gateway Pundit

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website:

They Told Chris Rock ‘No Jussie Smollett Jokes,’ So He Walked on Stage and Demolished Him

This was “speaking truth to power.”

After the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People disgraced itself this year by nominating “Empire” actor Jussie Smollett for one of its coveted Image awards, it took a foul-mouthed comedian to put the whole matter into perspective.

And for Chris Rock, all it took was a lot of guts.

When Rock took the stage at Saturday night’s 50th NAACP Image Awards in Hollywood’s Dolby Theatre, he made it crystal clear that he was operating under specific orders.

“They said, ‘no Jussie Smollett jokes,’” Rock told his audience.

TRENDING: Watch: Students Love Socialism, Until They’re Asked to Share Their GPA

And he made it just as clear that he wasn’t going to go along, with a series of jabs at Smollett capped by one question: “What the hell was he thinking?”

Check it out here (warning: some rough language):

Do you think the left will turn on Chris Rock for this performance?

50% (1 Votes)

50% (1 Votes)

As odd as the whole Smollett case is, with an apparently completely manufactured “hate crime,” an apparently corrupt prosecuting office, and a legal “resolution” that actually resolved nothing, Rock’s open mockery of Smollett was just what the moment called for.

“What a waste of light skin,” Rock said, before presenting the Image Award for outstanding comedy series to the cast of “Blackish.” “You know what I could do with that light skin? That curly hair? My career would be out of here. F**king running Hollywood!…

“From now on, you’re ‘Jessie’ from now on. You don’t even get the ‘U’ no more. That ‘U’ was respect. You don’t get no respect from me.”

The crowd ate it up, but not everyone was laughing.

According to Vanity Fair, “Blackish” star Yara Shahidi was taking a different position moments after Rock announced her show had won.

RELATED: TV Networks Launch Disturbing Attack Against Pro-Life Film in Attempt To Stop Viewers from Watching

“I stand with Jussie,” she said on stage, before handing off the microphone.

That’s likely to be a mild version of the backlash Rock is likely to receive, judging by some of the social media responses to his schtick.

While there were plenty of Twitter users who enjoyed Rock’s jokes, there were a few who bashed him for having the courage to call out the one issue the Image Awards organizers weren’t keen to air in public:

Rock has been in sticky racial situations before.

When he hosted the Oscars in 2016, amid another annual controversy over whether the movie awards were too white, Rock took shots at both sides. He mocked how dominated the industry is by Caucasians but also made fun of the whole Oscar protest movement itself.

The classical civil rights movement didn’t concern itself with the Oscars because “we had real things to protest,” Rock said, according to NBC News.

“We were too busy being raped and lynched to care about who won best cinematographer,” he said.

That didn’t go over well with the grievance industry that makes up so much of Hollywood stars and liberal politics today.

And Rock’s jokes about Smollett aren’t likely to go over well with the liberal elite — including many who claim to be “civil rights leaders.”

Basically, Rock walked onto that Hollywood stage on Saturday night — in front of a crowd specifically selected for its ability to march in lockstep with the politically correct beat of the era — and did the job comedians have done since court jesters were cracking up the crowds in European castles.

He said what everyone else was thinking but was too scared to say.

“Speaking truth to power” has long been a line hijacked by civil rights groups pretending they’re still being martyred for their beliefs – Anita Hill even used it, ludicrously, for the name of her book about the Clarence Thomas Supreme Court hearings (one of the most disgraceful displays of leftist bigotry the country has ever witnessed).

“Power” is a relative thing, of course, but if anyone thinks that an audience gathered in Hollywood to honor the NAACP doesn’t wield a vast amount of power in the entertainment world, they’re kidding themselves.

“What the hell was he thinking?” Rock asked about Smollett.

And a lot of liberals are probably thinking that about Rock today.

He must have been thinking it was time to speak truth to power.

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

via Conservative Tribune

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website:

Law and Order Breaking Down in Chicago as Mob Forces Cop To Free Suspect

Commentary Culture

Law and Order Breaking Down in Chicago as Mob Forces Cop To Free Suspect

Chicago law enforcement officers hold a news conference Feb. 21, 2019, in Chicago.Scott Olson / Getty ImagesChicago law enforcement officers hold a news conference Feb. 21, 2019, in Chicago. (Scott Olson / Getty Images)

In the 1997 movie “L.A. Confidential,” one character said of a police sergeant who was enduring a grueling situation: “I wouldn’t trade places with (him) right now for all the whiskey in Ireland.”

It’s easy to echo that sentiment in regard to Chicago police officers.

As if the city’s maddening number of homicides isn’t enough of a burden, actor Jussie Smollett — on whom Chicago law enforcement had wasted considerable resources and countless hours — was inexplicably cleared of all charges in an apparent hate-crime hoax.

And now, we’ve come to discover, it seems Chicago police can’t even arrest a drug suspect without being harassed or threatened by a menacing crowd.

The Chicago Tribune reported earlier this month that a pair of officers struggled to control rowdy onlookers as one man resisted arrest and another ran off while carrying drugs.

TRENDING: Trump Legal Aide Gives Chris Cuomo Humiliating Crash Course in Law

The group “implied that they had weapons” and made threats, police spokesman Anthony Guglielmi told the Tribune.

“Out of an abundance of caution, he backs away from the arrestee. An individual comes and grabs the arrestee and another individual comes and grabs the narcotics,” Guglielmi added.

Ultimately, said suspect was able to allude arrest and possible charges — thanks to a little help from his friends.

As Tribune columnist John Kass wrote about the episode: “The street is officially no longer afraid of the Chicago police.”

Do you think Chicago police deserve more resources and respect?

0% (0 Votes)

0% (0 Votes)

“If the cops had fired their weapons, news media would have been all over them, metaphorically skinning them alive. Politicians would have demanded their heads,” Kass added.

Instead, the mob ruled — and neither media pundits nor Democrats voiced concern.

Perhaps most troubling is what that shameless incident means for the immediate future when it comes to Chicago-based crime.

The idiom “Give them an inch and they’ll take a mile” is taking root on the streets, as would-be criminals and cohorts think they can act with impunity.

It would appear that consequences and repercussions are fading like the morning mist.

RELATED: Mexican Drug Soldier Found in US City with Full-Auto Gun, Armor, Night Vision

Both men who tried to escape from the two officers were arrested Wednesday and charged. Still, when one considers that Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s hands were ostensibly tied in the Smollett case, one must wonder if that city has morphed from being a “sanctuary” for illegal immigrants to being anti-justice in general.

Evidently, even when Windy City authorities make an arrest or charge someone, they’re in a no-win situation: Damned if they do or don’t — always feeling the need to look over their shoulders.

When your mayor is disgusted and the police chief is “furious” with a high-profile case’s outcome, law and order doesn’t stand much of a chance.

At this rate, it’s difficult to imagine any job in America less desirable than that of a Chicago police officer.

The city, much like that bullied “L.A. Confidential” sergeant, is reaping what it sowed.

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

via Conservative Tribune

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website:

Feinstein Fumes As Trump Administration Pushes Forward With 9th Circuit Nominees Without Consulting Her

No need for President Trump to consult with Feinstein or Harris as to their approval of his nominees. Their disapproval of those nominees is a foregone conclusion. Via Fox News: The Senate is poised this week to consider two more conservative nominees selected by President Trump to sit on the left-leaning 9th Circuit Court of Appeals — […]

via Weasel Zippers

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website:

Another airport drops Chick-fil-A after Democrats complain

After the City Council in San Antonio, Texas effectively barred Chick-fil-A from opening a franchise at the airport, we noted that this was an egregious assault on the free market based entirely on the municipal government’s supposed ability to punish a private sector business for its owner’s speech or religious beliefs. Clearly, not everyone took that constructive criticism to heart because we’re now seeing the same thing on the other end of the country. Up in Buffalo, New York, the Buffalo Niagara International Airport has been planning the construction of a new restaurant area for travelers. On Thursday, the contractors working on the project made the mistake of publicly talking about their “excitement” at having a Chick-fil-A franchise there.

That caught the attention of one Democratic state assemblyman who immediately launched a public attack on the decision. In almost record time, a new announcement came out saying that the plans had changed and the flying public would not be able to pick up any of the delicious meals from Chick-fil-A after all. (WNBF Radio)

A New York State assemblyman says a Chick-fil-A restaurant that had been planned as part of an airport renovation project won’t be opening after all.

The operators of Buffalo Niagara International Airport Thursday expressed excitement about a new restaurant area at the facility that would include a Chick-fil-A unit.

Assemblyman Sean Ryan was not happy with the news…

Ryan wrote: “Chick-fil-A has a long history of supporting and funding anti-LGBTQ organizations.” He urged airport operators to reverse the decision.

After making it clear that the state government was watching, Assemblyman Sean Ryan was quickly contacted by the responsible authorities. It seems they heard his complaints and told him that Chick-fil-A was being dropped from the plans. This sent him back to social media for a victory lap.

This is slightly different from the San Antonio case, but not by much. In Texas, the City Council voted directly to ban Chick-Fil-A based on nothing more than the CEO’s religious beliefs and speech. In New York, things work a bit differently. The handling of contracts for such work at airports (which can and does include taxpayer-funded grant money and assured loans) isn’t directly controlled by the state government. In the case of this region, all of that work goes through an entity known as the Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority.

The NFTA isn’t exactly a government agency. It’s a New York State public benefit corporation, which means that it operates as a quasi-private corporation. But it’s 12-member Board of Commissioners are almost all appointed only after having been nominated by the Governor. (The county legislature gets to nominate two of them.) They control a lot of taxpayer money and earn some nice salaries, so when someone in the majority party speaks, they listen. The NFTA is in charge of all decisions regarding contractors doing work for them at the two airports in the region, including the details of the new restaurant area. In fact, in Assemblyman Ryan’s victory tweet, you’ll note that he even sent out a not very subtle message to the NFTA.

“We hope in the future the NFTA will make every effort to contract with businesses that adhere to anti-discriminatory policies and we’re confident another vendor who better represents the values of the Western New York community will replace Chick-fil-A as part of this project in the near future.”

The message here is very clear. The state government is watching you, NFTA, and you owe your jobs to us. So do business with “the right sort of people” or it will spell trouble for you.

Nobody has even suggested that Chick-fil-A doesn’t meet standards for food safety, sanitary conditions, hiring practices or anything else. Their only complaint is based on the opinions and religious beliefs of the company’s CEO. And for that, they are being strongarmed out of the marketplace. All of this is happening in plain view, but thus far there seems to be nothing to be done about it.

The post Another airport drops Chick-fil-A after Democrats complain appeared first on Hot Air.

via Hot Air

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website:

Grandma Pumps Bad Guy Full of Lead After He Breaks into Home with Her 3 Grandkids Present

This handgun might have saved the home.

An Arizona woman fended off a man who assaulted her husband after knocking on the door of their home and demanding money on March 21, a local sheriff’s office reported.

Instead of money, the intruder got at least one bullet in his body — and a likely prison term in his future.

According to the Yavapai County Sheriff’s Office, events unfolded when a man identified as Gregory Hardy, 42, knocked on the door of the woman’s home around 7:30 p.m. and demanded money.

The woman who answered the door refused and a confrontation ensued. When the woman’s husband came to her aid, the two men started to struggle, according to the sheriff’s office.

TRENDING: Dan Crenshaw Asks ‘Serious Question’ About Democrats: ‘What Could Possibly Be the Motivation?’

That’s when the woman, a grandmother, got her handgun and demanded that Hardy leave, the sheriff’s office reported.

“Instead, Hardy advanced toward her,” the media release states. “In fear of her life and that of her husband’s, she fired a couple of times, striking Hardy at least once in the lower body.”

But it wasn’t over yet.

Do you think this grandmother is a hero?

0% (0 Votes)

0% (0 Votes)

“Even then, Hardy did not immediately retreat, but eventually fled and left in a vehicle waiting outside,” the sheriff’s release stated. “He was later located at a nearby home where he had collapsed.”

He was taken to a hospital, with injuries that were “not life-threatening,” according to the sheriff’s office.

Well, it’s good to know the injuries weren’t “life-threatening,” but it’s important to remember that Hardy could well have been “life-threatening” himself if this courageous woman hadn’t been armed the way she was.

The release doesn’t give her age or that of her husband, but considering that the couple had three young grandchildren in the home with them — ages 3, 5, and 12 — it’s a good bet they were older than Hardy’s 42.

(According to the release, the grandchildren’s parents were also in the home, but details are sketchy.)

RELATED: Dana Loesch Tears Into HuffPo for Hit Piece on Son’s Birthday Cake

The woman’s heroics got plenty of plaudits on social media.

“Another example of a legal gun owner protecting what precious, life and property,” one Twitter user posted. “And we don’t need guns?!?”

That’s the big question.

Either ill-informed or ill-intentioned, gun-grabbing liberals think Americans should not have a right to protect themselves in a hard old world — the kind of world where a knock on the door on an Arizona evening can turn pretty quickly into an attempted home invasion, one where small children may be present and vulnerable to harm.

That means women, the elderly and the very young would be at the mercy of physically stronger men who might decide they want to take money or other more precious things.

But when a potential victim is armed — as this grandmother was — the tables are turned. The physical strength of an aggressive criminal is negated by the “great equalizer” of a loaded gun.

And suddenly, an apparently vulnerable woman doesn’t look like a victim after all.

According to the sheriff’s office report, Hardy is facing charges of robbery, trespassing, disorderly conduct and burglary.

As one Twitter user pointed out, he’s lucky he isn’t facing a funeral.

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

via Conservative Tribune

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: