Tuesday, January 28, 2020

7 States Move to Ban Males From Female Sports as Dems Work Overtime to Force Trans Agenda

In the early days of the 2020 legislative session, seven states have introduced bills to keep male students from entering and competing in female sports. New Hampshire, Arizona, Idaho, Washington, Georgia, Tennessee, and Missouri have taken steps to end the unfair practice of allowing males to compete against females in school sports. Several high-profile cases have highlighted the unfair advantage that males have against females, creating a firestorm surrounding this issue nationwide.

Eighteen states already prohibit males competing in female sports and if passed, the new legislation would bring that number to twenty-five. The American Conservative reported the controversy:

In high school sports, for example, there is no conclusive, federal policy for transgender inclusion, so each state—and even [county] and local jurisdiction—is making its own determinations. According to the pro-LGBT advocate group GLSEN, there are 18 states that have policies that prohibit transgender students to participate in high school athletics.

According to Transathlete.com, eight states including Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Nebraska, and Texas, say that a student’s sex, as recorded on their birth certificate, determines whether they play on women’s or men’s teams. This has of course been called discriminatory by trans advocates.

As usual, Democrat strategy when the states exercise their rightful authority to stop insane leftist ideas is to turn to the feds and lawsuits to force their will down our throats in the form of the Equality Act — passed by the House in 2019 but not voted on by the Senate. There is a case in front of the Supreme Court now that will have wide-reaching consequences based on the outcome of the question, "does the 1964 Civil Rights Act that prevents sex discrimination also include gender identity?" The justices seem to understand that their decision could lead to major societal upheaval.

Lawyers are laying out their arguments, as reported by the New York Times.

Justice Alito asked whether a transgender woman could play on a women’s college sports team. That issue, Mr. Cole said, was also not before the court.

Justice Gorsuch asked whether a ruling in favor of Mr. Cole’s client would do away with sex-specific dress codes. Mr. Cole said no.

“Recognizing that transgender people have a right to exist in the workplace and not be turned away because of who they are,” he said, “does not end dress codes or restrooms.”

“There are transgender male lawyers in this courtroom following the male dress code and going to the men’s room,” Mr. Cole said, “and the court’s dress code and sex-segregated restrooms have not fallen.”

But John J. Bursch, a lawyer for the funeral home that fired Ms. Stephens, said a ruling in her favor would have vast consequences.

It would mean, he said, “that a women’s overnight shelter must hire a man who identifies as a woman to serve as a counselor to women who have been raped, trafficked and abused, and also share restroom, shower and locker room facilities with them.”

The idea that a ruling from the Supreme Court that employers cannot discriminate based on gender identity would not have an effect on sports, bathrooms, and locker rooms is absurd. Of course, it would. And we have already seen the encroaching of males in female spaces in states where school boards are determined to enact policies friendly to transgender goals and hostile to women and girls. Illinois and New York high schools have already adopted policies to allow males into female locker rooms, bathrooms, and sports without any corresponding laws that require it. A ruling equating gender identity with sex would destroy all-female segregated spaces and sports forever.

The states putting forward legislation to stop this are on the cutting edge of what needs to be done immediately to stop activists from destroying girls' sports and privacy. Democrats are working furiously to pass "equality" bills that include gender identity, like the Equality Act. This bill would destroy women's spaces and sports and persecute churches that refuse to give males access to female spaces like bathrooms or shelters. Democrats are not going to give up on it. This issue is going to be the most important one going into 2020 for the safety of women in America. Vote accordingly.


ICE Threatens Jail for Sanctuary City Officials Under Subpoena Who Fail to Comply

Are sanctuary city politicians and officials ready to go to jail to protect illegal alien criminals?

Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials are threatening to send sanctuary city officials to jail if they fail to comply with subpoenas naming criminal illegals who have been released rather than turned over to ICE.

"They can show up to court with a toothbrush because they might not be going home that night. Because they could be jailed for failure to comply with a lawful order from a judge. That’s the route we’re going.”

ICE is enormously frustrated and why shouldn't it be? Politicians and bureaucrats from sanctuary cities regularly thumb their noses at ICE agents, releasing murderers, rapists, and pedophiles back into the population after they had been charged.

Perhaps a few nights in the hoosegow will make them see the light.

Washington Examiner:

Albence said the subpoenas were a “last resort” to force “sanctuary cities” to help federal officers find people at their homes and jobs if local jails will not turn them over while in secure settings. ICE focuses most of its effort going after people illegally in the country charged or convicted of criminal offenses.

“Hopefully, when some of these other jurisdictions that don’t want to cooperate see that we’re taking this seriously, maybe they’ll come around and try to help us help their own communities,” said Albence, who was tapped to lead the 20,000-person agency six months ago. He did not answer if Denver or New York would face retaliation from the federal government if they do not honor the subpoenas.

Last week, for the first time in its history, ICE issued subpoenas to force local cooperation in New York and Denver.

The subpoenas ask for the phone number, home address, type of vehicle, employer, and more information that can help ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations officers go into the person’s community and try to make an arrest. Albence said that sanctuary cities force ICE to squander resources running around trying to find people and that localities are forced to waste manpower rearresting criminals who could have been deported.

“How much time could NYPD have dedicated to doing other functions instead of continually arresting people that are here illegally, have no lawful right to be here, and are committing further crimes?” he asked. “Our goal is to find them before they commit further crimes, right? We’re actually able to prevent crimes if we can get these people off the street.”

As emotionally satisfying as it would be to see New York or Denver law enforcement doing the perp walk following a contempt citation, it's probably not going to happen. The court cases that arise from a contempt citation would last for years. Time and again the Supreme Court has ruled that local immigration authorities do not have to do ICE's job for them.

Sanctuary cities are probably here to stay, to the detriment of the safety of residents who live there.


'Hate Group' Lawsuit Clears Hurdle, Judeo-Christian Group Warns SPLC 'Day of Reckoning' Is Coming

While America was distracted with impeachment and the 2020 Democrats last week, a monumental lawsuit against Orwellian government surveillance cleared a major hurdle in a Michigan district court. The case, American Freedom Law Center (AFLC) v. Nessel, involves the defense of free speech against government surveillance based on the far-left smear factory the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and its allegedly defamatory "hate group" accusations.

"This is George Orwell, 1984, the thought police, watching over us," AFLC co-founder and Senior Counsel Robert Muise told PJ Media on Tuesday. Michigan Attorney General "Dana Nessel keeping a watchful eye on all these SPLC-designated 'hate groups' has a chilling effect on speech and expressive association."

Last Wednesday, federal district judge Paul Maloney agreed that the AFLC has a powerful case against Nessel and former Michigan Department of Civil Rights (MDCR) Executive Director Agustin Arbulu. He denied Nessel's and Arbulu's motions to dismiss the lawsuit, allowing the case to proceed to discovery. This means AFLC will be able to request all documents showing communication involving Nessel, Arbulu, and the SPLC.

"The SPLC can't violate our constitutional rights — unless they're working with the government as a joint actor," Muise argued. He described Nessel as "a hard-core left-wing progressive. I wouldn't be surprised to find some connections" between her and the left-wing smear factory. "We intend, through discovery, to disclose any connections that the Michigan attorney general and the SPLC had. If there's enough joint action so that the SPLC could be considered a state actor, then we will consider adding them to the lawsuit."

In a statement following Maloney's order, Muise insisted that this ruling should terrify the SPLC.

"The judge’s powerful and exceedingly favorable decision should send a strong message to the Michigan attorney general that she will not be allowed to weaponize her office to target political opponents. It should also send a strong message to government officials who side with the George Soros-funded and radically partisan SPLC that their day of reckoning is coming. Know this: We will not allow you to trample on our constitutional rights," he said.

The lawsuit revolves around a "hate-crimes unit" that Nessel and Arbulu launched last February. In the press release for the new unit, both officials effectively endorsed the SPLC's "hate group" accusation. Arbulu went so far as to name a geographic region of the state — a region that includes AFLC's headquarters. "Particularly of concern, over one half [sic] of the identified groups are located east of US-23 between Flint and Ann Arbor," the MDCR director said.

"According to the SPLC report relied upon by Defendants, Plaintiff is identified as a 'hate' group because it is allegedly 'anti-Muslim,' and according to SPLC’s 'Hate Map,' Plaintiff is located in the Ann Arbor area," the lawsuit claims. "Consequently, Plaintiff is one of the very groups that Defendants referred to in their public announcement as an 'extremist and hate organization in Michigan.'"

In his ruling, Maloney laid out AFLC's three claims against Michigan's attorney general: that the officials violated the group's free speech as protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments; that they violated AFLC's right to expressive association, which is also protected by those amendments; and that "by targeting AFLC for disfavored treatment based on its political viewpoints, Defendants have deprived AFLC of the equal protection of the law, which is protected by Fourteenth Amendment."

Maloney also cited AFLC co-founder and Senior Counsel David Yerushalmi, who explained how the SPLC's "hate group" accusation damaged his organization. "AFLC has to expend resources to combat the label and bolster its reputation. The government’s endorsement of the label makes that job more difficult. Although AFLC was not specifically mentioned in the Press Release, it received media inquiries following the Press Release. The government designation thus injures AFLC both reputationally and financially," the judge wrote.

While Nessel and Arbulu "cannot control who SPLC labels a hate group," their action of "referencing SPLC’s reports as the justification for the Policy Directive" places the government's imprimatur on the SPLC's "hate group" accusations inside the state of Michigan. "Notably, AFLC contends it does not engage in any criminal activity and further contends it has been placed on SPLC’s list of hate groups because of its constitutionally-protected activities."

"AFLC has established both a harm to its reputation and a credible fear that it will be targeted by the State of Michigan under the Policy Directive," Maloney noted. "As pled, AFLC reasonably fears that it will be a target for investigation and surveillance."

AFLC claims the SPLC accuses them of being a "hate group" due to the organization's conservative political positions. The far-left group gained credibility by suing the Ku Klux Klan into bankruptcy, but in recent decades it has expanded the monitoring of "hate groups" to include ever more mainstream conservative and Christian organizations.

As documented in my book Making Hate Pay: The Corruption of the Southern Poverty Law Center, a devastating racial discrimination and sexual harassment scandal last March led the SPLC to "clean house at the top," firing its co-founder and seeing the resignation of many other leading figures. After this scandal, employees came clean about being "part of the con," exaggerating hate by padding the "hate group" list and "bilking northern liberals" into cutting big checks. The SPLC has millions in offshore bank accounts in the Cayman Islands.

The "hate group" accusations are also politically motivated. The list includes mainstream conservative groups like ACT for America, the Center for Security Policy, the Family Research Council, and Alliance Defending Freedom. Former SPLC spokesman Mark Potok declared that the SPLC's "aim in life is to destroy these groups, completely destroy them."

AFLC v. Nessel is not the only lawsuit centered on the SPLC's "hate group" accusations. The Christian ministry D. James Kennedy Ministries filed a lawsuit against Amazon and the SPLC after it was booted from the AmazonSmile program. A judge granted the SPLC's motion to dismiss, but DJKM filed an appeal last October.

The far-left group accused Maajid Nawaz, an anti-terror Muslim reformer, of being an "anti-Muslim extremist." Nawaz sued and the SPLC settled, offering a very public apology and paying $3.375 million to his nonprofit. In addition to DJKM and Nawaz, the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), Proud Boys founder Gavin McInnes, Baltimore lawyer Glen Keith Allen, and former heroin addict Craig Nelsen have sued the SPLC for defamation and various other claims. The CIS lawsuit was struck down because it attempted to shoehorn a defamation claim into racketeering, but it will likely be re-filed. Peter Brimelow, the editor of VDare, sued The New York Times for branding him a "white nationalist" while citing the SPLC.

In the Nelsen case, a judge allowed the plaintiff to enter the discovery process, giving the former heroin addict access to the organization's documents. The SPLC had falsely claimed that Nelsen "wasn't convincing anyone" that his drug recovery program was open to men of all races.

Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, a Christian nonprofit branded a "hate group" by the SPLC, told PJ Media that more than 60 organizations are considering their own lawsuits against the SPLC.

AFLC may have the strongest argument because their case involves a state government endorsing the far-left smears, enforcing them with threats of government surveillance. It is indeed Orwellian.


Sexual correctness is a distraction from more worthy concerns

A view from the far-Left

In the West, there is a new wave of political correctness at work: it is all about one’s sexual orientation; who has sex with whom, and how. Suddenly, the mass media in London, Paris and New York is greatly concerned about who has the right to change his or her sex and who does not want to belong to any ‘traditional’ gender bracket.

Thinking about ‘it’, writing about it, doing it, is considered “progressive”; cutting edge. Entire novels are being commissioned and then subsidized as far away as in the Asia Pacific.  Western organizations and NGOs (so-called “non-government organizations” but financed by Western régimes), are thriving on the matter.

These days it is not just LGBT that are in the spotlight, glorified and propagandized; there are all sorts of new types of combinations that many people never even heard about or imagined could exist.

Even some Western airlines do not call their passengers “ladies, gentlemen and children” anymore  in order “not to offend” those who do not want to be any of the above.

Accept any sexual habit, repeat loudly many times that you have done it; then preferably write about it, and you will be lauded as progressive, tolerant, and even “left-wing”.

Hype is, these days, all about the interaction of penises, of vaginas, or about the lack of such interactions. It is about one’s “identity” and about the right to change one’s gender. What you do with your private parts is much more important than billions of people who are forced to live in filthy slums. Surgery that is aimed at changing one’s gender is more newsworthy than the “regime changes” and consequent destruction of millions of human lives.

Such focus is totally fragmenting Western societies. It leads to extreme individualism and dark nihilism. What should stay behind closed doors is being brought out to the center of attention.

Then, define all those who disagree with these sorts of lifestyles as ‘intolerant’, ‘backward’, and even ‘oppressive’.

Why is all this happening? Why are Western countries so obsessed with “sexual identities”?

The answer is simple: because those who are obsessed with their own bodies, desires, identities and endless “rights”, have hardly any time left to think about the rest of the world.

And vice versa: those who are passionately fighting for a better world, building people-oriented societies, sacrificing their own comfort and personal benefits; those individuals often have no time, or very little time, to think about the nuances of their sexuality. For them, sexuality is simply part of their life; often powerful and important, but it is definitely not their center of gravity, not their very essence.

I am all for people to have their right to choose how they want to express themselves sexually. As long as it is done discreetly, and without forcing anyone into anything.

But I am strongly against the so-called sexual identity monopolizing political narrative of entire nations.

There are much more important issues that Western societies should be concerned with and obviously are not.



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here


No comments: