Tuesday, December 5, 2017

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
A federal judge has ruled on Monday that the U.S. military must begin to admit transgenders — those who identify with and behave according to the opposite sex — into its ranks by January 1, overturning President Trump's announcement in July that such individuals would be banned from serving.
U.S. District Judge Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who in October partially blocked the president's ban while a lawsuit filed by transgender soldiers proceeds in court, ruled that her injunction means the Defense Department must follow through on the order given by President Obama June 30, 2016 allowing transgender individuals to enlist beginning January 1.
Defense Secretary Jim Mattis was set to begin processing transgenders into the service branches before President Trump's July 26 Twitter announcement that “the United States government will not accept or allow transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. military. Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail.”
Referring to one of at least four transgender lawsuits against the Trump ban, Kotelly ruled that “Secretary Mattis is a defendant in this case, he is directly bound by the injunction, and he cannot change the policy that existed before President Trump issued his order.”
While the Trump administration is appealing the order, there was no indication that it would seek to block the January 1 recruiting deadline. In a statement Justice Department spokeswoman Lauren Ehrsam simply said: “We disagree with the Court's ruling and are currently evaluating the next steps.”
The Department of Justice has contended that the lawsuit for which Kotelly wrote the preliminary injunction is premature since the Defense Department has not yet finalized its own plan on transgender troops. The president had given the Pentagon until March to eliminate costly gender reassignment surgeries and to determine how to deal with transgender individuals who are currently serving in the military.
In late November President Trump's ban was dealt second legal blow when U.S. District Judge Marvin Garbis in Baltimore ruled that the ban “cannot possibly constitute a legitimate governmental interest,” saying that it was not backed by any real concern over military need. “The lack of any justification for the abrupt policy change,” wrote Garbis, “combined with the discriminatory impact to a group of our military service members who have served our country capably and honorably, cannot possibly constitute a legitimate governmental interest.”
The ACLU, which is representing some of the transgender plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the ban, applauded the latest legal maneuvers. “We're pleased that the courts have stepped in to ensure that trans service members are treated with the dignity and respect they deserve,” said ACLU attorney Joshua Block in a statement.
By contrast, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, which has been a clarion voice for common-sense military policy, responded to Kotelly's ruling by noting that “this is where judicial activism is leading us. The courts have moved beyond legislating on the invented rights of abortion and same-sex marriage to clearly usurping the constitutional authority of the executive branch.”
Perkins noted that President Trump “has the primary task of protecting Americans, but we see the courts weakening his immigration policies designed to protect America from threats and now telling the commander-in-chief how to run the military.”
 WASHINGTON — A federal judge appointed to the bench by then-President Bill Clinton has issued an order clarifying her recent injunction against the Trump administration’s ban on “transgender” enlistment in the U.S. Armed Forces, and has outlined that the government must allow the enlistment beginning Jan. 1.
“[The previous] order was to revert to the status quo with regard to accession and retention that existed before the issuance of the presidential memorandum—that is, the retention and accession policies established in the June 30, 2016 directive-type memorandum as modified by Secretary of Defense James Mattis on June 30, 2017,” wrote U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly.
“Those policies allowed for the accession of transgender individuals into the military beginning on January 1, 2018,” she continued. “Any action by any of the defendants that changes this status quo is preliminarily enjoined.”


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
On Saturday, December 2, the Donald Trump administration alerted the office of the United Nations secretary-general that the United States of America is withdrawing from a UN agreement aimed at handling migrant and refugee issues.
"Today, the U.S. Mission to the United Nations informed the UN Secretary-General that the United States is ending its participation in the Global Compact on Migration," the U.S. mission to the United Nations announced in a press release.
In September 2016, the UN General Assembly unanimously agreed on a resolution — the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants — that the organization’s member states would be committed to the document, which “reaffirms the importance of the international refugee regime and represents a commitment by Member States to strengthen and enhance mechanisms to protect people on the move,” as described in a UN statement on the goals of the policy.
The UN statement further explains:
In adopting the New York Declaration, Member States:
• expressed profound solidarity with those who are forced to flee;
• reaffirmed their obligations to fully respect the human rights of refugees and migrants;
• agreed that protecting refugees and the countries that shelter them are shared international responsibilities and must be borne more equitably and predictably;
• pledged robust support to those countries affected by large movements of refugees and migrants;
• agreed upon the core elements of a Comprehensive Refugee Response Framework; and
• agreed to work towards the adoption of a global compact on refugees and a global compact for safe, orderly and regular migration.
The Declaration contains a call to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to propose a “global compact on refugees” by 2018.
None of this apparently sits well with President Trump.
"The New York Declaration contains numerous provisions that are inconsistent with U.S. immigration and refugee policies and the Trump Administration's immigration principles. As a result, President Trump determined that the United States would end its participation in the Compact process that aims to reach international consensus at the UN in 2018," the U.S. statement said.
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley said that "America is proud of our immigrant heritage and our long-standing moral leadership in providing support to migrant and refugee populations across the globe," and that "our generosity will continue." She added: "But our decisions on immigration policies must always be made by Americans and Americans alone. We will decide how best to control our borders and who will be allowed to enter our country. The global approach in the New York Declaration is simply not compatible with U.S. sovereignty.”
And that is the core issue.
Sovereignty surrendered to the United Nations or to any other governing body whether it be through resolutions or trade agreements, is not compatible with the U.S. Constitution which in Article 4, Section 4 guarantees to each state a “republican form of government.”
A republic, as defined by James Madison in Federalist Number 10 is a form of government “in which the scheme of representation takes place.”
No citizen of the United States votes for any representative of the United Nations, not even the one ostensibly representing the interests of the United States at the world body itself.
Furthermore, there is but one just basis upon which government is founded and that is consent of the governed. Americans have no way to consent to the resolutions debated and adopted by the United Nations, particularly not one which would force sanctions upon this country for “racism and xenophobia,” two misdeeds named in the New York Declaration, but conveniently not defined.
Had the Trump administration not wisely withdrawn from this agreement, the government of the United States would have been obliged to provide for the “protection, health, [and] education” of migrants and refugees.
It’s not just the federal government that would be put upon by the General Assembly to facilitate the accommodation of migrants and refugees, but other institutions and organizations would be likewise bound to “ease the burdens” of those seeking asylum or a better life in the United States.
The Declaration requires the cooperation of “government at national and local levels, international and regional financial institutions, UN Agencies and NGO partners, and business and civil society actors” in the migrant support scheme.
Fortunately, for now it appears that the United States — their government and private banks and businesses — will be free of the fetters placed on their sovereignty by the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants.


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
MALIBU, Calif. — The designers of the famed fashion doll Barbie recently released two photos on Instagram of the figure wearing a “Love wins” t-shirt as a way to show support for homosexual causes.
“Proud to wear this ‘Love Wins’ shirt with @songofstyle!” the Nov. 21 Barbiestyle post read in part, referring to designer Aimee Song of TwoSongs Los Angeles. A doll created in Song’s likeness accompanies Barbie in both photographs.
“Such an inspiring initiative and fabulous few days I have spent with Aimee; she’s a doll!” the post exclaims.
According to Racked, the Barbiestyle Instagram account is run by Vice President of Barbie Design at Mattel, Kim Culmone, along with Director of Design Robert Best and photographer Zlatan Zukanovic.

Song’s tee and sweatshirt company, which she operates with her sister, Dani, sells tops with messages such as “grlpwr,” “self love” and a vulgarly titled t-shirt that features an “embroidered naked woman.” Proceeds support breast cancer research.
“I’m beyond thrilled to have my own @Barbie doll and to wear my #LoveWins t-shirt from @ShopTwoSongs. I still can’t believe I got to partner with #Barbie as a brand that also celebrates diversity, kindness and acceptance,” Song wrote on Thursday, posting a photo of herself holding the doll, the two wearing matching tees.
“Beyond thrilled to be supporting the LGBTQ community with @BarbieStyle in our sold out #LOVEWINS tee,” the TwoSongs Instagram page also reads.

50% of proceeds from the shirts are donated to the homosexual advocacy effort The Trevor Project.
The photographs generated various reaction from the public, with some applauding the idea of Barbie joining in on homosexual advocacy, and others vowing to stay away from Barbie products after seeing the posts.
“This is really sweet and a good way to show kids that anyone can love anyone,” one follower wrote.
“Who needs Ken?” another remarked.
“Wow. This is so sad,” a third stated.
“Thank God I have no children yet, but when I do they’ll never play with Barbie,” another shared. “This is an abomination and not normal. Disgusting.”
Earlier this month, the makers of Barbie also announced that the company had released a doll in the likeness of Rio 2016 bronze medalist Ibtihaj Muhammad, complete with a Muslim hijab.
“We are so excited to honor @IbtihajMuhammad with a one-of-a-kind #Barbie doll! Ibtihaj continues to inspire women and girls everywhere to break boundaries. #Shero #YouCanBeAnything #GlamourWOTY,” it wrote on Nov. 13, sharing a photo of Muhammad holding the doll.
The decision was likewise met with controversy as some stated that they found it disturbing that Barbie had been dressed as a Muslim.