Friday, April 27, 2018


SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Senate Bill 65 (SB 65) is a proposed law in Delaware that says if your child develops confusion about his/her identity, the only licensed professional counseling your child may receive is that which promotes a homosexual or transgender identity. 
Once again, just like with Regulation 225, the state is stepping in between parents, their child, and qualified licensed therapists to say "WE KNOW BEST."  

If SB 65 passed in Delaware, any discussion (even a conversation) between a licensed professional and a child that affirms his biological reality and helps him align with his faith and moral beliefs WILL BE BANNED (line 114).

Any licensed professional who helps a minor child in this way or refers a family for help outside of the state would have their professional license revoked (line 139). 

As many as 98% of gender confused boys and 88% of gender confused girls eventually accept their biological sex after naturally passing through puberty.  

Instead of supporting a child's biological sex through natural puberty, the only help the State of Delaware will allow through SB 65 is sending a gender-confused child down the path of chemical castration with puberty blockers followed by adding cross-sex hormones, which permanently sterilizes them and puts them at risk for heart disease, strokes, diabetes, and cancers and leads to minors making the decision to amputate healthy body parts (lines 83-93, 117-119).

This is ABUSE, not support!

The Delaware House is expected to vote on SB 65 at any time. If it passes the House, it will become law. Take 2 minutes right now to send your Representative an email opposing SB 65.
Additional concerns with SB 65:
  • SB65 not only interferes with a parent's right to direct the upbringing of his/her child, it interferes with free speech and prevents clients from seeking their own self-determined goals. The bill demands therapists provide counseling according to the will of the government - or they may lose their professional license. Instead, we should advocate for a discussion that promotes therapy guided by a client's self-determined goals NOT the will of the government!
  •  Many studies have shown a positive association between childhood sexual abuse and sexual confusion. Shouldn’t minors be given the opportunity to explore the idea that their sexuality/attractions may have been forced upon them by their abusers? The answer is "NO" if SB 65 passes.  
  •  Included in SB65 is language that prevents a teen who is experiencing sexual feelings toward a pre-pubescent child of the same sex (pedopheliac feelings), to receive therapy that would reduce or eliminate those feelings (line 116).
  •  SB 65, lines 83-93, says that gender confusion is not to be treated, even though there is ZERO scientific evidence connecting talk therapy to any kind of tangible harm. The American Psychological Association has concluded, "[t]here are no scientifically rigorous studies of recent that would enable us to make a definitive statement about whether recent sexual orientation change efforts is safe or harmful and for whom."
  •  Therapy bans put patient confidentiality at risk. Who would review patient records and determine that a therapist has or has not complied with laws like the therapy bans being considered in Delaware?
  •   SB65 forbids even talk therapy, a discussion, that would affirm a child's biological reality. SB65 positions parents and licensed professionals as abusers. This is how the premise of the bill language was expressed in Committee hearings by the bill sponsors. So-called conversion therapy does not exist in Delaware. 
More Resources:

About Author: Nicole Theis

Nicole Theis is a native of Delaware, and Founder and President of Delaware Family Policy Council established in 2008. Nicole, with her team, leads the Faith, Family, and Freedom effort in Delaware and works daily to equip and embolden Christ followers to courageously engage the culture. 


Diamond and Silk Go Off On Rep Sheila Jackson Lee: Don't Try To Mix My Words 4/26/18
It seems pro-Trump bloggers Lynnette Hardaway and Rochelle Richardson (AKA Diamond & Silk) might’ve comat least once, possibly twice during their testimony before the House Judiciary Committee today. The dynamic duo are on Capitol Hill for a hearing on their claims that Facebook is censoring their content because of their conservative beliefs. Despite all the questions surrounding the vloggers’ as the proceeding got underway. Hardaway (Diamond) says “We’ve never been paid by the Trump campaign” in response to Sheila Jackson Lee
Diamond & Silk blast Democratic tool Rep.Hank Johnson
“Let me tell you something: Facebook censored us for six months,” fired-back Diamond, whose real name is Lynette Hardaway. “You know what? We didn’t bash Facebook. We brought to the light how Facebook has been censoring conservative voices like ourselves.”

Ex Secret Service Agent Dan Bongino: Attacks on Diamond and Silk Result of Left's Identity Politics

"The attacks on black conservatives are an outgrowth of the left’s fascination with identity politics ... if the color of your skin happens to be darker than mine and you happen to espouse a conservative thought or support this President, you're to be crushed at every opportunity." —Dan Bongino

Rep. Hank Johnson Gets Owned by Diamond and Silk

"Hank Johnson's entire livelihood is lying to people up on Capitol Hill and manipulating them, making them believe liberal ideas are actually A-Okay. He gets paid what, a $175,000 dollars a year of your money and he's knocking Diamond and Silk because people voluntarily pay to see some of their stuff on Facebook."
Dan Bongino

Diamond And Silk Are Fighting For You!

Unlike Lord Zuckerberg ...Conservative video bloggers Diamond and Silk were under oath. But that didn't stop some on the Committee Hearing on Filtering Practices of Social Media from twisting the facts to paint Diamond and Silk as liars.


Lawmakers in California are considering two bills that would trample homeschool freedom in an unprecedented way, threatening parental rights and educational liberty across the state and beyond. Even private schools would not be safe under the proposed schemes. There are two pieces of legislation in particular that critics are working to expose and defeat. A rally in defense of educational freedom is set to take place in Sacramento on April 25, the day hearings in the Assembly Education Committee are scheduled for the bills. |

Assemblymember Eggman: 

Marriage Equality Returned to California

(Sacramento) -- Assemblymember Susan Talamantes-Eggman spoke at a State Capitol news conference with Assembly Speaker John A. PĂ©rez and others following the announcement from the Supreme Court of its decision to overturn California's Proposition 8. Assemblymember Eggman said it has been a long struggle for marriage equality, "All of the work that we've done is really coming together to change how we all look at each other and treat each other and our relationships with each other as good and loving Americans." Here's more from Assemblymember Eggman in this Assembly Access video.
California Lawmakers Say Homeschool is Child Abuse Dr. Duke Pesta
Dr. Duke Pesta examines a pending California law that would treat homeschool parents as child abusers.


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Two civil rights groups back new First Amendment lawsuit challenging Washoe County School District’s ‘no weapons’ dress code as unconstitutional and overbroad, claims 8th-grade student was discriminated against based on his pro-Second Amendment viewpoint and tee-shirt.
Guardanapo v. Washoe County School District - Federal First Amendment civil rights challenge to the District's "no weapons" dress code and discrimination against pro-gun rights 8th grade student
Guardanapo v. Washoe County School District – Federal First Amendment civil rights challenge to the District's “no weapons” dress code and discrimination against pro-gun rights 8th grade student
RENO, NV -( Less than one week after constitutional rights advocacy organizations Firearms Policy Foundation (FPF) and Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) published a new guide to help protect pro-gun rights students and their First Amendment free speech rights, the groups today announced a new federal civil rights lawsuit against a Reno, Nevada public school district and principal over what they believe are serious violations of an 8th grade student’s First Amendment right to peacefully and non-disruptively wear pro-Second Amendment political messages at his middle school. The complaint, which includes an image of the banned tee shirt, can be downloaded.
The lawsuit, filed this morning in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada in Reno, claims that boy was disciplined for engaging “in a respectful, silent, and peaceful expression of his political views” by wearing a Firearms Policy Coalition t-shirt to school. The shirt invokes the constitution and themes dating back to the American Revolution, with the words “Don’t Tread On Me” and a coiled rattlesnake (familiar elements of the Gadsden flag) flanked by references to the United States of America (“USA”) and the Second Amendment (“2A”). While it also includes the words “Firearms Policy Coalition,” there are no depictions of firearms or weapons of any kind on the shirt.
According to the plaintiffs, the student’s teacher, Brooke May, last month directed him to remove the FPC shirt, claiming that it violated the school’s dress code. She also said that he would be subject to further discipline, including a trip to the principal’s office, if he wore it again. In response, the 8th grader at Kendyl Depoali Middle School told her that it was his “right to express [himself] through how [he] dressed,” to which the teacher responded that he could have his “Second Amendment rights when he turns eighteen”—ignoring, and violating, his First Amendment rights in the process.
Mere days after the plaintiff was disciplined for wearing FPC’s pro-gun rights shirt, students at the school participated in the National School Walkout, a formal, organized protest calling for expansive new gun control measures.
“Public schools may not violate the civil rights of pro-gun rights students because they don’t like the Second Amendment or people who support the fundamental, individual human right to armed self-defense,” said FPF Chairman and FPC President Brandon Combs. “It is beyond outrageous that a friendly, peaceful young man was targeted and punished by the same school district that days later went out of its way to support gun control. This case will put the Washoe County School District and public schools across the country on notice that students’ peaceful, pro-Second Amendment speech is protected by the same constitution that protects their right to keep and bear arms.”
“The Supreme Court has affirmed since the era of Vietnam War protests that public school students have the right to express themselves so long as they don’t disrupt the educational process,” explained Bradley Benbrook, counsel for the plaintiff. “And the First Amendment violation is all the more apparent where, as alleged here, school administrators suppress unpopular speech while allowing more politically-correct speech.”
The student is represented through his parents Audrey Guardanapo, a local police dispatcher, and Shaun Guardanapo, veteran of the United States Marine Corps and former law enforcement officer, by Reno litigation attorney David O’Mara of the O’Mara Law Firm, Bradley Benbrook and Stephen Duvernay of Sacramento-based Benbrook Law Group, PC, and Eugene Volokh, a UCLA law professor who has written and taught extensively about the First and Second Amendments. Before joining the UCLA faculty 20 years ago, Volokh clerked for Judge Alex Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and Justice Sandra Day O’Connor of the U.S. Supreme Court. He also operates the popular legal blog “The Volokh Conspiracy,” now hosted at Reason.
If a student or parent believes they were discriminated against, threatened or disciplined for peacefully expressing their views, punished for refusing to participate in a gun control walkout or demonstration, or threatened with law enforcement action for their pro-gun speech, they can submit a report to the FPF/FPC Legal Action Hotline at or by calling (855) 252-4510.
The FPF and FPC guide to pro-gun student speech, “K-12 Schools, Free Speech, and the Fundamental, Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms: A Guide to How Students Can Use Their First Amendment Rights to Defend and Promote Second Amendment Rights,” is available for free at In addition to providing information and tools that parents and students can use to make sure they are not forced into participating in speech or demonstrations they disagree with, the guide contains materials that may help them plan counter-speech to gun control advocacy events or organize pro-gun rights demonstrations or expressive conduct. It also includes sample letters that parents could edit and use to notify schools of a student’s disagreement with a gun control event’s viewpoint, request information and policies, and help ensure that school officials respect the rights of all students.

About Firearms Policy Foundation
Firearms Policy Foundation ( is a 501(c)3 grassroots, non-profit public policy organization. FPF’s mission is to defend the Constitution of the United States and the People’s rights, privileges and immunities deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition, especially the inalienable, fundamental, and individual right to keep and bear arms. FPF conducts charitable programs including research, education, and legal action to protect and advance individual liberty.
About Firearms Policy CoalitionFirearms Policy Coalition
Firearms Policy Coalition ( is a 501(c)4 grassroots, non-profit public policy organization. FPC’s mission is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, especially the fundamental, individual Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. FPC protects and promotes individual liberty through programs including legal action, direct and grassroots advocacy, legislation, government oversight, research, education, and outreach.


SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Another judge has signaled that he doesn’t like the law — so he’s just going to ignore it. On Tuesday, Judge John D. Bates of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia “ruled” that last year’s revocation of the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) was illegal and that the whole program must be restarted. It was the most radical decision yet among a series of judicial opinions that, ignoring constitutionally granted executive power, seek to hobble immigration enforcement.
The Washington Times reports on the story, writing that the usurpative opinion “goes beyond other judges, who had also ruled the phaseout illegal but had only ordered Homeland Security to accept renewal applications from people who’d already been awarded DACA before. Judge John D. Bates’s ruling would require a full restart, meaning even illegal immigrant ‘Dreamers’ who’d never been approved before would now be able to apply for DACA.”
“The judge imposed a 90-day delay on his own ruling to give the government a chance to reargue its case, but for now the ruling stands as the most severe blow yet to Mr. Trump’s phaseout,” the paper continued.
Outrageously, Judge Bates sang a republic-rending tune we’ve heard before, claiming that “the government never gave an adequate justification for revoking DACA, so its decision seemed ‘arbitrary and capricious,’” the Times further informs. This echoes the opinion earlier this year by Judge Nicholas Garaufis of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, who wrote that if President Trump wanted to end the program, he must provide what the court considers “adequate reasons for doing so.”
While the president has no obligation to provide justification for enforcing the law, the justification is plain: DACA illegals are just that — illegal. Yet it’s clear why this eluded Judge Bates. Telegraphing his biases, he wrote that he would use illegal-migrant activists’ politically correct term for illegals: “undocumented.” Of course, calling an illegal migrant an undocumented worker is like calling a rapist an undocumented husband.
Yet a justification for ending the program was also provided by what Judge Bates may consider an unimpeachable source. As The Heritage Foundation wrote last year in “DACA Is Unconstitutional, as Obama Admitted”:
Responding in October 2010 to demands that he implement immigration reforms unilaterally, Obama declared, “I am not king. I can’t do these things just by myself.” In March 2011, he said that with “respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case.” In May 2011, he acknowledged that he couldn’t “just bypass Congress and change the (immigration) law myself.... That's not how a democracy works.”
Yet in 2012, he did it anyway. He put DACA in place to provide pseudo-legal status to illegal aliens brought to the U.S. as minors, including as teenagers. He promised them that they wouldn't be deported and provided them with work authorizations and access to Social Security and other government benefits.
So the judges’ positions are staggering: What one president, Obama, instituted unconstitutionally (DACA) via executive order, his successor cannot undo via executive order. Note that Congress would never pass a DACA amnesty, despite Obama’s prodding of them to do so for years — it was never “law.”
It is the judges’ decisions that are “arbitrary and capricious,” “lacking even a thin veneer of law,” to quote late Justice Antonin Scalia. The notion that chief executives have to provide judges with “good reasons” to enforce the law is to trade the rule of law for the rule of lawyers. In fact, judges have even struck down presidential applications of law — Trump’s travel bans — under the pretext that the motives behind it were impure (alleged anti-Muslim sentiment expressed on the campaign trail).
Yet if this approach is valid, let’s apply it to other actions. Can Trump be prevented from placing tariffs on Chinese goods because he engaged in anti-China rhetoric on the campaign trail? Or, before prosecuting a bank robber, perhaps a district attorney should have to explain his reasoning. Can he show that the thief really didn’t need the money or didn’t have an upbringing that “destined him for a life of crime”?
Allowing judges to impose their own beliefs on the country through their rulings is not only subverting the rule of law but is also rendering elections meaningless. After all, what is the point of electing political candidates who promise to implement the conservative agenda, when activist judges can declare their agenda unconstitutional when they succeed?
But it is the activist judges who are behaving unconstitutionally, their claims to the contrary notwithstanding. Note that judicial supremacy — the idea that courts have the power to determine what law means and thus constrain not only their own branch, but the other two as well — is not in the Constitution. Rather, the power was unilaterally declared by the courts themselves, most notably in the Marbury v. Madison decision (1803).
And tolerating this extra-constitutional judicial supremacy has made the courts supremely dangerous. As I wrote last year:
Consider: As Dr. Alan Keyes explained in 2005, they have their judicial power. Yet if they can strike down laws, contrary to the legislature’s will, they’ve also arrogated to themselves the legislative power. And if they can tell the chief executive that an action must or mustn’t be executed, then they’ve arrogated to themselves the executive power as well. Now note what James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution,” said about having the executive, legislative, and judicial powers all in one entity’s hands: It is the very definition of tyranny.
This is why Founding Father Thomas Jefferson said that if the theory of judicial supremacy is valid, then indeed is our Constitution a felo de se — an act of suicide.
The shame of this, and Congress’ shame, is that its legislators could tame the courts but refuse to do so. As I also pointed out last year:
Under the Constitution’s Article III, Congress can eliminate any and every federal court, except for the Supreme Court; and can limit the appellate jurisdiction of the SCOTUS, meaning, SCOTUS’ ability to hear cases brought up through lower courts. It thus could mostly eliminate judicial review.
Why doesn’t Congress do this? Because it means taking a stand on contentious issues and possibly suffering electoral consequences. It’s far easier for legislators to just posture, puff up their chests, and then throw up their hands saying, “Hey, we tried. But the courts have ruled!” This brings no electoral consequences because most Americans don’t know civics and are never aware that Congress is shirking its power-balancing duty.
Of course, since judicial supremacy is extra-constitutional and enjoyed only at the pleasure of the other two branches, Trump could simply and lawfully ignore rogue court rulings. Sadly, though, today’s climate ensures that such a move would be used as a pretext for impeaching him.
Yet without pushback, judicial tyranny will be our lot. American Thinker’s Rick Moran, lamenting Judge Bates’ opinion, wrote, “I guess the federal courts don't believe that the chief executive is in charge of the Executive Branch.” But their beliefs are irrelevant. They’re imposing their will for the oldest possible reason: because they can.
Expecting the courts to willingly stop stealing the people’s government is like expecting thieves to willingly stop stealing. The way it is, has been, and always will be is that only power negates power.


SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
The May/June 2018 edition of Foreign Affairs, the official publication of the globalist Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), issued a series of articles themed “Is Democracy Dying?” While the authors of the articles do not reach any conclusion to their question, they do make it quite clear that they view President Donald Trump as an impediment to the type of society they want for our world.
The articles appear to contradict the mission statement found near the beginning of each magazine, in which the writers pledge to “tolerate wide differences of opinion," and state that its articles "will not represent any consensus of belief.”
On the contrary, one can read Foreign Affairs on a regular basis and never see any articles expressing concern about the negative effects of open borders and multilateral trade agreements upon national sovereignty. In fact, what one gets from the magazine is a steady diet of globalism.
In the May/June 2018 issue of Foreign Affairs, two articles tackle the question, “Is Democracy Dying?” Of course, this presupposes that the form of government created by the U.S. Constitution is a “democracy,” and that “democracy” is a good thing. Actually, the constitutional framers crafted a federal republic, a system of limited government, with religious liberty and private property among those liberties placed beyond the reach of majorities. In other words, liberty trumps democracy. The purpose of government is to protect life, liberty, and property, not ensure that a majority can vote to strip the wealthier minority of their wealth, or to impose a particular religion, for example.
What is noteworthy about the tone of these articles is that the writers appear to think “democracy,” or government by the people, to be a good thing, just as long as the people favor the policies of the global elites. In fact, the overarching theme of the articles is that “the people” are not compliant enough in favoring those policies so dear to the global elites, such as open borders.
Perhaps no phrase is more despised by those who head the CFR and its publication than “America First.” The fact that Trump used that very phrase over and over during his campaign and since that time explains their animosity toward him. In a May/June 2018 article by Walter Russell Mead (the Global View columnist at the Wall Street Journal), he laments that there were no memorable diplomatic accomplishments “between the purchase of Alaska and the construction of the Panama Canal.”
Actually, during those years America was at peace, and it was growing to become the world’s largest economy. Our governmental leaders were conducting the foreign policy of Washington and Jefferson: no entanglement in the affairs of other countries. Only to globalists can such a period be described as a time of no accomplishment in diplomacy.
But in the early 20th century, beginning with the “Progressive Era,” Mead noted that the country began to have “successes.” Mead’s “successes” involved mostly the growth of government — the creation of the Federal Reserve System, the introduction of the income tax, and the rise of federal regulatory agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration.
Despite these supposed successes favored by the elites (it should be noted that to collectivists, “democracy” does not mean so much government by the people as government for the people, or what the elites believe is good for the people), Mead regrets the recent election returns in the United Kingdom (Brexit), Hungary, Poland, and Italy (with rising opposition to uncontrolled immigration and the consolidation of Europe) and the Trump administration, which seeks “to take U.S. policy in new directions.”
Ronald Inglehurt’s article in the April 16, 2018 issue of Foreign Affairs, “The Age of Insecurity,” is even more blunt: “Over the past decade, many marginally democratic countries have become increasingly authoritarian. And authoritarian, xenophobic populist movements have grown strong enough to threaten democracy’s long-term health in several rich, established democracies, including France, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States.”
Inglehurt continued, “The world is experiencing the most severe democratic setback since the rise of fascism in the 1930s. The immediate cause of rising support for authoritarian, xenophobic populist movements is a reaction to immigration.” It would seem that Inglehurt is comparing the election of Donald Trump and other political leaders in Hungary and Poland to Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini! But neither Hitler nor Mussolini had much to say about immigration or multilateral trade agreements.
While Inglehurt insinuates that anti-immigration politicians in places such as Hungary, France, Italy, and Poland are only a step or two removed from Adolf Hitler, he reserves most of his salvos for Trump, declaring, “In the 2016 U.S. presidential election, the Republican candidate Donald Trump campaigned on a platform of xenophobia and sympathy toward authoritarianism.”
Inglehurt argues that Trump campaigned as “an openly racist, sexist, authoritarian, and xenophobic candidate,” who “ran against Hillary Clinton, a liberal.” One might recall that Hillary had a word for Trump’s supporters: “deplorables.”
Inglehurt places part of the blame for the rise of so-called authoritarian parties over the last few decades on a “rise in inequality” during that time period. And who was to blame for that? Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, Inglehurt claims, because they “weakened labor unions and sharply cut back state regulation.” Inglehurt did not add, though he could have, that Thatcher’s opposition to the creation of the European Union got her bounced from her position as prime minister, despite leading her Conservative Party to three consecutive national election victories. The global elites were not going to tolerate any impediment to their goal of one government for all of Europe — even from the Iron Lady.
What can be done about all this? Inglehurt’s solution is more government. “Whether this latest democratic setback proves permanent will depend on whether societies address these problems, which will require government intervention,” he asserted.
Unfortunately, in Inglehurt’s view, “powerful conservative interests are moving the United States in the opposite direction, sharply reducing taxes on the rich and cutting government spending.” One can only hope.
In short, Foreign Affairs, and its parent organization, the Council on Foreign Relations, is not only globalist, its articles promote Big Government here at home. Perhaps in the next issue, it will publish an article warning its readers of the dangers of Big Government, globalism, and unchecked immigration. But we sincerely doubt it.



The migrant caravan is back!

SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Infowars reporter Millie Weaver covers breaking news that the large group of Honduran immigrants, which were disbanded after Trump ordered the National Guard to help protect the border, have returned.
This group of immigrants, claiming to be seeking asylum and organized by the group ‘People Without Borders,’ have been reorganized by Democrat operatives and George Soros-funded NGOs.


‘If you enter our country illegally, you have broken the law and will be referred for prosecution’

SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen on Wednesday warned that the federal government is prepared to prosecute Central American migrants from a caravan planning to cross the U.S. border this weekend.
Nielsen said in a statement that the Homeland Security Department is monitoring the caravan’s movements, and “is doing everything within our authorities to secure our borders and enforce the law.”
“Let me be clear: We will enforce the immigration laws as set forth by Congress,” she said.
“If you enter our country illegally, you have broken the law and will be referred for prosecution. If you make a false immigration claim, you have broken the law and will be referred for prosecution. If you assist or coach an individual in making a false immigration claim, you have broken the law and will be referred for prosecution.”

DHS secretary sends warning to illegal immigrant 'caravan'

Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen renews threat to prosecute 'caravan' of border-crossers; former ICE agent David Ward reacts on 'Your World.'