Sunday, September 8, 2019


In their 14th straight weekend of anti-government protests, Hong Kong's demonstrators have taken their case to the US consulate, their latest attempt to bring an international spotlight to the political crisis in the semi-autonomous Chinese territory. Calling for politicians in the United States to support their cause, thousands of people gathered in central Hong Kong and marched towards the consulate, waving US flags and shouting slogans in English, such as "Fight for freedom! Stand with Hong Kong!". The rally was peaceful, but riot police were out in force to ensure protesters steered clear of the nearby Government House, the chief executive's gated residential compound. Al Jazeera's Adrian Brown reports from Hong Kong.

Washington, D.C. - U.S. Senators Marco Rubio (R-FL), Ben Cardin (D-MD), Jim Risch (R-ID), Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Bob Menendez (D-NJ), Ranking Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, today reintroduced the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act, bipartisan legislation that would reaffirm U.S. commitment to democracy, human rights, and the rule of law at a time when Hong Kong’s autonomy is under assault by interference from the Chinese government and Communist Party.
Co-sponsors include Senators Angus King (I-ME), Josh Hawley (R-MO), Ed Markey (D-MA) and Tom Cotton (R-AR). Representatives Jim McGovern (D-MA) and Representative Chris Smith (R-NJ) introduced companion legislation in the House.
“As over one million Hong Kongers take to the streets protesting amendments to the territory’s extradition law, the U.S. must send a strong message that we stand with those peacefully advocating for freedom and the rule of law and against Beijing’s growing interference in Hong Kong affairs,” Rubio said. “I am proud to re-introduce legislation that places the U.S. firmly on the side of human rights and democracy and against those who would erode the freedoms and autonomy guaranteed to the people of Hong Kong, freedoms that have made the city a prosperous global commercial hub governed by the rule of law.”
“America’s strength has been and always will be in our values. We cannot stand idly by as the rights of the people of Hong Kong are trampled on by China,” Cardin said. “I’m proud of our continued, bipartisan affirmation of the United States’ commitment to Hong Kong’s autonomy, to Hong Kong’s vibrant civil society and to the basic human rights of the people of Hong Kong.”
“A Hong Kong that safeguards its autonomy, upholds fundamental freedoms, and maintains an open business environment is good for Hong Kong, good for the United States, and good for the world,” Chairman Risch said . Bipartisan concern about the erosion of Hong Kong’s autonomy has been growing for several years, but the proposed extradition law has taken that concern to new heights. I continue to urge that the extradition law be withdrawn or indefinitely postponed. Passage will compel the U.S. Senate to reevaluate aspects of the U.S.-Hong Kong relationship.”
“As the world bears witness to the brutality with which security forces in Hong Kong are responding to tens of thousands of pro-democracy activists in a display of force not seen in years, I am proud to join my colleagues in introducing this important legislation to reaffirm our steadfast support for Hong Kong’s autonomy, democracy and respect for human rights,” Ranking Member Menendez said. “The United States must use all of our diplomatic tools to stand shoulder to shoulder with the people of Hong Kong in the face of this latest effort by Beijing to censor them and infringe upon their basic rights and freedoms.”
“The protests in Hong Kong are grounded in the removal of an unpopular and unfair extradition bill,” said Senator Toomey. “However, the fight extends well beyond one piece of legislation. It extends to stopping the growth of Chinese authoritarianism, which poses a threat to basic human rights, including the right to free speech, the right to a fair trial, and the right to a genuinely representative government. This bipartisan legislation makes clear that the United States stands alongside the Hong Kong people in their struggle for freedom, and I urge all my colleagues to support this measure.”
The Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act would:
  • Require the Secretary of State to issue an annual certification of Hong Kong’s autonomy to justify special treatment afforded to Hong Kong by the U.S. Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992.
  • Require the President to identify persons responsible for the abductions of Hong Kong booksellers and journalists and those complicit in suppressing basic freedoms in Hong Kong, including those complicit in the forced removal of individuals exercising internationally recognized rights to mainland China for detention or trial, and to freeze their U.S.-based assets and deny them entry to the United States.
  • Require the President to issue a strategy to protect U.S. citizens and businesses from the implications of a revised Fugitive Offenders Ordinance, including by determining whether to revise the U.S.-Hong Kong extradition agreement and the State Department’s travel advisory for Hong Kong.     
  • Require the Secretary of Commerce to issue an annual report assessing whether the Government of Hong Kong is adequately enforcing both U.S. export regulations regarding sensitive dual-use items and U.S. and U.N. sanctions, particularly regarding Iran and North Korea.   
  • Make clear that visa applicants shall not be denied visas on the basis of the applicant’s arrest, detention or other adverse government action taken as a result of their participation in the nonviolent protest activities related to pro-democracy advocacy, human rights, or the rule of law in Hong Kong.


Päivi Räsänen
Päivi Räsänen, an MP for the Christian Democrats and Finland’s former Interior Minister, criticized the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland (ECLF) on Facebook over its participation in Helsinki’s gay pride week.
Career and political positions[edit]
Räsänen has been characterized as a conservative. On October 12, 2010, Räsänen was one of the participants on a live TV debate on Ajankohtainen kakkonen'Homoilta special, with the topic of same-sex marriage and LGBT rights. The program was followed by an unprecedented exodus from the Evangelical Lutheran Church — in a few weeks, nearly 40,000 members left the Church through the website Räsänen was on the show representing her party and herself as a Christian individual along with five other opponents of gay marriage, but the resignations were specifically attributed to her by the media in general and then-Minister of Culture and Sports Stefan Wallin. Räsänen thinks homosexual acts are a sin and she herself does not consider her views "specifically extreme".
When interviewed by Ylioppilaslehti on October 29, 2010, Räsänen said that she would favor Christians over Muslims when selecting asylum seekers to Finland due, in her opinion, to Muslims' "difficulties to adjust to the Finnish culture". Her comments were condemned as "incomprehensible and merciless" by then-Minister of Migration and European Affairs Astrid Thors and then-Minister of Culture and Sports Stefan Wallin. Räsänen responded to the criticism, saying her comments were misinterpreted, since she did not consider religion as the main criterion for asylum seekers' admissions, but instead she wanted to highlight the benefits of refugees' integration through religious connections. In practice, as minister in charge of immigration affairs Räsänen has advocated for increasing the number of refugees taken in by Finland, especially from Syria.
In September 2012 Räsänen appointed a religiously conservative applicant, considered less qualified by the media, among six candidates to Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Interior Affairs, which created considerable debate, especially as she had previously condemned political appointments of government officials.

Stance on abortion[edit]

She is pro-life on abortion. She has made statements on the matter, since she is Minister of the Interior, that led a number of Finns to leave the Lutheran church of Finland via an online service in July 2013. Räsänen contrasted abortion law to animal protection law saying that the latter gives better protection for animals than the former does to humans (fetuses):
"The law on animal protection gives better protection to an animal about to be put down than the law on abortion does to an unborn child. It is forbidden to cause the animal pain when slaughtering it, but no one dares to even discuss the painfulness of abortion. Abortion is defended on the grounds that the fetus is not a human person, even though it is a biological human individual from the moment of conception."
In total 6,500 persons left the church in the first six days following the controversy, while the average number had been 70 persons a day prior to it.

Personal life[edit]

Räsänen is married and has five children. She lives in Riihimäki. Räsänen is a physician and holds a Licentiate of Medicine.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
HELSINKI — A lawmaker in Finland who is also a pastor’s wife has been placed under investigation by police over a social media post from June in which she questioned the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland’s partnership with the Helsinki Pride event.
“How can the Church’s doctrinal foundation, the Bible, be compatible with the lifting up of shame and sin as a subject of pride? #LGBT #HelsinkiPride2019 #Romans1:24-27,” wrote Päivi Räsänen, a member of the Christian Democrat Party. The minority party only holds five seats in Parliament and is conservative in nature unlike the Democratic Party in the United States.
She also shared a photograph of the biblical text with her post, as it directly addresses homosexuality.
“Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves,” the Scripture reads, “who changed the truth of God into a lie and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.”
“For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature. And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another —men with men working that which is unseemly and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.”
Räsänen’s husband is a pastor with the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland, which is the largest denomination in the country, having an estimated three million members. However, that figure has been on the decline recently, falling one to two percentage points each year, according to Evangelical Focus.
Räsänen is known for defending life and marriage, and her remarks were not out of the ordinary. She had written a letter to the denomination expressing her disappointment in their decision to back the same-sex pride event.
“The pride event’s ideological goal is to take pride in the type of relations that are described as being against God’s will,” Räsänen wrote, according to Finland broadcasting outlet YLE. “Homosexual relationships, like those relationships outside of marriage, are described in the Bible as sinful and shameful.”
At least 500 members of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland dropped their affiliation over the matter.
Finnish “archbishop” Tapio Luoma responded to the controversy by stating that “[i]t’s not a question of taking a stance on marriage laws but rather [the idea] that the church’s message is for everyone … and same-sex couples are welcome at all church activities.”
The MP is now under investigation for her June post, being accused of “incitement against sexual and gender minorities.” Two other lawmakers are also facing pre-trial investigations for remarks deemed racist. The outlet Novena notes that “inciting hatred” can carry penalties of up to two years imprisonment.
“A crime report is being filed with police to determine whether the MP was guilty of a crime by posting a Twitter message in June. The message depicts the Helsinki Pride event as a pride for sin and shame and questions the Church’s involvement in the event,” a press release from the Helsinki Police Department reads. “According to the advertiser, the message is an expression of intolerance towards minorities.”
Räsänen remarked on the investigation a few weeks ago, stating that she is not worried about herself but rather how the matter might affect Christians in general.
“I am not concerned on my part, as I trust this will not move on to the prosecutor,” she said. “However, I am concerned if quoting the Bible is considered even ‘slightly’ illegal. I hope this won’t lead to self-censorship among Christians. Rom. 1:24–27.”


Criticized Evangelical Lutheran Church for supporting gay pride week

Police responded by opening an investigation into Räsänen on charges of “incitement against sexual and gender minorities.”
Räsänen responded by saying she was criticizing church leadership, not gay people, and that the investigation would have a “chilling effect” on Finnish society.
“It seems that many Christians in my country are now hiding and going to the closet now that the LGBT-community has come out to the public,” she said.
However, ECLF bishop Taipo Luoma doubled down, saying that “same-sex couples are welcome at all church activities” and that it was “only a matter of time” before the church started performing same-sex marriages.”



Drew Brees - Focus on the Family is a hate group Accepts LGBT 

Drew Brees has officially caved in to the "LGBT Mafia" and has rejected the Bible's teaching on homosexuality. In this shocking interview he even went along with the idea that an organization that promotes the traditional family is a hate group.

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
New Orleans Saints quarterback Drew Brees has faced some tough opponents on the field, but now he’s staring down one of the toughest — the LGBT lobby and its media allies — simply for encouraging kids to take their Bibles to school for a day.
Brees, a professing Christian, recorded a 22-second video for Focus on the Family’s Bring Your Bible to School Day campaign, which encourages Christian public-school students to take their Bibles to school on October 3.
“Hey, guys,” Brees says in the video. “Drew Brees here. One of my favorite verses in the Bible is 2 Corinthians 5:7: ‘For we live by faith, not by sight.’ So I want to encourage you to live out your faith on Bring Your Bible to School Day and share God’s love with friends. You’re not alone.”
For those few seconds of asking kids to take their Bibles to school, Brees has come under fire from the LGBT crowd. “The criticism levied at Brees in the aftermath appeared to have little to do with the message, but with the organization it was tied to,” observed USA Today. “A link at the bottom of the video directs viewers to, a website published by Focus on the Family,” a Christian organization that, in keeping with the Bible and the historic faith, believes homosexual behavior to be sinful and urges Christians who are tempted by same-sex desire to live chastely.
USA Today’s headline, in fact, exemplifies this trend: “Saints QB Drew Brees defends himself after appearing in video produced by anti-LGBTQ group.” Likewise, Newsweek titled their piece “Drew Brees, New Orleans Saints Quarterback, Records Video Produced by Anti-Gay Group Focus on the Family.” Out magazine chose “NFL Quarterback Appears in Commercial for Anti-Gay Extremists” for their headline, and Big Easy magazine settled on “Drew Brees Records Video for Anti-LGBT Religious Organization.”
The unapologetically left-wing Big Easy tweeted twice about the subject, once claiming that Focus on the Family is “a strong promoter of the dangerous ‘conversion therapy’ practice” and later introducing the hashtag #SaintsDontHate because of Brees’ “commercial for an anti-LGBTQ group.”
Not everyone took to Twitter to bash Brees, however.
Representative Jim Banks (R-Ind.), for example, tweeted, “The relentless assault on Christians must stop.”
“It’s disgraceful that Drew Brees’s encouragement to kids to share God’s love with their friends is turned into hate-mongering by the Left,” he told the Daily Caller.
New England Patriots tight end Benjamin Watson tweeted: “Have done plenty of work with [Focus on the Family] and will continue to. No problem speaking up for my friends when they are being slandered.”
Brees didn’t remain silent, either. According to USA Today, he “strongly defended himself” Thursday. In a video posted on Twitter, he said the allegations against him are “completely untrue,” and in an open discussion with reporters, he pointed out that the headlines about him have been “not … very fair.”
Things got a little iffy, however, when Brees took up the matter of Focus on the Family’s stance on LGBT issues. “I was not aware any of the things [others] said about them lobbying for anti-gay [causes] … any type of messaging or inequality or any type of hate type related stuff I was not aware of that at all,” he said. “Because I know that there are, unfortunately, Christian organizations out there that are involved in that kind of thing and to me that is totally against what being a Christian is all about. Being a Christian is love, it’s forgiveness, it’s respecting all, it’s accepting all.”
It is also about upholding biblical teaching, which means, yes, accepting all people but also discouraging them from sinning — and there is no question that the Bible defines homosexual conduct as a sin. Being a Christian additionally means opposing movements, such as the LGBT lobby, that both encourage people to sin and punish those who disagree with them.
Brees did nothing wrong, and much right, in recording his video for Bring Your Bible to School Day. But his haste to distance himself from Focus on the Family because of its opposition to the LGBT movement suggests the quarterback’s faith may be in danger of being sacked by the forces of sexual libertinism.
‘I Don’t Support Groups that Promote Inequality,’ NFL’s Drew Brees Says After Focus on the Family Ad Questioned
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
NEW ORLEANS, La. — New Orleans Saints quarterback Drew Brees took to social media on Thursday to state that he “does not support groups that discriminate … or promote inequality” after being criticized by homosexual advocates for recording an advertisement for Focus on the Family’s “Bring Your Bible to School Day.”
Brees was addressing an article published by Big Easy Magazine with the headline “Drew Brees Records Video for Anti-LGBTQ Religious Organization.”
The piece stated that while it is not surprising that Brees would support Bring Your Bible to School Day as a Christian, the liberal publication found it “odd” for him to “support of a religious group known to be one of the most well funded anti-LGBT organizations in the country.”
“Focus on the Family supports and promotes the practice of ‘conversion therapy,'” the article, written by Editor-in-Chief Jenn Bentley, claimed. “Focus on the Family has also regularly fought against anti-discrimination practices protecting the LGBTQ+ community.”
She noted that Brees had previously recorded an anti-bullying video that was featured on The Ellen Show, and because of his position, he was once named Ellen’s “favorite quarterback.” Ellen DeGeneres is well-known as being a lesbian.
“[Focus on the Family] seems an odd group for a person who espouses those views to support,” Bentley opined.
She was referring to a short video posted to social media last Thursday in which Brees shared his favorite Scripture and encouraged youth to “live out your faith on Bring Your Bible to School Day and share God’s love with friends.” The video is still accessible on Focus on the Family’s Facebook page.
Because of those questioning his decision to appear in the advertisement, Brees recorded a video stating that he believes loving one’s neighbor means accepting all and that he does not support groups that “discriminate” or “promote inequality.”
“There’s been a lot of negativity spread about me in the LGBTQ community recently based upon an article that someone wrote with a very negative headline that I think led people to believe that I was somehow aligned with an organization that was anti-LGBTQ,” Brees said. “I’d like to set the record straight.”
“I live by two very simple Christian fundamentals, and that is: Love the Lord with all your heart, mind and soul, and love your neighbor as yourself,” he outlined. “I think the first one is very self-explanatory. The second one, love your neighbor as yourself, what does that mean to me? That means love all, respect all, and accept all. So that is actually how I live my life.”
Brees said that he tries to live by that concept with “all people, no matter your race, your color, your religious preference, your sexual orientation [or] your political beliefs,” and that he was simply recording an advertisement encouraging youth to participate in Bring Your Bible to School Day.
“So, I’m not sure why the negativity spread or why people tried to rope me in to certain negativity. I do not support any groups that discriminate or that have their own agendas that are trying to promote inequality. Okay?” he said. “So, hopefully that has set the record straight and we can all move on because that is not what I stand for.”
According to Sports Illustrated, Brees later told reporters that he was not aware the ad was for an organization that was “lobbying for anti-gay, any type of messaging for inequality of any type of hate-type related stuff.”
“[The ad] was not promoting any group, certainly not promoting any group that is associated with that type of behavior. Because I know that unfortunately there are Christian organizations out there that are involved in that kind of thing, and to me, that is totally against what being a Christian is all about,” he asserted.
As previously reported, the popular fast food chain Chick-fil-A made similar remarks when it was criticized for donating to Christian pro-family organizations, which at one time included Focus on the Family.
“Recent coverage about Chick-fil-A continues to drive an inaccurate narrative about our brand,” the company said this past April. “We want to make it clear that our sole focus is on providing delicious food and welcoming everyone — not being a part of a national political conversation. We do not have a political or social agenda.”
“More than 145,000 people from different backgrounds and beliefs represent the Chick-fil-A brand. We embrace all people, regardless of religion, race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation or gender identity.”
Chick-fil-A further noted that it had discontinued giving to one charity “after a blog post surfaced that does not meet Chick-fil-A’s commitment to creating a welcoming environment to all.”


SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
USA – -( No, no, no. Hell, no!
That's my response to the latest trial balloon floated by the White House to join with Silicon Valley on a creepy program monitoring Americans' “neurobehavioral signs” to (purportedly) prevent gun violence.
President Donald Trump's old friend, former NBC head Bob Wright, has been pushing an Orwellian surveillance scheme called “Safe Home” — “Stopping Aberrant Fatal Events by Helping Overcome Mental Extremes” — that would cost taxpayers between $40 million and $60 million. The Washington Post, owned by Amazon billionaire founder Jeff Bezos, reports that the plan could incorporate “Apple Watches, Fitbits, Amazon Echo and Google Home,” as well as ” fMRIs, tractography and image analysis.”
Here's the big lie: Wright's group promises that privacy will be “safeguarded,” profiling “avoided” and data protection capabilities a “cornerstone of this effort.”

There's so much bullcrap packed in that statement it should be banned as a global warming pollutant.

Anything involving Google should trigger automatic danger warnings of invasive data mining. We do not need the federal government partnering with Google to red-flag citizens. We need the federal government to red-flag Google.
Let me remind you that Google has already admitted to data mining children's emails without consent and in violation of the Federal Educational Rights and Privacy Act. This school year, untold thousands, if not millions, of children were required to sign on to Google email and Chrome in order to access homework, schedules and classroom discussions — without obtaining parental consent. Thanks to “1-to-1” programs forcing students across the country to use laptops and tablets when paper and pencil would suffice, iPads loaded with Google for Education are metastasizing in tech-crazed, fad-addled school districts oblivious to privacy concerns.
At my high school sophomore son's school, every student was told to download an app called “E-Hallpass,” which is seamlessly connected to their Google login, to track how much time students spend in the bathroom. It's all in the name of “safety,” of course. And there's no opportunity for parents to provide their preemptive feedback or consent.
Minnesota educator Jennifer Dahlgren told me this week: “Too many schools use Google docs and sheets to store and share (private) student information, as well as using Google as their secure email! I have brought this up in staff meetings as a concern and no one else seems bothered. Not good!”
Just last week, the Federal Trade Commission approved a settlement with Google/YouTubeover its violation of the federal Children's Online Privacy Protection Act. YouTube had been stealthily mining data of unsuspecting YouTube users under the age of 13. It will reportedly pay a pittance for this massive child abuse — somewhere between $150 million to $200 million, which amounts to just a few months' of YouTube ad revenue. In other words: a hill of beans.
Earlier this summer, Google agreed to a $13 million settlement over its Street View program, whose roaming cars in more than 30 countries secretly collected emails, passwords and other personal data from Wi-Fi networks. The Wall Street Journal reported on how the company's dishonest dismissal of the breach as a “mistake” was exposed by investigators who found that “Google engineers built software and embedded it into Street View vehicles to intentionally intercept the data from 2007 to 2010.”

It's not just Google. Under the cloak of “science,” Big Tech and Big Government are on the cusp of instituting a mental health social credit score system incorporating dubious predictive analytics.

Who defines “mental health” risk factors? There is no consensus on how much mental health predicts violence. And don't forget: The mental health profession is filled with partisan zealots who think all Trump voters [and gun owners] are dangerous. Camera-hogging psychiatrists and psychologists clog left-wing news shows recklessly and fecklessly pretending to “diagnose” the president himself through their own unhinged political lenses.
Mental health data mining in schools is already happening. The Pioneer Institute reported that federal, state and local governments splurged on more than $30 billion in 2018 to implement social-emotional learning monitoring in K-12 public schools. I've reported on Google apps previously such as ClassDojo (which collects intimate behavioral data and long-term psychological profiles encompassing family information, personal messages, photographs, and voice notes) and on federally funded TS Gold testing (which monitors “developmental domains including social-emotional, physical, language and cognitive development”). Students are rated and recorded on their ability to do things like “respond to emotional cues,” “interact cooperatively” and “cooperate and share ideas and materials in socially acceptable ways.”
Who defines “socially acceptable?” Liberal educators, who are mindlessly addicting our kids to Silicon Valley technology and brainwashing them to conform or be excluded?
The last thing Washington should be doing is handing over yet another set of keys to Silicon Valley spies with a voracious appetite for our private information — and our children's precious minds.
Do you want to make children safer? De-platform Google and the other data-mining predators from public schools now. It's insanity to let them roam free.

Michelle Malkin
Michelle Malkin

About: Michelle Malkin
Michelle Malkin is host of “Michelle Malkin Investigates” on As well as the author of “Who Built That: Awe-Inspiring Stories of American Tinkerpreneurs” and “Sold Out: How High-Tech Billionaires & Bipartisan Beltway Crapweasels Are Screwing America…” . Her email address is


SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
HARRISBURG, Pa. — The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) says that it plans to allow residents to identify as “gender neutral” on their driver’s licenses beginning in 2020, giving applicants the option of selecting an “X” instead of male or female.
Alexis Campbell, a spokesperson for PennDOT, told Fox News that the change comes as result of a number of residents requesting the option, as well “trends” in other states.
“PennDOT is glad to offer a license that is inclusive of everybody and can accurately reflect who they are,” she remarked to the outlet.
Brenda Klitsch, an attorney with the Mazzoni Center, which advocates for homosexual and transgender causes, told the Philadelphia Gay News that “[h]aving the correct gender marker on your ID or one that more accurately reflects you in the world is essential” because it affirms the person’s self-identity and may “reduce harassment.”
“It helps in every aspect of our lives,” she said. “Getting a drink. Going to the doctor. Being stopped by police. That gender option on that ID card will benefit everyone who has it and needs it.”
However, some lawmakers in the state believe that the move is actually unhelpful and should have been decided by the people.
Rep. Tedd Nesbit, R-Mercer County, told The Daily Item that allowing residents to identify as neither male or female will make it difficult for police officers to provide identifying information.
“It’s an unnecessary change,” he said.
Rep. Lynda Schlegel-Culver, R-Northumberland County, also outlined to the outlet that she wonders whether the “X” marker would conflict with federal REAL ID requirements.
Pennsylvania already allows those who identify as transgender to select the sex that reflects their gender identity. Since 2010, men who identify as women — and vice versa — have been able to select the female option for their driver’s license.
However, the Pennsylvania Family Institute believes that since ID is a legal document, it should reflect biological information, not merely one’s feelings.
“Proponents of the legislation provide no answers to the many practical questions it raises,” President Michael Geer said in a statement. “If our state starts discarding biological sex from our identity documents, it will impact law enforcement, insurances, and medical care.”
Pennsylvania joins 13 other states and the District of Columbia in offering the “neither” option.
However, as previously reported, Jamie Shupe, the first person in the United States to be permitted by a court of law to identify as “non-binary” on his driver’s license has since renounced transgenderism and says that he is concerned that doctors were so quick to give him what he wanted just because of his feelings. He said that his mental issues were not properly addressed and cross-hormones did not alleviate his problems.
“In my thirty-plus-year marriage, I am the husband. To my daughter, I am her father. I no longer identify as a transgender or non-binary person and renounce all ties to transgenderism,” Shupe wrote in a blog post in January.
“I will not be a party to advancing harmful gender ideologies that are ruining lives, causing deaths and contributing to the sterilization and mutilation of gender-confused children,” he declared. “My history-making and landmark sex change to non-binary was a fraud based on the pseudoscience of gender identity. I am and have always been male. There should be no social or legal penalty for others to state that.”
While some view transgenderism as a mental health issue, Christians rather view the struggle as a spiritual issue — just one among many that those who have not been regenerated by the Spirit of God face from day to day.
The Bible teaches that all men are in the same predicament: All are born with the Adamic sin nature, having various inherent inclinations that are contrary to the law of God and being utterly incapable of changing themselves. It is why Jesus outlined in John 3:5-7 that men must pass from spiritual death to spiritual life by the second birth, or they cannot see the kingdom of Heaven.
“Jesus answered and said unto him, ‘Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.’ Nicodemus saith unto him, ‘How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?’ Jesus answered, ‘Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, ‘Ye must be born again.’
“Bitter experience teaches that the imprisoning net clings too tightly to be stripped from our limbs by our own efforts. Nay rather, the net and the captive are one, and he who tries to cast off the oppression which hinders him from following that which is good is trying to cast off himself,” also wrote the late preacher and Bible commentator Alexander Maclaren.
“But to men writhing in the grip of a sinful past, or paralyzed beyond writhing and indifferent, because [they are] hopeless, or because they have come to like their captivity, comes one whose name is ‘The Breaker,’ whose mission it is to proclaim liberty to the captives, and whose hand laid on the cords that bind a soul, causes them to drop harmless from the limbs and sets the bondsman free.”


 Violence and threats of violence against Trump supporters has been a problem since the early days of the President's campaign.
One America's Neil W. McCabe in Washington spoke to a young Trump supporter, who can no longer attend her high school because of the harassment.


Students Prevented From Attending UK School Because They Refuse to Wear "Gender Neutral" Uniforms

Schoolgirls Wearing Skirts Locked Out of School for Not Wearing 

Gender Neutral Uniforms


School told girls they could no longer wear skirts

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Female students at a school in the UK were prevented by officials and police from attending class because they refused to comply with a new “gender neutral” uniform policy.
Around 100 students protested outside the gates of Priory School in Lewes in response to a letter sent at the end of the summer advising they would be mandated to wear trousers at all times.
The school claimed that the policy change was put in place to “address inequality,” and be “inclusive,” but students and parents were outraged.
Students carrying signs that read “choice” were turned away at the gate, with police officers aiding school officials in the dispute.
“A gender neutral uniform would allow boys to wear skirts and girls to wear skirts and both to wear trousers,” said parent Sheila Cullen.
Others complained that they were being made to pay out over £100 for another uniform that would last just 9 months.
Maria Caulfield MP for Lewes asserted it was “ridiculous” to tells girls they couldn’t wear skirts.
“It is political correctness gone mad,” she said.


The Cultural Revolution comes to Priory School in Lewes, East Sussex

SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
[Order Jamie Glazov's new book, Jihadist Psychopath: How He is Charming, Seducing, and Devouring UsHERE.]
Demonstrations have recently erupted at Priory School in Lewes, East Sussex (U.K.), where parents and pupils are protesting a new school policy that mandates gender neutral uniforms for students. Girls who now show up to school in skirts are sent home to change into trousers. If they refuse to change and try to enter the school, police are called. The new rules are, of course, a product of the Left’s agenda -- especially in regards to its totalitarian “transgender” movement.
The new policy at Priory School is, naturally, being camouflaged with the excuse that the objective is to make transgender students feel more comfortable -- and to also have an environment more conducive to “learning and teaching.” But it's obvious what's really going on: the Left is waging its traditional war on gender differences, which it believes are socially constructed by the evil white-supremacist capitalist power structures.  
As we watch young girls in East Sussex being sent home from school if they commit the crime of wearing a skirt, it would do well for us to reflect on the foundations that serve as the impetus for this new utopian crackdown. The way that the Maoist Cultural Revolution in China imposed desexualized dress serves as a perfect example. Indeed, Maoist China imposed a unisex form of dress on its citizens, and it did so not only as a ruthless war on gender differences and individuality, but also as a calculated assault on the possibilities of private attractions, affections, and desires.
The central reality to gauge here is that desexualized dress satisfies in leftists their morbid pining for enforced sameness. It is crucial, in their world, to erase physical and emotional differences and attractions between people. In the utopian endgame, humans must all be replicas of each other and be completely devoted to the state -- and to its all-knowing administering of "equality" and "social justice". It is no surprise, therefore, that western leftists were enthralled with the Maoist social engineering experiment. As I document in United in Hate, fellow travelers who journeyed to worship at the altar of the Maoist killing fields flew into ecstasy upon witnessing the unisex clothing.
Let's recall a few examples:
American leftist academic Orville Schell adored China’s enforced mode of dress the moment he witnessed it. In his book, In the People’s Republic, he praised the “baggy uniformlike tunics” and wrote admiringly how, “The question of the shape of a person’s body is a moot one in China.”
Schell was very excited that physical attributes were subordinated in intimate relationships. He wrote that the Chinese had:
succeeded in fundamentally altering the notion of attractiveness by simply substituting some of these revolutionary attributes for the physical ones which play such an important role in Western courtship.
Schell also noted approvingly that, “The notion of ‘playing hard to get’ or exacerbating jealousies in order to win someone’s love does not appear to assume such a prominent role.” America’s Shirley MacLaine joined Schell in being deeply enamored with China’s totalitarian puritanism. Like all leftists, she would have surely viewed any restriction on women’s attire or sexual impulses in her own society as “capitalist oppression,” but for the Chinese people, the suffocation of unregulated love and sex was a magnificent thing in her eyes. In her book, You Can Get There, she wrote:
I could see for myself that in China you were able to forget about sex. There was no commercial exploitation of sex in order to sell soap, perfume, soft drinks, soda pop, or cars. The unisex uniforms also de-emphasized sexuality, and in an interesting way made you concentrate more on the individual character of the Chinese, regardless of his or her physical assets, or lack of them. . . . women had little need or even desire for such superficial things as frilly clothes and make-up, children loved work and were self-reliant. Relationships seemed free of jealousy and infidelity because monogamy was the law of the land and hardly anyone strayed. . . . It was a quantum leap into the future.
For French leftist Claudie Broyelle, meanwhile, one of the key accomplishments of the Maoist revolution was the cancelation of the “privatization of love.” In her book, Women’s Liberation in China, she gleefully stressed how love in China was now to be expressed not through personal and selfish capitalist avenues, but only through “revolutionary commitment.”
Broyelle noted with profound satisfaction that good looks were no longer important for Chinese women. Unlike the sexualized image of women in Western advertising, she boasted how, in China, there was a different image:
on wall posters, in newspapers, on the stage, everywhere. It is the picture of a worker or a peasant, with a determined expression and dressed very simply. . . . You can see her working, studying, taking part in a demonstration.
Schell, MacLaine, and Broyelle never, of course, spoke of the brutal truths that stared them right in the face. They didn’t dare to ask: How could jealousy possibly arise, or infidelity be practiced, in a society where privacy did not exist and infidelity would land you in a concentration camp at best, and get you executed at worst? What if a Chinese citizen chose not to forget about sex and made his lack of forgetfulness evident? And what if a man or a woman wore clothes that did not de-emphasize his or her sexuality? What would happen to them? It is clear, of course, why these leftists never asked these questions -- and why they also never visited a Chinese concentration camp to investigate who was imprisoned there, how they were suffering, and why.
The yearning for totalitarian puritanism that was witnessed among leftists in Maoist China does not mean, of course, that leftists are non-sexual. To the contrary, many of them are highly sexually promiscuous and also passionately active in promoting promiscuity. The issue here is what cause is being served. Women’s “sexual self-determination” is, for instance, adamantly supported by leftists if it enables their war against their own host democratic-capitalist societies -- and if it can hurt the Judeo-Christian tradition. But if a totalitarian adversarial society is stifling women’s rights in this context, then leftists vehemently support that oppression, since they typically worship the particular tyranny in question and gleefully welcome the threat it poses to their own host society -- which they hate and want to destroy.
It is important to remember how, some fifty years ago, the terrorist group Weather Underground not only waged war against American society through violence and mayhem, but also encouraged promiscuity -- while forbidding private love -- within its own ranks. This constituted an eerie replay of the sexual promiscuity that was enforced (while private love was outlawed) in dystopian novels such as We1984, and Brave New World.  All of this is precisely why the radical Left and Sharia supporters detest Valentine’s Day – since it is a day devoted to the love between a man and a woman, a bond that dangerously threatens the totality.
And so, we begin to understand why, just as the devotion to totalitarian puritanism played a central role in the Left’s solidarity with Maoist China -- and with other vicious Communist regimes -- so too it serves as a core component of the Left’s current romance with Islam. Indeed, Maoists’ unisex clothing rules find their parallel in Islam’s mandate for shapeless coverings -- to be worn by both males and females. The collective “uniform” symbolizes submission to a “higher entity” and cancels out individual expression, mutual physical attraction, and private connection and affection.
Just as Orville Schell, Claudie Broyelle, and Shirley MacLaine were enchanted with the enforced Maoist dress that attempted to desexualize Chinese citizens, so too the new generation of leftists solemnly genuflect before the Islamic Hijab. The Hijab, like the Maoist uniform, attracts leftists by virtue of not only how it negates individuality and personal connection, but also how it reflects women being mandated to wear it under an adversary culture. Longing to submerge themselves into a totality where their own choices will be negated, leftists are always drawn to a totalitarian entity within which they can shed themselves of their own unwanted selves.
As I document in United in Hate and Jihadist Psychopath, all of this is precisely why leftists are today on the side of the Sharia-enforcers who persecute women who dare to not wear Hijab. To be sure, it is transparently evident why leftist feminists in particular callously turn their backs on murdered Muslim girls like Aqsa Parvezand heartlessly ignore the suffering Iranian women and girls who are today imprisoned, raped and killed for daring not to wear the Hijab.
And so, there is no mystery about what is currently transpiring at Priory School in Lewes, East Sussex, UK. The Left is simply continuing its Maoist Cultural revolution -- just as it is faithfully emulating the ingredients of Sharia that it treasures most. In its hatred for humans, and in its unquenchable lust to control who and what they are, the self-appointed social redeemers of our time are now waging war on the femininity and freedom of young girls in the United Kingdom.
And in that evolving and accelerating utopian enterprise, they are succeeding frighteningly well.
*Jamie Glazov holds a Ph.D. in History with a specialty in Russian, U.S. and Canadian foreign policy. He is the editor of, the author of the critically-acclaimed, United in Hate: The Left’s Romance with Tyranny and Terror, and the host of the web-tv show, The Glazov Gang. His new book is Jihadist Psychopath: How He is Charming, Seducing, and Devouring Us. Visit his site at, follow him on Twitter: @JamieGlazov, and reach him at