PODCAST: Voter ID. Rep. Bob Barr: Speech Trump Needs to Make. Red Flag bills.

GUESTS:

Hans von Spakovsky is an authority on a wide range of issues – including civil rights, civil justice, the First Amendment, immigration, the rule of law and government reform — as a senior legal fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. His analysis and commentary have appeared in The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Times, Politico, Human Events, National Review Online and Townhall. Along with John Fund, he is the co-author of Who’s Counting? How Fraudsters and Bureaucrats Put Your Vote at Risk and Obama’s Enforcer: Eric Holder’s Justice Department

TOPICVoter ID Opponents Lose Again!!

Congressman Bob Barr represented Georgia’s 7th District in the House of Representatives. He now practices law in Atlanta, Georgia and is Chairman of Liberty Guard a non-profit, pro-liberty organization. He also heads the Law Enforcement Education Foundation and a consulting firm, Liberty Strategies.

TOPICThe Follow-up Speech Trump Needs to Make

Rob Natelson has divided his professional life between the private for-profit sector, the private non-profit sector, and state and local government. A former law professor and nationally known constitutional scholar, he is currently a self-employed consultant who serves as senior fellow in constitutional jurisprudence at the Independence Institute in Denver.

TOPICRed Flag bills: Attack on the Bill of Rights!!

Nazism returns: European Union to put warning labels on Jewish-made products

Europe has gone down this road before. It didn’t end well. This time, its principal motivator is the continent’s rapidly growing Muslim population, as well as its endless infatuation with an increasingly anti-Semitic Left.

Europe Poised to Put Warning Labels on Jewish-Made Products,” by Adam Kredo, Washington Free Beacon, August 9, 2019:

The European Union is poised to mandate that Israeli products made in contested territories carry consumer warning labels, a decision that could trigger American anti-boycott laws and open up what legal experts describe as a “Pandora’s box” of litigation, according to multiple sources involved in the legal dispute who spoke to the Washington Free Beacon.

The Advocate General of the European Court of Justice recently issued non-binding opinion arguing that EU law requires Israeli-made products to be labeled as coming from “settlements” and “Israeli colonies.”

The decision was seen as a major win for supporters of the anti-Semitic Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement, or BDS, which seeks to wage economic warfare on Israel and its citizens. Pro-Israel activists, as well as the Jewish businesses involved in the legal dispute, see the decision as an ominous warning sign that they say is reminiscent of Holocaust-era boycotts of Jewish businesses.

With the EU court’s 15 judge panel now poised to issue its own binding judgment in the case, legal experts are warning that a potential decision mandating such labeling could pave the way for goods from any disputed territory to receive such treatment. The decision also could trigger U.S. anti-boycott laws meant to stop Israeli-made goods from being singled out for unfair treatment on the international market….

The legal dispute first began after France passed a law mandating that products made in the West Bank territory of Israel be labeled as coming from an “Israeli colony,” a label not applied to any other products across the globe.

The term “Israeli colony” is not legally required to be applied under EU law and was seen as overly burdensome by Israeli business leaders.

Following the French decision, the Israeli Psagot winery filed a lawsuit alleging unlawful discrimination against Jewish companies. That lawsuit eventually made its way to Europe’s highest court, the European Court of Justice.

That court now appears poised to affirm the advocate general’s opinion mandating that Israeli goods be labeled in a fashion that opponents say is unfair and anti-Semitic in nature….

RELATED ARTICLES:

The New York Times, Aftenposten, Robert Spencer, Richard Spencer, and journalistic standards in 2019

NY imam active in interfaith work distributes pro-jihad propaganda on the side

Missouri: Muslim migrant gets five years prison dawah for providing support to jihad terrorists

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

VIDEO: It’s in writing. Pedophilia is a part of the postmodern agenda…

Posted by Eeyore

Beyond the main point of the signatures of the founders and main thinkers of the French, postmodern philosophers all demanding that pedophilia be made legal, these guys make a lot of good points.

Also, it is food for thought about how similar the push to make little boys into drag queen strippers for adult men mirrors Afghan Muslim culture.

H/T Xanthippa

Democrats Fiddle While Iran Burns

“A serious annual defense budget will have to wait.”Andrew E. Harrod, Ph.D.


Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) forces seized the British oil tanker Stena Impero on July 19, an outrage that follows Iran’s June 13 attacks on two oil tankers and the June 20 downing of an American drone. Yet rather than focusing on an increasingly volatile Iran, congressional Democrats are more interested in political gamesmanship than national security when dealing with the defense budget.

Cornered by international sanctions, Iran is lashing out with escalating viciousness, as ongoing economic turmoil has truly made both people and government desperate. This has culminated in the regime’s most recent proclamation of capturing 17 “U.S. spies.” Likely untrue, this claim illustrates how Iran’s hunger for conflict threatens American national security.

Accordingly, President Donald Trump correctly announced July 22 that the United States is bracing for the “absolute worst” with Iran. He already came to the brink of an airstrike against Iran following Iran’s destruction of the American drone in international airspace. Concern over Iranian casualties caused him to abort the mission at the very last minute.

While Trump’s administration is wisely taking seriously the magnitude of Iran’s dangers, on July 12 House Democrats passed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the Department of Defense’s (DoD) annual budget, by strict party-line vote, with not one Republican among 220 congressional supporters. Unsurprisingly, the legislation is a transparently partisan piece of political theater.

The House NDAA amalgamates progressive political amendments that have little, if anything, to do with protecting America from serious national security threats like those posed by Iran. Various provisions regard renewable energy mandates, LGBT defense hiring practices, and other defense-unrelated line items. Where the bill does address national security, the proposal seems more apt to spite Trump than actually keep Americans safe. Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), for example, sponsored an amendment that would block Trump from striking Iran military.

While international perils escalate, the House NDAA also hamstrings DoD programs with slashing budget cuts to multiple national security initiatives. The United States Air Force’s (USAF) Next Generation Air Dominance program lost $500 million, a whopping 50-percent budget reduction. Cuts of this magnitude would devastate the program, leading to the cancellation of critical new aerospace technology and substantial production timeline delays.

And the damage does not end there. The bill would also slice $413 million from the Missile Defense Agency and thus limit the agency’s ability to combat potential threats to the homeland. Overall, the NDAA provides $17 billion less than requested by the Trump administration.

Even worse, crony capitalism litters the NDAA. Perhaps most controversially, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Adam Smith squeezed into the bill his very own $500 million “SpaceX earmark.” This notorious giveaway to an aerospace company rewards an all-too-frequent Smith political donor.

In addition to cutting an enormous check to a partisan ally, Smith’s provision also restructures USAF’s National Security Space Launch program to SpaceX’s clear advantage. The bill would force USAF to reopen the program’s government contracts contest, allowing private companies more opportunities to compete. USAF considers this boon for SpaceX, a loser in initial competitions, a national security disaster, as Smith’s political interests would disrupt meticulous USAF planning, throwing the entire program’s structure into chaos.

Democrats have instigated this politically frustrating situation while Iran’s increased aggression against the West warns that the American military needs sufficient resources to combat any and all potential threats. House Democrats are more interested in playing domestic politics with Trump, irrespective of strategic consequences beyond the water’s edge, rather than assuring America’s security on the world stage. Such congressional leaders might prefer to follow the late Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill in thinking that “all politics is local. Iran’s theocratic ayatollahs have other plans, unconstrained by lobbying constituencies.”

The House NDAA is dead on arrival in the Republican-controlled Senate, and, for good measure, the White House has threatened to veto the legislation if brought to the president’s desk. This overwhelmingly partisan legislation delivers ample political pork but fails to secure America’s common defense. Now, Senate Republicans face the vital responsibility of crafting an NDAA worthy of America’s defense.

ABOUT ANDREW E. HARROD, PH.D.

Andrew E. Harrod holds a Ph.D. from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and a J.D. from George Washington University Law School. He is a fellow with the Lawfare Project, an organization combating the misuse of human rights law against Western societies, and has written over 450 articles in print and online at outlets like the Algemeiner, The American Spectator, American Thinker, Breitbart, the Investigative Project on Terrorism, Jihad Watch, and the Washington Times. This article was cross-posted from The American Spectator.

RELATED ARTICLES:

In 5 States, 1 in 5 Prisoners are Muslim

Islamic Republic of Iran arrests 70 cyclists for not wearing hijab

CNN’s Islamic terror fan Reza Aslan says all Trump supporters are terror supporters

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

How the 2020 Democratic Primary has turned into a Socialist Circus

Americans have now had four nights of debates from those 20+ candidates seeking the Democratic nomination for president. The Democrats during the July 31st debate began eating one another based upon their records. They began calling each other racists.

Watch this Kamala Harris, Joe Biden and Tulsi Gabbard exchange:

What have the people learned from these debates?

Perhaps it is useful to look back at what David Axelrod said on CNN after the first round of debates:

It does seem as if you’re running for president that you ought to take into consideration what the country wants. And the fact is large numbers of people oppose the Medicare for All proposal if it replaces private insurance. We’ve seen it in poll after poll, a large number of people in this country do not believe the border should be decriminalized. A large number of people in did country don’t believe that undocumented immigrants should qualify for public [aid]…

What Doesn’t America Want?

What America doesn’t want is what has now become a Socialist Circus of policies which include:

  1. Giving free stuff to illegals,
  2. Calling everyone a racist who disagrees with you,
  3. Open borders,
  4. Higher taxes,
  5. Fewer jobs,
  6. More and more government control,
  7. No more fossil fuels?!
  8. Socialist Kool-Aid

What Do Americans Want?

Conservative Review reported the following:

On Monday, Heritage Action for America released the results of three different polls conducted by two different research firms in March and June. What do the numbers say? Nothing any Democrat charged with actually winning a general election after this far-left purity contest of a primary will want to hear.

The first poll, conducted among 1,200 likely voters in June with a margin of error of 2.83 percent, found:

  • 70 percent of voters, including 65 percent of swing-state voters, oppose the creation of a government run health care system like Medicare for All.
  • Independent voters think skills are are more important factor for legal immigration than family ties.
  • A plurality of Democrats, Republicans, and independents think the overuse of social services is the biggest challenge associated with illegal immigration (which is really bad news for the people who raised their hands to pay for illegal aliens’ health care).
  • 79 percent of respondents (including a majority of Democrats) said they believe that political correctness is a problem.
  • A 45 percent plurality of Democrats, Republicans, and independents think that abortion should be “illegal in most cases” with “some exceptions.”
  • 76 percent of voters said that doctors should be required to provide health care to abortion survivors.
  • 62 percent of respondents don’t think biological males should be allowed to identify as female to play on sports teams at school.
  • 30 percent of Democrats and 56 percent of independents surveyed think that the Democratic party has become too extreme, with 57 percent of respondents overall agreeing.

A separate “swing state survey,” which was conducted among 1,800 likely voters across the battleground states of Arizona, Florida, Iowa, Maine, and Pennsylvania later in June with a margin of error of 2.31 percent, found:

  • 63 percent of respondents said the border crisis is a national emergency.
  • 65 percent of respondents oppose getting rid of private health insurance to create a government-run system, including 40 percent of Democrats.
  • 65 percent of respondents in those states agree that “Socialism is a bad economic system that leads to bigger government, less freedom, worse economic conditions, and more welfare dependency.”
  • A majority of independents agreed that they “can no longer support the national Democratic Party because they have become too liberal in recent years by supporting radical ideas.”

The candidates for the Democratic nomination will have to change their tune or lose big in 2020.

As former President Bill Clinton said, “It’s the economy stupid.” As David Axelrod said, “It does seem as if you’re running for president that you ought to take into consideration what the country wants.”

President Trump simply needs to sit back and watch. He will continue to tweet, he will continue to listen to what the people want, he will continue to grow the American economy, he will continue to put American interests first and he will continue to lead the nation into prosperity for all.

Can’t wait to see the first debate between President Trump and the Democratic Party nominee.

© All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump, Baltimore, and the Diminishing Potency of the ‘Race Card’

Two Nights of Three-Ring Debates

‘Fixing’ Our Democracy Would Only Make Matters Worse

Candidates Sell Socialist-Flavored Kool-Aid at Debate

Joe Biden Becomes The Left’s Punching Bag During Second CNN Debate

Protesters Interrupt Booker, De Blasio At CNN Debate To Call For NYC Cop To Be Fired

Biden And Castro Spar Over Border Decriminalization

RELATED PODCAST: CNS News’s Terry Jeffrey Provides Analysis of the Democratic Presidential Debate

The Humanitarian Hoax of Islamic Zakat: Killing America With Kindness

The Humanitarian Hoax is a deliberate and deceitful tactic of presenting a destructive policy as altruistic. The humanitarian huckster presents himself as a compassionate advocate when in fact he is the disguised enemy.

Barack Obama’s infamous June 2009 “New Beginnings” Cairo speech laid the groundwork for eight years of pro-Islamic policies at the expense of Judeo-Christian America. One of Obama’s least understood and most destructive promises made in Cairo involved Islamic terror financing disguised as charitable giving and humanitarian relief. This is how it works.

There are Five Pillars of Islam that govern Muslim life. They are acknowledged, obligatory, and practiced by Muslims worldwide:

1. Shahada – the profession of faith
2. Salat – five times a day prayer
3. Zakat – charitable giving
4. Sawm – fasting
5. Hajj – pilgrimage to Mecca

Zakat, the Third Pillar of Islam, requires Muslims to deduct a portion of their income to support the Islamic community. It is a religious obligation, a mandatory charitable contribution or tax, usually about 2.5% of an individual’s income. Zakat sounds familiar and unthreatening like traditional tithing to churches, synagogues, and temples paid by Christians, Jews, and Buddhists around the world.

On June 4, 2009 in Cairo, Obama exploited that familiarity and promised the Muslim world he would make zakat easier for American Muslims saying, “Freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to live together. We must always examine the ways in which we protect it. For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation. That’s why I’m committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat.” So, what is the problem?

Zakat is not charitable giving like traditional charitable giving in other religions. In 2009 Obama knew that zakat was being used to finance Islamic terrorism. WHAT?? Obama knew? Let’s examine the chronological dates to confirm what Obama knew and when he knew it.

In August of 2004, Robert Mueller’s FBI had already discovered the infamous 1991 Muslim Brotherhood “Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North Over North America.” The document was used as evidence in the 2007 Holy Land Foundation trial. The Memorandum, is the Brotherhood’s manifesto to settle America and make it Muslim. The Muslim Brotherhood is a multi-national organization and parent company of the terrorist group Hamas.

On July 23, 2007 the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development and seven principal individuals went on trial charged with:

  • 12 counts of providing material support and resources to a designated foreign terrorist organization – Hamas
  • 13 counts of money laundering
  • 13 counts of breaching the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) which prohibits transactions that threaten American national security

On October 22, 2007 a mistrial was declared because the jury had been unable to deliver unanimous verdicts on most of the counts. The government streamlined its presentation and retried the case proving that the Holy Land Foundation was a Hamas funder fully controlled by Hamas, and that the principals knew the money they raised in the United States was being used to finance Hamas.

On November 24, 2008 the jury convicted five of the principals on various counts, and the Holy Land Foundation on all 32 counts.

The Holy Land Foundation (HLF) was a political organization disguised as a charitable organization. It was the biggest Islamic “charity” in the United States and existed to help Hamas jihadis eliminate the State of Israel and replace it with an Islamic Palestinian state. The terror-funding Holy Land “charity” and its defendants provided approximately $12.4 million in support. Unless Obama was unconscious for the two years between the Holy Land Foundation trial July 2007, the convictions November, 2008, and his Cairo speech in June, 2009, Obama knew that zakat was being used to fund terrorism.

The Holy Land Foundation was the largest terror-funding trial in U.S. history and was all over the news. The seven named defendants, and 300 unindicted co-conspirators were listed in government documents. The Muslim Brotherhood’s propaganda arm, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), is one of the unindicted co-conspirators on the list. According to Justice Department records, “The Holy Land Foundation was the chief fundraising arm for the Palestine Committee in the U.S. created by the Muslim Brotherhood to support Hamas.”

An August 22, 2007 National Review article titled “Coming Clean About CAIR” details CAIR’s involvement with the Holy Land Foundation and how its executive director Nihad Awad attended the Muslim Brotherhood 1993 Palestine Committee meeting.

Barack Obama was president-elect of the United States when the Holy Land Foundation and its principals were convicted. He had to know that the Holy Land Foundation was using zakat to fund terrorism and yet, according to FBI whistleblower Philip Haney, “Obama’s Justice Department shut the Holy Land Foundation trial down in 2009 despite its success in rooting out an underground network of financial donors to Hamas under the cover of ‘charity.’” They did what??

Obama knowing that the Holy Land Foundation “charity” was guilty of financing terrorists still promised to find ways to help Muslims in America fulfill zakat. That brings us to Leo Hohmann’s stunning 5.18.16 article, “Refugees Sending Suitcases of Welfare Cash Home to Somalis.”  WHAT??

In a jaw-dropping expose, Hohmann reveals that in 2015, ”Men and women pulling ‘suitcases full of cash’ started showing up at Seattle’s Sea-Tac Airport holding tickets for international flights bound for Africa.” Law enforcement noticed. The suitcase haulers were Somali-Americans who had come to the United States as refugees. So far so good. The problem was that they were also cash couriers working for Islamic hawalas. Hawala is the Arabic word for “transfer.”

The hawala system is an underground method of transferring money outside of traditional banking or wire transfers. The hawala is a “trust” system used extensively by sharia-compliant Muslim immigrants sending money back home to avoid fees, and by Islamic terrorists to avoid a paper trail. Al Qaeda uses the hawala system and so do Somali suitcase haulers.

Kerns, a Seattle police officer and 14 year member of the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force, decided to investigate the suspicious hawala transactions. Most Somali refugees receive welfare payments, so American taxpayer monies were being sent back to Somalia and Kerns wanted to determine how much of the money was going to Al-Shabaab, the Somali terrorist organization.

Hawalas are big business. Kerns recounted, “The first cash shipment discovered at Sea-Tac was a man carrying $750,000 in cash who told Customs officials he was transporting the money overseas. Over the next few months couriers carrying as much as $2 million boarded commercial flights at Sea-Tac. One Seattle hawala sent back $20 million in 2015.”

Kerns analyzed financial records filed with the Washington State Department of Financial Institutions and confirmed that the 10 hawala clients transferring the most money all were receiving welfare benefits. Kerns said that it was “Straight up fraud – every one of them.” Kerns suspected that if welfare fraud was being committed in Seattle, it was probably happening in other large Somali settlement communities in the U.S as well. 

Kerns and an agent from another federal agency took their case to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Seattle. Acting U.S. Attorney General Annette L. Hayes, an Obama/Holder appointee, was in charge at the time and refused to prosecute the case! WHAT? WHY NOT?

Philip Haney and Art Moore, co-authors of the book See Something Say Nothing: A Homeland Security Officer Exposes the Government’s Submission to Jihad, have the answers. Haney and Moore explain that Islamic supremacism is the problem, the idea of countering “violent extremism” is completely absurd. Obama’s pro-Islam policies were protecting Islamic terror financing that was disguised as charitable zakat, was derived from welfare fraud, and was being delivered by Islamic hawalas.

See Something Say Nothing exposes “. . . how deeply the submission, denial, and deception run. Haney’s insider, eyewitness account, supported by internal memos and documents, exposes a federal government capitulating to an enemy and punishing those who reject its narrative.” Haney explains how Obama’s administration, including the FBI under directors Mueller and Comey, launched sweeping changes in the way federal agents are able to screen out radical Islamists from entering the U.S. with a little known policy change not processed through Congress. 

The “terrorism inadmissibility grounds” (TRIG) is an amendment to the Immigration and Nationality Act that created a statutory exemption provision through which the Secretaries of Homeland Security and State can exempt individuals from the grounds of inadmissibility:

On February 5, 2014 the Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson and the Secretary of State John Kerry (the “Secretaries”), following with the Attorney General Eric Holder, exercised their discretionary authority not to apply the material support inadmissibility ground to certain applicants who provided certain limited material support to an undesignated terrorist organization, or to a member of such an organization. Limited material support may include:

  • Certain routine commercial transactions;
  • Certain routine social transactions;
  • Certain humanitarian assistance; and
  • Material Support provided under substantial pressure that does not rise to the level of duress (‘sub-duress pressure’).”

So, Barack Obama exercised discretionary authority to ignore zakat infractions, institutionalized taqiyyah (lying in the service of Islam), and sacrificed American Homeland security to Islamic supremacist sharia law. Obama’s “words matter” memo imposed the sharia compliant demands of Muslim leaders on the Department of Homeland Security. This included stripping the intelligence and official communications of any mention of Islam in association with terrorism. Islamic terrorism was renamed violent extremism. Obama purged training materials that cast Islam in a negative light, erasing and altering vital intelligence on terrorists and terror threats. Barack Obama was the most anti-American president in United States history.

For eight years Barack Obama protected Islam at the expense of America. Whistleblower Philip Haney tried to raise American awareness of the existential threat of Islam because it is not a religion like any other. Islam is a socio-political movement disguised as a religion that is determined to establish a global caliphate ruled under supremacist religious sharia law. Simply stated, Islam’s unapologetic goal is to convert the world into a global Islamic theocracy.

The globalist Bush administration, and the pro-Muslim Obama administration both protected Islamic leaders and their supremacist beliefs at the expense of America, American citizens, and the Constitution of the United States. George W. Bush insisted that Islam is a religion of peace, Barack Obama insisted that Islam is a religion like any other. Islam is neither. Islam is an expansionist political ideology with a religious wing seeking world dominion. Today, the security of the United States of America is still compromised by the Bush/Obama political decisions to protect Islam at the expense of America.

The Culture War against America is being fought by the leftist/Islamist/globalist axis seeking to destabilize and overthrow our duly elected America-first President Donald Trump. The 2020 presidential elections will determine the future course of America. Will she remain a sovereign independent nation ruled by the United States Constitution? Will she devolve into a collectivist state ruled by leftists promoting socialism? Will she collapse into an Islamic caliphate ruled by sharia law?

The Holy Land Foundation breached the International Emergency Economic Powers Act prohibiting transactions that threaten the security of the United States. The Somali cash couriers did as well – their hawalas fund Al-Qaeda affiliated Al-Shabaab terrorists in Somalia. Al-Shabaab’s brutal persecution and genocide against Christians has depopulated Christian Somalis to only a few hundred in a nation of over 11 million. Islamic terrorism is murdering the opposition to its intended caliphate.

The humanitarian hoax of Islamic zakat continues to endanger America. Obama knowingly facilitated the deceitful use of zakat to fund terrorism, and his policies have not been reversed. America-first President Donald Trump must nullify Obama’s deceitful TRIG amendment that created the statutory exemption for Islamic zakat. President Trump must protect America and restore Homeland Security’s authority to prosecute those who exploit our welfare system to fund terrorism.

On 9/11/2001 Islamists declared war on Judeo-Christian America. It is time to admit that Islamic terrorism is not “violent extremism,” it is part of Islam’s comprehensive religious war against non-believers. Islam has been fighting its religious war against the Judeo-Christian world since the 7th century, and Islam is on the march again. Judeo-Christian denial is not a survival strategy for Western civilization.

We must oppose Islamist expansionism and end the humanitarian hoax of zakat if America is to remain a free, sovereign, Constitutional republic. We must stand firm and proudly preserve our Judeo-Christian culture and moral values. We must never apologize for being American and for our signature ethos of hard work, equal opportunity, and the meritocracy which made America the freest, fairest, greatest nation in the world.

Islamists insist the world belongs to Allah. Islamists believe that using their mandatory religious obligation for zakat to fund worldwide Islamic terrorism is their duty. Islamists wrote the Muslim Brotherhood’s Explanatory Memorandum articulating its stealth civilization jihad to make America Muslim. The Muslim Brotherhood and every one of its seditious offshoots are dangerous enemies of the state and must be designated as terrorist organizations.

EDITORS NOTE: This Goudsmit Pundicity column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

Tesla: More Than Just A Car Company

If you know anything about Tesla it’s probably the following two points:

  1. They make electric, semi-autonomous automobiles.
  2. The company is led by controversial billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk.

A deeper dive, however, reveals some additional information that many individuals may prove interesting, if not surprising, to many.

Humble, Yet Sporty Beginnings

While the South African born Musk (who also co-founded online payment processor PayPal and space technology firm SpaceX, the latter of which he still oversees) has served as the public face of Tesla since 2008, it was actually founded five years earlier by two American engineers – Martin Eberhard and Marc Terpenning.

Tesla’s first electric vehicle, the Tesla Roadster, debuted in 2008 and was far ahead of its time. A prototype of sorts in which Tesla only built 2,450 vehicles, the car achieved performance numbers once exclusively reserved for gasoline-powered sports cars.

0 to 60 in 3.7 seconds.

A top speed of 250 mph.

All with a range of 244 miles on a single charge – arguably the most impressive number.

new version of the Roadster, due in 2020, looks to raise the bar even further on the capabilities of an electric sports car.

Its second vehicle, the Model S sedan, launched in 2012.

Although their main focus is cars, Tesla does have a burgeoning business in solar energy with residential solar roof tiles and panels and their residential home battery the Powerwall.

The company also offers a commercial and utility version of its solar energy and storage solutions.

Although Tesla is first and foremost an automaker, the company, much like its namesake, is just as much an innovator.

To understand where the US’s only fully electric car company has been and their plans for the future, we must answer two initial questions for where the company is staking its biggest claim – what is an electric car and what is automotive autonomy.

What is an Electric Car?

Electric cars come in two varieties – hybrids and battery electric vehicles or EVs. Hybrid electric cars, to varying degrees, utilize both gasoline and electricity to power their engines. EVs are fully electric.

No gas. No combustion engine. Just an electric engine powered by fully rechargeable batteries.

The primary selling point to EVs is zero emissions. It’s an important distinction for the lithium-ion battery-powered Teslas.

Although the company may deal exclusively in high-end, fully electric vehicles, its founding was less as an automaker and more on the principle of creating something that did not consume gasoline.

According to Martin Eberhard:

“I didn’t start as an electric car enthusiast but as a non-fossil fuel enthusiast.” 

In order to realize this early goal, Tesla’s ultimate plan is to control every aspect of production and become a fully vertical electric car company. This includes making its batteries in-house.

What is Automotive (or Vehicle) Autonomy?

Apart from producing wholly electric vehicles, Tesla aims to produce automobiles that one day will be fully autonomous.

What exactly does that mean? Here’s a quick lesson in the six levels of vehicle autonomy:

  • Level 0 – No Automation: Driver controls every aspect of the driving experience.
  • Level 1 – Driver Assistance: Vehicle features one automated system (such as cruise control).
  • Level 2 – Partial Automation: Autonomy includes regulation of speed and lane awareness in optimal conditions (interstate driving, for example), but the driver still monitors and controls vehicle
  • Level 3 – Conditional Automation: Huge leap in technology from level 2 to level 3 with the vehicle able to self-drive in most circumstances, but driver influence is required.
  • Level 4 – High Automation: Vehicle is fully autonomous in most conditions; a driver can still override in certain situations or emergencies.
  • Level 5 – Full Automation: No gas or brake pedals, no steering wheel, no physical driving skills necessary.

Tesla vehicles currently achieve around Level 2 autonomy.

However, the company states that its Tesla Computer chip is already installed on all of their latest car models, and all those due to come after. Significant because, as Elon Musk states:

“All cars being produced all have the hardware necessary – computer and otherwise – for full self-driving. All you need to do is improve the software.”

Translation: The hardware is installed, and the Tesla cars are designed and built to one day drive themselves, but the software, and, really the whole idea of a fully autonomous vehicle remains a work in progress.

Tesla’s First Generation of Automobiles

What isn’t a work in progress are the actual cars that Tesla produces.

We’ve already noted the groundbreaking Roadster, which piqued the curiosity of car enthusiasts everywhere. But the car that grabbed everyone’s attention was the Model S.

After Tesla’s initial public offering in 2010, which generated almost $230 million in capital, the Model S sedan was released in 2012. Running between 235 and 300 miles on a single charge based on the battery options purchased, the Model S represented a leap forward in mass production of electric cars.

In the years following its release, the Model S received accolades from both professionals and car enthusiasts. It was named car of the year by both Motor Trend (2013) and Car and Driver (2015), has been on Consumer Reports Recommended List since 2016.

Produced at an assembly plant in Fremont, California, the car topped the electric car sales charts in both 2015 and 2016. It ranks second only to the Nissan Leaf in total sales (although it’s worth noting the Leaf has been in production longer and is considerably cheaper).

As of today, the Model S has sold over 250,000 units, over half of which are in the US. On its Long Range version, the S can achieve a range of 370 miles on a single charge – the highest level of performance of any current electric car.

In 2015, Tesla launched the Model X crossover SUV. It’s a bit of a misnomer as the X is built on a car chassis, but its styling and function lend itself comparison to SUVs as opposed to sedans.

While not nearly as celebrated as the Model S, Tesla’s crossover still represented a considerable breakthrough for electric vehicles as it was the first commercially available, fully electric SUV on the road.

However, as groundbreaking as they may, both the Model S and the Model X remain out of reach and impractical for most consumers. The Model S ranges in price from $75,000 to near $96,000 and the Model X runs from $81,000 to over $102,000 (not counting electric car incentives or gas savings).

Tesla, though, is looking to expand its customer base.

The Model 3 and Model Y

The entry-level Model 3, which is already in production, and the mid-range Model Y, set to start production in 2020 (although it is available for order), look to bring Tesla into a crowded and highly competitive market segment.

Starting at $35,000, the Model 3 will be in direct competition with the aforementioned Nissan Leaf, as well as the Chevy BoltHyundai Kona, and Kia Niro.

The Model Y will serve as Tesla’s company crossover – an increasingly popular segment within the car industry. The purchase price starts at $48,000.

Compared to the established line of Tesla autos, the Model 3 and Model Y, don’t offer anything remarkably new, except of course for the lower price points.

What they do signal though, is the beginning of a new business model for Tesla, and for the auto industry as a whole – online car purchasing. The move will pit Tesla against the more traditional dealership-driven car buying method, which has been protected by state laws for decades.

Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety president Rosemary Shahan elaborates on what the change would mean for future customers:

“What Tesla is proposing is actually consumer-friendly. It gives you more of an opportunity to take control of the action, and you’re not on the dealer’s turf.” 

Although it does mean lost jobs for some at Tesla, according to a memo Musk sent to employees, the ultimate goal is affordability:

“Unfortunately, this means that some jobs will be impacted or transitioned to other areas of the business. This is a hard decision, but it [store closings] is necessary to make our cars more affordable.”

Tesla’s Future

Much like the transition to online-only vehicle sales and bringing battery production in-house, there is only one word that aptly describes Tesla’s outlook for the future – ambitious.

For starters, Tesla has plans to increase its already expansive network of superchargers, the electric car equivalent of a gas station. In doubling its network, as well as releasing a next-gen version, the plans are to have superchargers close to 95% of the population in “active” markets – read: where a lot Tesla’s have been purchased.

Next up is the bold claim from Musk (which he has a habit of making) is that Tesla plans on having a full network of robotaxis available at some point in 2020. In Musk’s words:

“I feel very confident predicting that there will be autonomous robotaxis from Tesla next year — not in all jurisdictions because we won’t have regulatory approval everywhere. From our standpoint, if you fast forward a year, maybe a year and three months, but next year for sure, we’ll have over a million robotaxis on the road. The fleet wakes up with an over the air update; that’s all it takes.”

Finally, it’s worth noting that Tesla even has plans for its first truck, which would ultimately match its offerings with every other major manufacturer. Musk called the new vehicle a “cyberpunk truck” at a recent shareholders meetings.

From a sports car to a pick-up truck and all-electric points in between, Tesla has indeed made the transition from car maker to innovator.  Not too bad for a company that started merely as a means to save a few fossil fuels.

RELATED ARTICLE: PROMOTING DOMESTIC TERRORISM: The Antifa Bomber hated Elon Musk? Why?

EDITORS NOTE: This PartCatalog.com column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

It’s about the content of Elijah Cummings’ character, not the color of his skin

Before I begin to address the latest twitter storm focused on Congressman Elijah Cummings (D-MD District 7) let’s look at some data on Cummings’ district, which includes much of the City of Baltimore but reaches into Baltimore and Howard counties.

It is important to note that the Baltimore City Council Presidents since 1923 to today have all been Democrats. It is also important to know that all of the current members of the Baltimore City Council are Democrats.

According to the BALTIMORE CITY: 2017 NEIGHBORHOOD HEALTH PROFILE released by the Baltimore City Health Department:

  • The Baltimore population is Black or African American 62.8%.
  • The percentage of children living in single-parent household is 64.8%.
  • The of Baltimore citizens unemployed is 13.1%.
  • The percentage of Baltimore families in poverty is 28.8%.
  • Baltimore has a Hardship Index of 51. (The Hardship Index combines information from six socioeconomic indicators – housing, poverty, unemployment, education, income, and dependency.)
  • The rate of rat complaints in Baltimore is 408.8 per 10,000 households.
  • The City of Baltimore’s homicide rate is 3.9, with the youth homicide mortality rate at 31.3. (The homicide rate is based upon the number of homicides that occurred per 10,000 residents.)

U.S. Congressman Elijah Cummings, and Maryland’s 7th District, are now the focus of President Trump. Why?

Here is House Oversight and Reform Committee Chair Congressman Elijah Cummings (D-MD) yelling at President Trump’s acting DHS chief.

After watching this exchange President Trump tweeted:

Rep, Elijah Cummings has been a brutal bully, shouting and screaming at the great men & women of Border Patrol about conditions at the Southern Border, when actually his Baltimore district is FAR WORSE and more dangerous. His district is considered the Worst in the USA……

….As proven last week during a Congressional tour, the Border is clean, efficient & well run, just very crowded. Cumming District is a disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess. If he spent more time in Baltimore, maybe he could help clean up this very dangerous & filthy place

President went on tweeting:

Why is so much money sent to the Elijah Cummings district when it is considered the worst run and most dangerous anywhere in the United States. No human being would want to live there. Where is all this money going? How much is stolen? Investigate this corrupt mess immediately!

Elijah Cummings spends all of his time trying to hurt innocent people through “Oversight.” He does NOTHING for his very poor, very dangerous and very badly run district! Take a look…. #BlacksForTrump2020

So sad that Elijah Cummings has been able to do so little for the people of Baltimore. Statistically, Baltimore ranks last in almost every major category. Cummings has done nothing but milk Baltimore dry, but the public is getting wise to the bad job that he is doing!

Baltimore, under the leadership of Elijah Cummings, has the worst Crime Statistics in the Nation. 25 years of all talk, no action! So tired of listening to the same old Bull…Next, Reverend Al will show up to complain & protest. Nothing will get done for the people in need. Sad!

Representative Cummings has been in Congress since 1996. According to USASPENDING.gov in FY 2018 Maryland’s 7th Congressional District received approximately $15.7 billion in grants, benefits and other assistance from the federal government.

Money is not the problem in Rep. Cummings’ District. Single parent homes is the root cause of the poverty, unemployment, crime and dysfunction.

Dear Rep. Cummings, the people in your district are human beings too.

© All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump, Baltimore, and the Diminishing Potency of the ‘Race Card’

She went on Fox News to expose the conditions in West Baltimore, and now she’s under SIEGE from hackers, media, trolls

Baltimore Rat Infestation Is So Bad They Made A Documentary About It 2 Years Ago

WATCH: Democrat Baltimore Mayor Caught On Camera Complaining About ‘Rats, Dead Animals’ Last Year

WATCH: Sen. Bernie Sanders Trashed ‘Third World’ Baltimore Years Before Trump Did

Trump Says Baltimore Is A Dump, The Media Freaks Out. Then Came Videos Of Garbage Strewn Everywhere

$12K A Day: How White Liberals Profit From Pushing ‘White Privilege’

Baltimore on List of Top Ten ‘Rattiest Cities,’ All Run by Democrats…

…PBS Aired ‘Rat Film’ Documentary on Elijah Cummings’ City — Last Year…

…Former Mayor: ‘You Can Smell the Rats’

The New Segregationism: Trump Can’t Cite Well-Established Fact of Baltimore’s Rat Problem, Because Cummings Is Black

RELATED VIDEO: Baltimore’s Lexington Market Voluntarily Closes After Viral Video Shows Rodent In Display Case.

VIDEO: This Lawsuit Over ‘Sex’ and ‘Gender Identity’ Will Have Sweeping Implications

“I felt like I had been punched in the stomach. I was just gasping for air.”

That’s how Nancy Rost recalls the moments after her husband, Tom, walked through the door of their home six years ago this month.

In his hand, Tom held a letter from a longtime employee. On his face, the easy confidence Nancy had seen from Tom every day since they met each other as children was missing, replaced by a palpable sense of anxiety.

Immediately, Tom and Nancy knew that the contents of the letter had the potential to devastate R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, which Tom’s grandfather had established in 1910 to serve grieving families throughout Detroit.

As it stands now, Tom’s five-generation family business is in the hands of the Supreme Court, with oral arguments scheduled for Oct. 8.

No doubt, his case will have sweeping implications across American life.


So, what was in the letter?

Anthony Stephens, a biological male employee who had agreed to and followed the funeral home’s sex-specific dress code for more than six years, intended to show up to work—as well as to the homes of grieving families—dressed as a woman.

For years, Tom’s company had required employees to agree to and abide by a sex-specific dress code that aligned with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission requirements. The regulation-consistent policy ensured that family members of a deceased loved one could focus on processing their grief, not on the funeral home or its employees.

Over the next two weeks, Tom carefully considered his situation. Tom was concerned for Stephens—a longtime, valued employee—and for Stephens’ family. He also had to consider the rest of his staff, including an 80-year-old female employee, who would be sharing the women’s restroom facility with Stephens.

Finally, Tom pondered the impact on the funeral home’s clients.

In the end, Tom decided that he could not agree to Stephens’ proposal. That decision was fully in line with federal law. Yet, in a matter of months, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued the funeral home.

Later, following the commission’s urging, a federal court of appeals effectively redefined the word “sex” in federal law to mean “gender identity.”

Enacted by Congress in 1964, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act has long protected women, along with racial and religious minorities, from unjust discrimination in the workplace.

Redefining the term “sex” in that law to mean “gender identity” would create chaotic, unworkable situations and unjustly punish business owners like Tom while destroying important gains women and girls have made over the past 50 years.

Indeed, Tom Rost’s case, in which Alliance Defending Freedom represents the funeral home, is just the tip of the iceberg.

Blurring the legal differences between male and female forces women and girls to endure unequal treatment because some men and boys believe that they are women.

In Connecticut, for instance, two boys competing as girls have set state records in 15 events over the past two years, while costing girls like Selina Soule over 50 chances at next-level races.

In Anchorage, Alaska, city officials have weaponized gender ideology to argue that a women’s shelter must allow a biological male to sleep 3 feet away from women who have been victimized by rape, sex trafficking, and domestic violence.

Refusing even to discuss these and other issues that result from redefining “sex” to mean “gender identity,” Democratic lawmakers have put forward the paradoxically named Equality Act that would institutionalize these harms under federal law.

While that bill has stalled in the Senate, federal courts like the one that ruled against Harris Funeral Homes have acted to effectively change the law on their own, imposing their own policy preferences and punishing business owners who were simply acting in compliance with the law Congress actually enacted.

Tom and Nancy Rost have the right to depend on what the law says—not what judges or bureaucrats want it to be.

In R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Supreme Court has a golden opportunity to affirm that changing the law is only something Congress can do, particularly in a context as complicated as changing the meaning of “sex” itself.

COMMENTARY BY

John Bursch is vice president of appellate advocacy and senior counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom.


Dear Readers:

With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.

However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.

If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.

This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.

We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.

ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column with video is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

Mueller Upshot: Legal Rights Denied To Trump Family

Today’s hearings revealed again how two bedrock American legal principles have been terribly abused in the Mueller investigation’s final report on Russian election interference. The first principle is innocent until proven guilty, known in the legal profession as the presumption of innocence.

After being essentially cleared in the first half of the report on colluding with Russia (Democrats won’t let go of the dead horse, but Mueller did) the special counsel jumped tracks in the second half and took away Trump’s presumption of innocence.

Prosecutor Mueller and his team laid out in 200-plus pages of detailed evidence the supposed obstruction of justice. Yet Mueller declined to recommend charges, but then made the shockingly unprofessional statement that he could not “exonerate” Trump, and that if he could he would. That was just prosecutorial malfeasance of a very high order, and certainly gives the appearance of a political setup for Democrats to launch impeachment.

Now, some of you will say, but he’s the president! It’s different! That brings me to the second bedrock American legal principle under assault: equality under the law.

If everyone is equal under the law, which I should hope everyone on the left and right agrees with, then why is this President and his family members not presumed innocent? Why is this President and his family members left with the pall of “not exonerated” when in every other single instance of American prosecution, it is simply and rightly “not sufficient evidence” for prosecution?

If your answer is, he’s the president! Or, this is too important! Then you don’t believe everyone is equal under the law. You believe Trump and his family are *less* equal under the law.

Remember, in this special counsel arrangement (I still contend a bad law), there is no other side presented. This is just a prosecutor’s report. In a normal courtroom, a full defense team would be breaking down the prosecution’s case and, very importantly, would be cross-examining witnesses. None of that has happened or is allowed to happen.

But Trump did obstruct justice, you may say, because Mueller couldn’t exonerate him! As previously noted, a prosecutor does not have the authority in the American legal system to “exonerate” anyone specifically because everyone is presumed innocent until *proven* guilty.

But further, Mueller admitted during his testimony that he had not been in any way obstructed. Congressman John Ratcliffe asked Mueller whether his investigation been curtailed, stopped, or hindered at any point. Mueller answered, “No.” Not even hindered? So, there was no obstruction.

Ratcliff also asked Mueller on my main point:

“Can you give me an example other than Donald Trump where the Justice Department determined that an investigated person was not exonerated because their innocence was not conclusively determined?”

Mueller’s bone-chilling answer:

“I cannot, but this is a unique situation.”

No, it’s not if we’re all equal under the law. Trump has not been provided a presumption of innocence, nor has he had his “day in court” to go after the prosecutors and cross-examine their witnesses, which means he has not been treated equally under the law. I realize this means nothing to the Trump-haters. But it should matter to regular Americans.

As bad as foreign interference is in our elections (and Russia alone has been doing it since the 1930s, and aggressively since the 1950s) undermining our own jurisprudence for political gain is worse.

In the realm of stating what is un-American, that could hardly fit better.

RELATED ARTICLES:

8 Takeaways From Mueller’s 2 Appearances Before Congress

If Mueller didn’t write the report, who did?

EDITORS NOTE: This Revolutionary Act column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

Did Rep. Ilhan Omar Benefit from Massive Failure of US State Department’s Family Reunification Program?

If you have been following the controversy swirling around the charge that Rep. Ilhan Omar might have committed fraud by marrying her brother, there might have been a fraud committed years before that even.

Back in 2008 I began a series of reports on the so-called P-3 program that permits already resettled refugees in the US to apply to bring in ‘family’ members.

All of that was chronicled at Refugee Resettlement Watch that WordPress suspended.

However, here John Binder writing at Breitbart sums up the State Department scandal and points to an important report by a former ICE attorney who says of the fraud that tens of thousands of Somalis got into the US and once the fraud was revealed there there were no repercussions for the cheaters.

“This was staggering irresponsibility, possibly the biggest blunder in immigration history.”

Here is what Binder says at Breitbart:

A refugee program that allowed foreign relatives of already-arrived foreign refugees to the United States was halted, altogether, more than a decade ago due to mass fraud among applicants.

This week, Powerline blog’s David Steinberg suggested that Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) entered the U.S. in the mid-1990s as a third-priority, known as P-3, refugee — that is, a refugee who is admitted to the country due to their ties to an already-resettled refugee.

Steinberg’s report also claims that Omar committed immigration fraud when she falsely entered the country as a member of the “Omar” family that had already resettled in the U.S.

In 2008, after thousands of foreign nationals had entered as P-3 refugees, the program was halted by the *Bush administration* due to mass fraud wherein the State Department, through DNA testing, was able to confirm family relations between the program’s applicants in less than 20 percent of cases.

Overall, about 87 percent of P-3 refugees’ family relation claims turned out to be fraudulent.

BTW, guess who opposed DNA testing for family reunification?

If you guessed the nine federal resettlement contractors—groups like the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service and so forth, you would be correct!

Why? They claimed that the definition of ‘family’ is different in African culture and we should respect their ideas of family.

Binder continues….

Charles Thaddeus Fillinger, a former federal immigration official, has detailed the enormous fraud that has occurred among P-3 refugees in his 30-page policy paper, calling the program “the greatest refugee fraud crisis in modern times.”

More here.

Here is a link to Fillinger’s treatise on the massive fraud perpetrated mostly by Africans for possibly decades.

I am so glad to see that this era of fraud has not been swept under the rug.  Interesting that it would take a scandal swirling around a member of Congress to help bring it to light.

I had to laugh when I saw a guest on Fox News yesterday say that Rep. Ilhan Omar (or whatever her name is) did it right by entering the US legally!

Wonder if we can go back and identify the thousands of  immigration cheats.  Just dreaming!

See all of my previous posts on Rep. Ilhan Omar by clicking here.

EDITORS NOTE: This Frauds, Crooks and Criminals column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

Behind the chiffon curtain: Drag queen story hours and child endangerment

Drag queen story hours (DQSHs) have quickly become one of the most divisive controversies in the 21st century culture war. Recent research revealed that these events are part of a much larger, intentional effort by the American Library Association to promote LGBTQ activism. New evidence from their recent annual conference shows how deep this promotion runs and how libraries are protecting themselves instead of protecting children. Communities are demanding to know: What’s really behind the values DQSHs are said to promote? Do DQSHs actually provide children with positive role models or expose them to dangerous men.

The initial exposure

In June, Personhood Alliance Education brought to light an intentional movement within the American Library Association (ALA) to bring DQSHs and other LGBTQ-promoting events into libraries across the country, even helping “secret librarian advocate operative[s]” sneak LGBTQ books and materials into current programs and use outside sponsors to host DQSHs in resistant communities. Over 43,000 people responded by signing our petition with LifeSite News. A similar petition partnership between CitizenGo and the Activist Mommy brought an additional 56,000 signatures. Both petitions were delivered to the ALA’s office in Washington, DC, on July 11th.

If you have not yet signed the petition to the ALA, which is now moving to Congress, click here to add your name.

Georgia Kijesky, leader of Personhood Maryland, was instrumental in bringing this issue to the forefront, as her local library in Lexington Park, Maryland is an active example of how larger forces are working to promote corrupted sexuality and gender to children. She also helped organize a well-attended prayer vigil on June 23rd during the DQSH and Drag 101 events at the library, which were led by a drag queen whose name was purposefully withheld from the public by the event sponsor.

The response to the research, the petition, and the vigil is one that has become familiar to Christian communities across the country. It’s a response shared by the ALA, LGBTQ advocacy groups, DQSH organizers and supporters, and even some churches:

  1. DQSHs reflect good values like inclusivity, acceptance, and freedom of expression.
  2. DQSHs are harmless and offer children positive role models.

Let’s examine what’s behind these claims.

The values beneath the veneer

At the 2019 ALA annual conference and exhibition, held in Washington, DC in June, intellectual freedom and inclusivity were front and center. Supported by the structures within the ALA that were created to normalize and promote the LGBTQ lifestyle, these rhetorical concepts—core values, according to the ALA—were woven throughout the workshops and exhibition hall. These core values were also worn proudly by ALA executives and attendees, even ALA president Loida Garcia-Febo, as they celebrated World Pride Month and the 50thanniversary of The Stonewall Riots. The Stonewall Uprising, as it’s also known, is a key milestone in the gay rights movement—six days of violent demonstrations started by drag queen Marsha P. Johnson against police who had raided a gay club in New York City in 1969.

More than 100 ALA conference workshops boasted an equality, diversity, and inclusivity theme; a reported one-third of the total workshop offerings. Sessions included:

Other workshops included, “A Child’s Room to Choose: Encouraging Gender Identity and Expression in School and Public Libraries” and “Are You Going to Tell My Parents?: The Minor’s Right to Privacy in the Library.”

It is important to note here that, under the guise of right-to-privacy, 1st Amendment protections, and anti-censorship, the ALA fought vigorously against requiring pornography blocking software on library computers in the early 2000s. This software was mandated for public libraries and schools through the federal Children’s Internet Protection Act. The ALA opposed porn filters all the way to the Supreme Court, but lost United States v. American Library Association in 2003. Today, the ALA is bypassing this decision, giving children access to pornography and age-inappropriate events and materials offline, in the form of DQSHs, Drag 101 events, explicit sex education workshops, and pornographic book displays.

The role models beneath the makeup

The ALA’s promotion of DQSHs legitimizes the idea that a man dressed as an exaggerated caricature of a woman promotes acceptance, inclusion, and children’s literacy. The DQSH website itself says that these events “capture the imagination and play of the gender fluidity of childhood and give kids glamorous, positive, and unabashedly queer role models.”

So what is a drag queen?

According to the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLADD), “Drag queens are men, typically gay men, who dress like women for the purpose of entertainment.” Drag queens perform for gay audiences in adult nightclubs and at other homosexual- and transgender-themed events and venues. They are performers who live other lives outside of their drag characters and may or may not be transgender, notes the National Center for Transgender Equality.

What about the “other life” of a drag queen, and does it matter in terms of having access to children?

This drag queen, Dylan Pontiff (aka Santana Pilar Andrews) says he can filter himself for different audiences—the gay men who pay money to see him in sexually charged drag attire and the children who sit in front of him as he reads children’s books that introduce homosexuality and gender-fluid concepts. Yet, he makes a startling admission: “[The DQSH] is going to be the grooming of the next generation. We are trying to groom the next generation.”

And what of the drag queen whose identity was purposefully withheld from the public prior to the June 23rd events at the Lexington Park Library in Maryland?

According to Samantha McGuire, the spokesperson for the event sponsor Southern Maryland Area Secular Humanists (SMASH), her organization ran a background check on Stormy Vain before the DQSH occurred, yet chose to withhold his identity because drag queens “get viciously attacked by trolls”. Once Stormy Vain posted about the DQSH on Facebook a few days later, it took an activist about 10 minutes to discover who he is.

Meet Todd Musick (aka Stormy Vain), who runs a lurid sex business that features gay males called Stormy’s Angels of Entertainment, dba Eroticasy. Though Musick has now taken his website offline and made all of his social media accounts private, here are just a few screenshots of his work, which was captured in a 70-page exposé (credit: Mass Resistance, at the request of Personhood Maryland’s Georgia Kijesky).

During a July 9th St. Mary’s County Commissioners’ meeting, SMASH’s Samantha McGuire presented an indirect defense of Stormy Vain, without addressing the issue of the background check, by accusing Personhood Maryland’s Georgia Kijesky of “doxxing.” She also thanked the commissioners for “listening over and over again to the same bigoted comments by a misinformed public.” McGuire went on to address Kijesky again: “Some of the people in this room expose themselves to be those very bigots.” You can watch her 4-minute response here.

Here’s what Kijesky had presented to the commissioners earlier in the meeting, regarding what had been uncovered about Stormy Vain.

The Lexington Park Library’s meeting room policy absolves the St. Mary’s County Library Board of Trustees from the responsibility of vetting who has access to children, because to avoid the controversy of sponsoring a DQSH, it allows third parties to reserve a room to do so. This has left a gray area as to who does background checks and whether they are even required. The Board of Trustees had even addressed the DQSH controversy beforehand, during its June 12th board meeting, saying that “talking points will be developed for Board members…We will not be putting out a press release since we do not want to draw attention to the event.” Here again, there was no mention of a background check on the men who would have access to children.

Kijesky explains:

“This is just another loophole library officials have created to circumvent community objections to such events at the library. They’re passing the buck onto the event organizers who are not obliged to provide proof that the background check was even done!”

Who is responsible then?

Who is responsible for protecting children at public libraries? The libraries? The ALA? The groups that sponsor the events? The parents? The police? The community?

The answer is all of the above.

Yet, evidence is mounting across the country, regarding the “other lives” of drag queens and how they are blurring the lines between adult sexual entertainment and children’s entertainment:

Drag queen culture is also pulling children into its world in other ways, like this video showing drag kid Nemis Quinn Mélançon-Golden (aka Queen Lactatia) getting his start on stage (caution, language warning). Nemis also recently posed with nude adult drag queen Violet Chachki. In another video, drag kid Desmond Napoles (aka Desmond is Amazing) is shown dancing provocatively at a gay nightclub in New York City. The mainstream media has been championing the drag kid phenomenon for some time, as shown in this recent clip of Good Morning America, where Desmond was praised for being a “trailblazer.”

Despite increasing evidence, supporters continue to claim that DQSHs and similar events, in general and as a concept, are harmless.

Are DQSHs harmless?

According to Jon K. Uhler, MS, LPC, who has worked for over 11 years with thousands of incarcerated sex offenders, DQSHs are not harmless. He took to Twitter to note that gay men who dress in drag give sufficient indication of being sexually deviant outside of DQSHs. Twitter has since screened and censored all of Uhler’s posts that suggest predators exist within the homosexual and transgender communities.

“Concerns about these men, who seem very interested in spending time up close and personal with other people’s kids, are not phobic. The issue is child safety…Keeping kids from sexual predators must become a priority. No longer is it acceptable for people to place children at risk to pacify or placate men who want to play dress-up and/or act sexualized in front of kids…Events such as [DQSHs] are the perfect invitation for predators to attend and access kids for ‘hands on’ interactions.”

Are communities singling out DQSHs in particular, and are those who oppose DQSHs “bigots,” as Samantha McGuire and many others charge? Uhler says, “Of course not!” and references recent pedophile scandals in the Boy Scouts and in Catholic and Southern Baptist churches as other venues where predators have gained access to children.

“The concern is to ensure that wherever men would want to access kids, there be close scrutiny, instead of ‘an open door’ policy. Protecting [kids] must take priority over men who desire access to them.”

American College of Pediatrics president, Dr. Michelle Cretella, recently spoke about the psychological dangers of DQSHs. Her organization has taken a bold stand against puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and surgeries for children diagnosed with gender dsyphoria.

“The idea of the permanence of biological sex doesn’t form in a child’s cognitive development until age 7… It takes up until age 7 for many children to think ‘I was born a boy, I am a boy. If I put on a dress that doesn’t make me a girl, it just makes me a boy in a dress.’ What is dangerous is that these young children are just developing the awareness of the fact that they are a boy or a girl… It’s dangerous because when you give young children fantasy picture books like this it indoctrinates them into thinking that their sex is all external. A preschool boy, for example, may think ‘The boy teddy bear became a girl when he turned his bow tie into a barrette. I can do that, too.’ Children will come to believe that their sex is whatever they think they want it to be. This is dangerous from a psychological point of view. It’s disrupting the natural process of gender identity formation.”

But that is precisely the point.

What about the parents?

Parents who bring their children to DQSHs genuinely believe they are teaching their children to love and accept everyone. Joelle Retener, author of Free to Be Incredible Mea book on the ALA’s 2019 Rainbow List, wrote this in an Instagram post:

“Some people might wonder why we celebrate pride with our kids. To us it’s pretty simple. Because teaching them to not just accept but to love and embrace people that are different from them means actually exposing them to those very people… Because here amidst all these beautifully diverse people from all walks of life, sexual orientations, gender identities, races and religions, my son is no longer a boy in a dress. He is just, a kid.” [emphasis added]

Retener is shown below with Stormy Vain at the June 23rd DQSH in Lexington Park, Maryland, where Stormy read her book.

Parents who bring their children to DQSHs are adamant that the events do not promote homosexuality or transgenderism. But the question must be raised:

Why allow children to be exposed to books that do just that?

Airlie Andersen, the author of Neither, another ALA-promoted book read by Stormy Vain at the Maryland DQSH, said this on the website LGBTQ Reads:

“I try to make books for everyone, but particularly for very young readers, children who need a jumping-off place to start talking about being different, feeling awkward, finding a special spot in the world. Someday my son may experience exclusion or pressure to make a choice one way or the other, when it’s his in-betweenness that should be celebrated.”

What can be done?

Personhood Alliance Education’s initial research listed several things local communities can do to detect, prevent, and where necessary, protest “cancel-proof” DQSHs in their libraries (scroll to the end of the article for the list). But can there be a larger effort to stop children from being put in harm’s way?

The Personhood Alliance is working with other groups on model legislation at the state level to protect children from DQSHs and to prohibit public resources from being used for the promotion and delivery of pornography and other age-inappropriate materials and events at libraries. This model legislation will be based on existing child endangerment and child welfare laws, which vary widely across the country. According to Personhood Alliance president, Gualberto Garcia Jones, a plan to go after the taxpayer funding the ALA receives at the federal level is also in the works, as well as legislation that applies the federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act to the DQSH phenomenon. “We will no longer sit by and allow this to be pushed onto children who are at a vulnerable place in their development and cannot consent to being exposed,” says Jones.

The Personhood Alliance currently has 22 state affiliates, with seven more states in the application process. “We will be working through our affiliates in different ways to put an end to the exploitation of children and the corruption of God-designed sexuality and gender by the American Library Association and activist library boards throughout the country.”

For more information on how to get involved in your state, find a Personhood Alliance affiliate or contact info@personhood.org.

RELATED ARTICLE: Democrats’ Equality Act Could See Repeat Of Canada’s Transgender Genital Waxing Dispute

EDITORS NOTE: This Personhood Alliance column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

Guess who started the whole climate change debate? You guessed it UK PM Margaret Thatcher!

What most people fail to remember is history. if you ask most American’s who began the entire debate on climate change you would probably get the answer former Vice President Al Gore. The truth is today’s “environmentalist” or “green” movement began with former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Mrs. Thatcher was influenced in great part by environmentalist Sir Crispin Tickell, UK’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations from 1987-90.

On September 27, 1988 in a speech to the Royal Society, the independent scientific academy of the UK and the British Commonwealth, Mrs. Thatcher stated:

For generations, we have assumed that the efforts of mankind would leave the fundamental equilibrium of the world’s systems and atmosphere stable. But it is possible that with all these enormous changes (population, agricultural, use of fossil fuels) concentrated into such a short period of time, we have unwittingly begun a massive experiment with the system of this planet itself.

Recently three changes in atmospheric chemistry have become familiar subjects of concern. The first is the increase in the greenhouse gases—carbon dioxide, methane, and chlorofluorocarbons—which has led some [end p4] to fear that we are creating a global heat trap which could lead to climatic instability. We are told that a warming effect of 1°C per decade would greatly exceed the capacity of our natural habitat to cope. Such warming could cause accelerated melting of glacial ice and a consequent increase in the sea level of several feet over the next century. This was brought home to me at the Commonwealth Conference in Vancouver last year when the President of the Maldive Islands reminded us that the highest part of the Maldives is only six feet above sea level. The population is 177,000. It is noteworthy that the five warmest years in a century of records have all been in the 1980s—though we may not have seen much evidence in Britain! [Emphasis added]

Read Mrs. Thatcher’s entire speech.

Mrs. Thatcher then gave a speech on November 8, 1989 to the United Nations General Assembly on the “Global Environment.” Mrs. Thatcher noted:

We are seeing a vast increase in the amount of carbon dioxide reaching the atmosphere. The annual increase is three billion tonnes: and half the carbon emitted since the Industrial Revolution still remains in the atmosphere.

At the same time as this is happening, we are seeing the destruction on a vast scale of tropical forests which are uniquely able to remove carbon dioxide from the air.

Every year an area of forest equal to the whole surface of the United Kingdom is destroyed. At present rates of clearance we shall, by the year 2000, have removed 65 per cent of forests in the humid tropical zones. [end p3]

The consequences of this become clearer when one remembers that tropical forests fix more than ten times as much carbon as do forests in the temperate zones.

We now know, too, that great damage is being done to the Ozone Layer by the production of halons and chlorofluorocarbons. But at least we have recognised that reducing and eventually stopping the emission of CFCs is one positive thing we can do about the menacing accumulation of greenhouse gases.

It is of course true that none of us would be here but for the greenhouse effect. It gives us the moist atmosphere which sustains life on earth. We need the greenhouse effect—but only in the right proportions.

More than anything, our environment is threatened by the sheer numbers of people and the plants and animals which go with them. When I was born the world’s population was some 2 billion people. My [Michael Thatcher] grandson will grow up in a world of more than 6 billion people.

Put in its bluntest form: the main threat to our environment is more and more people, and their activities: The land they cultivate ever more intensively; The forests they cut down and burn; The mountain sides they lay bare; The fossil fuels they burn; The rivers and the seas they pollute.

The result is that change in future is likely to be more fundamental and more widespread than anything we have known hitherto. Change to the sea around us, change to the atmosphere above, leading in turn to change in the world’s climate, which could alter the way we live in the most fundamental way of all.

That prospect is a new factor in human affairs. It is comparable in its implications to the discovery of how to split the atom. Indeed, its results could be even more far-reaching. [Emphasis added]

The intent of Mrs. Thatcher’s speeches was to push for an alternative means of energy – nuclear power.

How it All Went Bad

Margaret Thatcher wanted to reduce the UK’s dependence on Middle Easter oil after the oil shock of 1978-79. According to Laurel Graefe, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta:

Like its 1973–74 predecessor, the second oil shock of the 1970s was associated with events in the Middle East, but it was also driven by strong global oil demand. The Iranian Revolution began in early 1978 and ended a year later, when the royal reign of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi collapsed and Sheikh Khomeini took control as grand ayatollah of the Islamic republic. In conjunction with the revolution, Iranian oil output declined by 4.8 million barrels per day (7 percent of world production at the time) by January 1979. However, this supply disruption may not have been the most important factor pushing oil prices higher. Rather, the Iranian disruption may have prompted a fear of further disruptions and spurred widespread speculative hoarding.

Oil prices began to rise rapidly in mid-1979, more than doubling between April 1979 and April 1980. According to one estimate, surging oil demand—coming both from a booming global economy and a sharp increase in precautionary demand—was responsible for much of the increase in the cost of oil during the crisis.

Mrs. Thatcher wanted to shift the world toward nuclear power. Her efforts failed due to the 1979 Three Mile Island and the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear power plant incidents. While Mrs. Thatcher’s nuclear power efforts failed the “green” movement in Great Britain exploded.

Nuclear power became the problem and not the solution to many.

In 1998 the United Nations first introduced the “Kyoto Protocol.”

Along Comes Al Gore

Between 1980 and 2006 the green movement was quietly but increasingly gaining political clout. The breakout came when former Vice President Al Gore released his film “Inconvenient Truth” on May 24, 2006. From this point on global warming and climate change became an issue of those seeking to control the means of producing oil, natural gas and coal. The alternative no longer was clean energy via nuclear power. Rather clean energy was anything but nuclear and fossil fuel driven power. It became solar and wind power, heavily subsidized by governments globally.

Along Comes Donald J. Trump

On June 1, 2017 President Trump formally removed the United States from the Kyoto Protocol. In a Rose Garden event President Trump stated:

Therefore, in order to fulfill my solemn duty to protect America and its citizens, the United States will withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord — (applause) — thank you, thank you — but begin negotiations to reenter either the Paris Accord or a really entirely new transaction on terms that are fair to the United States, its businesses, its workers, its people, its taxpayers.  So we’re getting out.  But we will start to negotiate, and we will see if we can make a deal that’s fair.  And if we can, that’s great.  And if we can’t, that’s fine.  (Applause.)

As President, I can put no other consideration before the wellbeing of American citizens.  The Paris Climate Accord is simply the latest example of Washington entering into an agreement that disadvantages the United States to the exclusive benefit of other countries, leaving American workers — who I love — and taxpayers to absorb the cost in terms of lost jobs, lower wages, shuttered factories, and vastly diminished economic production.

Thus, as of today, the United States will cease all implementation of the non-binding Paris Accord and the draconian financial and economic burdens the agreement imposes on our country.  This includes ending the implementation of the nationally determined contribution and, very importantly, the Green Climate Fund which is costing the United States a vast fortune. [Emphasis added]

Read the full statement here.

It was the conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher who started all of this climate change discussion. It was President Trump who ended it at least for the United States of America. Now you know the real story.

RELATED ARTICLE: EPA Administrator Explains What’s Changed at the Agency Since the Obama Years

Michelle Malkin Calls Out Lutheran Refugee Contractor as Anti-Trump Political Agitator

“Will a single American elected official please stand up and challenge the continued public funding of this subversive religious racket?” – Michelle Malkin


Refugee Resettlement Watch may be down temporarily, but thankfully patriots with bigger megaphones have taken up the call to educate Americans about the supposedly ‘religious’ charities that live off of us—taxpayers—in order to promote an Open Borders agenda.

Thanks to reader Richard for tipping me off to Michelle Malkin’s recent column about Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service‘s leading role as an anti-Trump community agitation group (while they collect millions in federal grants and contracts from the Trump Administration)!

Krishanti Vignarajah leads the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service following the controversy that saw its previous CEO ousted in 2017.

From VDARE,

Michelle Malkin: Defund Lutherans For Open Borders Now!

If you were shocked by the images of the Mexican flag flying over an Aurora, Colorado, immigration detention center this weekend, you’ll be appalled at an even more disgusting spectacle:

One of the top promoters of the so-called Lights for Liberty nationwide protests by Trump-hating, ICE-bashing radicals was a nonprofit religious organization known as the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service.

As a designated “host,” LIRS played a key role in publicizing, organizing and participating in demonstrations against President Donald Trump’s deportation enforcement actions targeting some 2,000 illegal immigrants and their families who have ignored removal orders or skipped out on court hearings.

Brazen hatred of cops, Border Patrol and ICE agents were on full display at the open borders protests fronted by LIRS and other left-wing groups, including Code Pink, CASA and CAIR.

[….]

The president and CEO of LIRS, Krishanti Vignarajah, is a Sri Lankan refugee and former Michelle Obama policy director who led the Lights for Liberty event in Washington, D.C. She argues that Americans are obligated to open the floodgates at the southern border (since she turned out so great) and vehemently opposes what she calls “militant border enforcement.” To these border-sabotaging radicals, of course, any border enforcement is “militant.”

LIRS sounds like just the kind of extremist group you’d expect to be kept afloat by billionaire George Soros’ big bucks. But hold on to your wallets and your American flags, folks: In 2016, LIRS relied on $64.7 million in government subsidies from taxpayers—that’s you and me—to fund a whopping 96.2% of its budget.

[….]

Disguised as compassion and Christian morality, Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service’s activism is a profit-seeking machine—even as the agency has been plagued by allegations of mismanagement that prompted an external probe two years ago.

These ‘Christian’ groups aren’t passing the plate in their churches, but have latched on to the money stream coming out of your wallets via Washington’s redistributors of your wealth.

Please visit VDARE for more of Malkin’s excellent summary of why this is so outrageous.

Photo is from Birchbox, here.

Endnote:  At least one of the nine federal refugee contractors isn’t doing so well and has announced this week that it will close its Florida offices, see World Relief running out of your money.

Big fat lie in that story!

World Relief, which opened its Jacksonville office in 1990, is one of nine agencies nationally that collaborates with the U.S. State Department to resettle refugees.

The nonprofits typically help refugees set up their apartments, get their children into school, and go to doctors’ appointments. But the refugees are expected to pay back all the costs. 

That is not true!

This post is filed in my ‘Charity fraud’ category.

EDITORS NOTE: This Frauds, Crooks and Criminals column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

These Are The Cities And States Helping Women Obtain Abortions

  • As more states pass restrictive abortion legislation, other cities and states push back with pro-abortion legislation.
  •  New York, Illinois, Maine, Vermont, and Nevada have each taken steps to protect abortion access.
  • New York City and Illinois have made it clear that women can travel to those areas from other states to obtain abortions.

Several cities and states have passed legislation or taken steps to help women obtain abortions despite a variety of restrictive abortion legislation passed in 2019.

Kentucky, Mississippi, Ohio, Georgia, and Louisiana have all passed bills banning abortions after a heartbeat can be detected. Republican Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey signed a bill into law in May criminalizing abortion procedures for doctors. Meanwhile, Missouri’s last abortion clinic may close due to failure to comply with the Missouri Department of Health and Human Services requirements.

In response to this restrictive abortion legislation, both New York City and Illinois have taken steps to make abortion more accessible for women traveling from other states. Maine, Vermont and Nevada have also passed laws that enable abortion access on a smaller scale, NBC News reported.

New York City

The New York City Council allocated $250,000 to the New York Abortion Access Fund (NYAAF) in June to help women travel to New York City and obtain abortions.

Pro-abortion activists claim this allocation was the first time that a city allocated money specifically designated for abortions, The New York Times reported.

Officials said that the allocated money would enable about 500 women to obtain abortions, the Times reported.

NYAAF board member Janna Oberdorf told NBC that the funds can be used by any women in or traveling to New York City and is intended to cover the abortion procedure rather than travel or lodging costs.

Democratic New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo also signed the Reproductive Health Act in January, allowing non-doctors to perform abortions according to the Times. The bill also allows women to obtain late-term abortions — after 24 weeks — if their health is in danger or if the fetus is not viable.

Cuomo did not respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.

Illinois

Democratic Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker signed the Reproductive Health Actinto law in June, a law that makes abortion “a fundamental right” in the state of Illinois.

The law is designed to alert women in surrounding states that they can travel to Illinois to receive abortions if they cannot receive them at home, according to NBC.

The Reproductive Health Act allows non-doctors to perform abortions, abolishes Illinois’ parental notification law, forces religious and private health care organizations to provide abortions, and eliminates required investigations into deaths of mothers.

The law also eliminates requirements to publicly report abortion data, including “the number of abortions performed on out-of-state women or underage girls” according to a press release from the Susan B. Anthony List. (RELATED: Lawmakers Repeal Abortion Safeguards To Build ‘A Firewall Around Illinois To Protect Access’ To Abortion)

“Should you live in a state that has restricted your right to a safe and legal abortion, we want to make sure you know that Illinois is a place where it is safe and legal,” Democratic state Sen. Melinda Bush said to NBC News. The publication reports that Bush sponsored the bill.

“We want it to be clear that Illinois is a beacon for women’s reproductive rights,” Bush added.

Guttmacher Institute state policy analyst Elizabeth Nash told NBC that protecting abortion access in Illinois “means you’re protecting access not just in Illinois” but also in the surrounding conservative states.

Pritzker did not respond to a request for comment from the DCNF.

Maine

Democratic Maine Gov. Janet Mills signed “An Act To Authorize Certain Health Care Professionals To Perform Abortions” into law in June, a law that permits non-doctors to perform abortions in Maine.

The law will allow physician assistants and advanced practice registered nurses to perform abortions, according to a press release from Mills’ office, and is set to go into effect in September. (RELATED: Maine Will Allow Non-Doctors To Perform Abortions)

“Allowing qualified and licensed medical professionals to perform abortions will ensure that Maine women, especially those in rural areas, are able to access critical reproductive health care services when and where they need them from qualified providers they know and trust,” Mills said in a statement.

“Expanding who is allowed to perform an abortion does not expand the safety of the procedure,” Republican state Sen. Stacey Guerin of Maine said in June, according to the New York Post.

Mills did not respond to a request for comment from the DCNF.

Vermont

Republican Vermont Gov. Phil Scott intends to allow bill H.57 to become law, his communications director told CNN.

The bill would “recognize as a fundamental right the freedom of reproductive choice” and “prohibit public entities from interfering with or restricting the right of an individual to terminate the individual’s pregnancy,” according to CNN.

The bill also would protect women’s “rights to choose or refuse contraception or sterilization or to choose to carry a pregnancy to term, to give birth to a child, or to obtain an abortion.”

“The Governor is and has been pro-choice and believes in a woman’s right to choose, so he has ruled out vetoing the bill — it will become law,” Scott’s communication director, Rebecca Kelley, wrote in an email to CNN.

Kelley also told CNN the governor has not received the bill and has not received notice of when he will be given it.

Scott did not yet respond to a request for comment from the DCNF, and his office did not respond to questions as to the bill’s status.

Nevada

The Nevada Assembly passed a bill in May that would no longer require doctors to inform women about the “emotional implications” involved in abortions according to CNN. Democratic Nevada Gov. Steve Sisolak signed the bill into law on May 31.

The bill, SB179, “removes the requirement that a physician certify a pregnant woman’s marital status and age before performing an abortion” and “also removes the requirement that a physician certify in writing that a woman gave her informed written consent.”

Democratic Nevada Rep. Dina Titus praised the bill in May, calling restrictive abortion legislation “dangerous anti-choice agenda.”

Sisolak did not yet respond to a request for comment from the DCNF.

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.