Posts

Los Angeles City Council Blacklists NRA Members

“The city council voted 14-0 to pass an ordinance that now requires any company that has a contract with the city to disclose any and all ties they have to the NRA. Let’s be clear about what this is. This is an attempt at public shaming for anyone in the city who supports the NRA. This is a direct attempt to go at someone’s wallet just for having ties with the NRA and believing in the Second Amendment.” —Grant Stinchfield

RELATED ARTICLES:

Small, Rural Districts Are Taking the Lead in Era of Post-Parkland Safety

Magazine Bans Are the First Step Toward Total Disarmament

Kerry Picket: What Meaningful Action Has Been Taken Since Parkland?

EDITORS NOTE: This NRA-ILA column with video and images is republished with permission.

Majority Muslim city council elected: “Today we show the Polish and everybody else”

The nation’s first, but certainly not last, majority-Muslim city council has just been elected in Hamtramck, Michigan. Immediately one of the Muslims has caused controversy by showing himself to be somewhat less than the tolerant multiculturalist that he was no doubt assumed to be. Will we see any supremacist and pro-Sharia initiatives from this city council? Only if they decide to “show the Polish and everybody else.” The local multiculturalists, however, are still willfully unaware of Islamic supremacism and confident that everyone can work together.

Can anyone make out what he says after “Today we show the Polish and everybody else”?

“Muslim political comments about Hamtramck causes concern,” by Randy Wimbley, Fox 2 Detroit, November 7, 2015:

HAMTRAMCK, Mich. – History in Hamtramck as voters elected the first majority Muslim city council in the country.

But rather than ease racial tensions, the comments from a Muslim organizer threaten to divide.

It was a historic moment Tuesday, but followed by a controversial comment that may create or widen the rift between the growing Muslim and shrinking Polish community in Hamtramck.

“Today we show the Polish and everybody else,” said Ibrahim Algahim in cell phone video.

The comments touched a nerve.

It came after Hamtramck voters elected America’s first Muslim majority city council in a town where the Polish community held the power for decades.

Cathie Lisinki-Gordon, a former councilmember, was one of Tuesday’s losers and was surprised at the comment.

“I’m shocked that he said that. I’m a very good friend of his,” she said. “I cannot believe that he would ever profile any select group. Especially when his community has felt ostracized and profiled for many years.”

The statement was immediately rebuffed by many present at the Muslim candidates’ victory lab

Saad Almasmari, the top vote getter, was one of them[.]

“I don’t believe in that,” he said. “And as a candidate, as a city council member, I’m going to work for everybody, represent everybody, because I got elected for everybody.”

Bill Meyer is sticking up for the man who made the controversial comment.

“What Algahim was saying at the time was he was meaning that the Yemeni and Bangladeshi communities worked together to go forward with a successful election,” Meyer said.

Before the election someone passed out questionable campaign flyers telling voters to “Get the Muslim out of Hamtramck Nov. 3 and let’s take back our city.”

That obviously didn’t happen. The question now will this railroad a golden opportunity.

“The ultimate goal is to work together,” Meyer said. “We’ve got a great possibility of showing the world how great people can work together, ethnic groups can work together, to solve problems.”

Algahim was unavailable for comment, but some say he was likely referring to certain people in Hamtramck’s Polish community when he made that remark.

Others say if that’s in fact the case, he should not paint with a broad brush.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Report: UC Merced stabber was on terror watch list, had Islamic State flag

California school district bans drawing Muhammad

Defended: Term Limits in Nashville, TN

Don’t you just love when citizens take a stand against slippery politicians? That’s what happened last week in Nashville, when U.S. Term Limits helped citizens defeat two anti-term limits proposals foisted on them by the city’s Metro Council.

Nashville Council members have now tried five times to weaken their two-term limit, failing each time because voters are too smart to allow it.

Councilwoman Emily Evans thought she had finally figured out how to trick the people, combining weaker term limits and a smaller Council size into one ballot measure. But thanks to the efforts of local activists and USTL on the ground, that was not to be.

A late yard sign campaign informed citizens at every polling place that Evans’ amendment was crooked, and it was beaten in a landslide 26-point margin. The special interests that funded her campaign were shocked!

USTL assists in local term limits campaigns because elected officials at all levels will veer into corrupt and self-serving behavior. When this happens, the wealthy lobbyists and donors who prop up politicians will do everything they can to beat term limits.
We cannot let it happen.

Thank You,

Nick Tomboulides
Executive Director, U.S. Term Limits

Confronting Boston’s sex-change insurance proposal

The Boston City Council is proposing to require city employee health insurance to pay for sex-change operations and other “transgender” treatments.

On Wednesday, April 16, two members of the Boston City Council introduced an ordinance to require that health insurance for city employees cover “transgender” sex-change procedures, including hormone treatments and “gender reassignment” surgery. This is the latest demand of the homosexual / transgender movement in many cities across the country.

Who would have ever imagined something like this even a decade ago?

It was introduced by City Councilors Michelle Wu and Ayanna Pressley, two of the most liberal on an already left-wing Boston City Council. They worked closely with local homosexual activists, according to press reports. Boston Mayor Marty Walsh, an aggressive pro-homosexual advocate, told the press that he is “wholeheartedly in support” of it.

Supporting her constituency.Michelle Wu, co-sponsor of transgender insurance ordinance, marches in Boston Gay Pride Parade in 2013.
[MassResistance photo]

It was applauded by the usual crowd. “This ordinance is a pivotal step toward ensuring that transgender city workers have access to comprehensive healthcare coverage just like all other city workers,” Kara Coredini, Executive Director of the LGBT lobbying group MassEquality told the press.

MassResistance reaction in the press

MassResistance gave its reaction — which was covered in the Boston Globe andChannel 5 TV. And we didn’t hold back for the liberal media.

Boston Globe coverage of ordinance featured MassResistance’s uncompromising reaction.

As the Boston Globe reported on April 14:

Not everyone sees the proposed ordinance as positive, or agrees that hormones and surgery are proper treatment for those who identify as transgender. The leader of MassResistance, a nonprofit conservative advocacy group in Waltham, called the proposed ordinance “a sad example of science fiction over science.”

“The medical community has always considered ‘gender identity’ confusion as a mental health issue,” said Brian Camenker, executive director of MassResistance. “Attempting to ‘treat’ someone with sex hormones or body mutilating surgery may please the political activists but only makes things much worse for the individual.”

That evening, Boston’s WCVB Channel 5 also did a report also featuring MassResistance:

Ch. 5 TV News:“Giving people hormones and body mutilation surgery only makes it worse. This is being done to please a political agenda,” Brian Camenker of MassResistance told Channel 5 News.

In other words: What other mental health issue is treated by amputating parts of the body?

Movement’s goal: Sex-change insurance coverage mandatory nationwide!

According to a number of sources, this is part of an overall strategy to eventually make coverage of transgender hormone treatments and sex-change surgery mandatory for all health insurance nationwide. The national groups “Human Rights Campaign” and “Lambda Legal” are providing ammunition for this push.

The tactics are similar to those the homosexual movement used pushing “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” non-discrimination laws throughout America. In both cases, they started with private corporations, then some small cities and towns, then bigger cities in liberal areas, and eventually capturing entire states. In this case, they sometimes start with “lower level” mandates, such as hormone treatment, and then later push for full sex-change surgery coverage.

Mandating insurance support for sex “transitioning” is being seen across the country. As the Globe reported in its article:

Transgender city workers are guaranteed medical treatment by statutes in San Francisco; Seattle; Portland, Ore.; Washington, D.C.; and other US cities, according to Andrew Cray, a policy analyst at the Center for American Progress, an independent nonpartisan educational institute in Washington, D.C . . . [R]egulators in California, Colorado, Connecticut, Oregon, and Vermont have mandated that private insurance plans in those states cover transgender health services for residents.

Trying to keep Boston’s “100% pro-LGBT” rating intact

As part of that push, the national radical LGBT group Human Rights Campaign now requires cities to include sex-change operations to get their coveted 100-percent pro-LGBT rating, similar to the rating they give large corporations. And the local radical lobby will not settle for anything less, and clearly has the power to enforce that.

As the Globe reported:

An attorney for the Human Rights Campaign, a national civil rights organization, said the group this year will begin to include transgender treatment coverage for city employees as a criterion in its Municipal Equality Index, which rates cities on their inclusion of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender residents and visitors.

Last year, Boston scored a perfect 100 on the scale, but it could not do so again in 2014 without mandating that coverage, said Cathryn Oakley, the organization’s legislative council for state and municipal advocacy.

Among other things, this policy would certainly attract some very disturbed people to work for the City of Boston. Is this really what the citizens want?

Is this the future?Men with hormone-induced breasts and women with hormone-induced beards march in downtown Northampton, Mass. in 2008.
[MassResistance photo]

Text of ordinance: false and misleading statements as justification

As usual for these kinds of political efforts by the sexual radical movement, the text of the ordinance includes as justification a number of statements presented as “fact” which are either grossly misleading or outright false — cleverly woven together to give the sense of serious medical data. It is Orwellian in its inversion of truth. For example:

1. It uses the weak term “gender dysphoria.” The older term, “gender identity disorder,” was previously the standard medical description until the LGBT movement pressured the medical community to water it down to a “dysphoria”.

2. It uses the transgender organization World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) as if it were a legitimate medical resource, but in fact it is a group of radical transgender activists and medical professionals who intimidate other medical associations into accepting their “findings” (in order to be seen as non-discriminatory).

3. It lists several prominent national professional associations (American Medical Association, American Psychiatric Association, etc.) that they say have “consensus” that hormones and body-mutilating surgeries are “appropriate” and “effective”. But none of these groups’ statements point to any legitimate studies. Instead, they just commit to non-discrimination in “treating” transgender patients. But themanner of treatment is left undefined.

4. It claims that the surgery and other treatment is “the only safe and effective medical treatment option” for some people. But is it? The phenomenon of hormone injections and surgeries is so new — only done in the last few decades — that it is virtually impossible to claim long-term positive health outcomes. In fact, the AMA and APA admit that transgender health care is still a “controversial” area.

5. It claims that not providing these treatments brings higher risk of suicide. Where are the studies confirming that? Some research suggests the opposite. In 2010 the Journal of Homosexuality reportedon a review of studies that suggest that people having “gender reassignment surgery” commit suicide at alarmingly higher rates than average. There is no question that people with gender identity disorders have a much higher suicide rate (as much as nine times higher) than the general population. Common sense would suggest that the best treatment is a mental health counseling approach, not a physical body change approach.

6. What it doesn’t tell you: Over a decade ago, Johns Hopkins University Hospital completely disbanded its “sex-change” program. The program’s director, Prof. Paul McHugh, wrote, “I have witnessed a great deal of damage from sex-reassignment . . . We have wasted scientific and technical resources and damaged our professional credibility by collaborating with madness rather than trying to study, cure, and ultimately prevent it.” We couldn’t agree more.

But will anyone in the Boston City Council challenge any of this nonsense? We don’t think so.

The huge need to tell the truth

How do you fight this? As we have shown, there is at least one thing that everyone can do that makes a difference: Tell the truth without backing down.

This ordinance is an example of how the Left’s world is built on lies and intimidation. They depend on the silence and fear of regular people to push their agenda. Any textbook on confronting a totalitarian environment always begins with the requirement of telling the truth without any compromise. If you just do that, you’re having a positive effect! And not doing so gives their side a tighter grip on the public’s perceived definition of reality.

There is a disturbing trend by pro-family groups around the country to be moderate and inoffensive when dealing with this issue, so as not to antagonize the LGBT movement and the media. They either (1) avoid the subject entirely; or (2) concede major points but quibble with a minor part of it, such as saying that transsexuals may “need” surgery but it ought not be paid for by the taxpayer; or (3) simply say that the whole thing is something they “disagree with” because of “religious freedom” or similar non-threatening reasoning. Thus, handing a victory for the other side.

Even in seemingly overwhelming circumstances like this, it is necessary to continue fighting harder than ever. We are convinced that in the long run it’s worth it.

Potential (or current?) City of Boston employees marching in the Gay Pride Parade (left) and attending a transgender bill public hearing at the State House (right).
[MassResistance photos]

Family Group Vows to Remind Voters Of Consequences of 296

JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA— Florida Family Action has released documentation today gathered from the Duval County Supervisor of Elections office displaying how the citizens of Jacksonville voted on Florida’s Marriage Protection Amendment in 2008. The report is broken out by each Council Member’s district, showing both the precise number and percentage of voter’s voting for marriage and against the creation of new gay rights on this issue.

Not a single district had less than 59% voting in favor of the Defense of Marriage Amendment, which amended the Florida Constitution to include language to prohibit “no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.”

Percentages range from district to district, all showing a decided majority in favor of maintaining the traditional definition of marriage. Districts 1, 8, 10 and 11 had more than 70% voting in favor of the Amendment, with 78.9% of District 12’s citizens voting Yes.

John Stemberger President of Florida Family Action released the following statement today:

Jacksonville residents will not be fooled about the real intent and purpose of this ordinance. Full legalized gay marriage is the goal of its proponents. 2012-296 is just a stepping stone to that end. In every state where traditional marriage laws were overturned to allow homosexual marriages, whether by judicial decision or state legislature, proponents of gay marriage cited the collective scheme of non discrimination ordinances that created new protected classes like the one proposed in 296. Local ordinances of this nature have been consistently used as legal precedent for introducing gay marriage. Even state constitutional amendments supporting traditional marriage, like California’s recently overturned amendment, are not safe. We pledge to remind the constituents in every Council Member’s district who votes for this bill on August 15 about its true effect. It would be our hope that members of the Council will remember both the commanding vote margin in this research and the recent record lines outside of Chick fil A stores in Jacksonville this past week in support of natural marriage.

This data has been released for the information of the City Council while they are considering Ordinance 2012-296, a bill that would amend several City ordinances to add “sexual orientation, and perhaps gender identity or expression” to the listings of personal conditions or statuses which cannot be discriminated against. The ordinances proposed to be amended include Public Accommodations, Fair Housing, and others.

Voting yes on 296 would be decidedly against the will of the citizens of Jacksonville, who overwhelmingly voted to uphold the traditional definition of marriage when given the chance. The City Council may wish to consider the way their constituents voted when this similar issue was presented directly to them.