BLUF
“The right to carry is here, and it’s here to stay, and everybody’s got to get used to that,” Bach told the outlet. “This angry fist-shaking by various states like New York and New Jersey is going to blow up in their faces. They can pretend that Bruen doesn’t say what it says, but it’s only going to come back to bite them.”
New York court rulings against gun law may signal trouble for similar New Jersey bill
A gun restriction bill backed by top Democrats in New Jersey is already facing legal threats after the Supreme Court affirmed a constitutional right to carry and sparked challenges to New York ‘s similar gun law.
Assemblyman Joe Danielsen, the New Jersey bill’s main sponsor, is pushing the legislation to prohibit licensed gun owners from bringing firearms into nearly 25 “sensitive places” while imposing stiff barriers for people seeking gun licenses. The bill made it out of committee via a party-line vote this week and has the backing of Gov. Phil Murphy , who has vowed to sign it into law.
If enacted, the legislation could be a tough road ahead in light of two federal court rulings in New York that held the Empire State’s new gun law fails the test established in the summer high court ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen .
Just last week, a federal judge placed a temporary restraining order on a provision of a New York gun law that made it a felony for a person with a concealed carry gun license to bring a firearm into churches or other houses of worship. That ruling came just weeks after a separate lower court ruled that much of New York’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act , signed by Gov. Kathy Hochul , failed the Bruen test. Since then, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals court has restored much of the act while a three-judge panel decides on a motion to stay the lower court decision.
New Jersey’s Bill A4769 features many similar components that have been subject to judicial scrutiny in light of the 6-3 high court opinion authored by Justice Clarence Thomas .
BLUF
“Children do not have awareness,” he added. “Their brains are not developed to the point to make an informed decision on such life-changing medical modifications. They’re not even responsible enough to go out and get a tattoo. How can you say they’re responsible to make this decision?”
“Children need help with the problems they’re having and not to be ‘gender-affirmed,’” he concluded.
‘Every State Needs to Pass a Law’ Like This, Detransitioner Says of Arkansas SAFE Act.
Two men and one woman who underwent experimental medical interventions in pursuit of a transgender identity told The Daily Signal that they support Arkansas’ Save Adolescents From Experimentation Act, arguing that it is necessary to protect children from the horrors they themselves experienced.
The SAFE Act prohibits anyone from performing controversial transgender medical interventions on minors, who are considered too young to vote, drink, get married, or purchase over-the-counter drugs.
Medical experts testified against the SAFE Act last week, arguing on behalf of the Arkansas chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union that children need access to “gender-affirming care.” Billy Burleigh and Walt Heyer, men who previously identified as transgender but later desisted, and Chloe Cole, a woman who desisted from a male gender identity, said the exact opposite is true, however.
“I believe every state needs to pass a law that protects our youth in this way,” Cole—a woman who once identified as male, took puberty-blockers, and had her breasts removed at age 15—told The Daily Signal on Monday.
Cole recently launched Detrans United, an organization to support fellow detransitioners. She warned about the harms from medical interventions from personal experience.
“The idea that the science is solved on these procedures is a ridiculous claim,” she said. “Confused children need to be protected from experimentation; it cannot be left up to the doctors, because they’ve been ideologically captured. The medical establishment needs to move past these treatments like they moved past lobotomies.”
New Study Reveals The Dangerous Transgender Pipeline Targeting Children
Most teenagers who start puberty suppression treatments go on to receive other sex change treatments, according to a new study from the Netherlands published Thursday in The Lancet.
The study examined patients under the age of 18 with gender dysphoria who went to the gender identity clinic of Amsterdam UMC for treatment. The patients received puberty suppressants for a minimum of three months.
Of those studied, 98% went on to receive sex change hormones after receiving puberty suppressants as teenagers.
“Most participants who started gender-affirming hormones in adolescence continued this treatment into adulthood. The continuation of treatment is reassuring considering the worries that people who started treatment in adolescence might discontinue gender-affirming treatment,” the study reads.
The study helps reveal the extent to which puberty suppressants for underage children leads makes them more likely to undergo other invasive and irreversible hormone treatments and sex change surgeries. Medical professionals, such as Fenway Health, warn that puberty blockers may effect future fertility in individuals undergoing the treatment.
Other reactions, however, argued that the study showed a lack of regrets in transition. “The study is of particular interest given the great speculation that surrounds this issue, especially among children and young people,” Adrián Carrasco Munera, a specialist in family and community medicine said in reaction to the study. “The study aims to demonstrate, with a methodology that is more than adequate, that transgender people who begin their transition in childhood-adolescence do not give up.”
“These findings can and should help and guide the current public and legal debate on the initiation of medical treatment in transgender minors,” Gilberto Pérez López, Endocrinology Specialist at the Endocrinology and Nutrition Service of Barcelona’s Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, said.
A recent poll conducted by Summit Ministries and McLaughlin and Associates found that American voters believe the transgender movement has gone too far in recommending sex change hormones and surgeries for children. A full 65% of voters, including 44% of Biden voters, said the transgender movement had gone too far in recommending sex change surgeries and drugs to minors.
BARR: Hate Unconstitutional Gun Control? Make Friends With Your Sheriff
A number of sheriffs in upstate New York are declaring that their officers will not prioritize or “aggressively enforce” the state’s recently enacted, highly restrictive gun control law. These elected sheriffs have concluded quite correctly that the state’s new law is at odds with both the Constitution of the United States and with the most recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that declared New York’s previous and long-standing gun control law – the Sullivan Act – unconstitutional.
The sheriffs’ actions have rekindled a recurring debate about the powers of the more than three thousand local sheriffs serving in every state except Alaska and Connecticut.
The United States has had elected sheriffs long before there was a “United States of America,” with the first one taking office in Virginia in 1652. Police departments, on the other hand, are a relatively new phenomenon. The first municipal police department was not established until 1838 in Boston, Massachusetts.
Unlike most county sheriffs, who hold their positions under their state constitutions, police chiefs answer only to local office holders who appointed them, not to the voters. It is this distinction that has caused a number of sheriffs in “Blue States” to earn the ire of the Left.
Two factors have exacerbated this enmity in recent years – increasingly restrictive gun control measures and abusive COVID mandates by Blue State governors and legislatures. Sheriffs who decline to prioritize enforcing such laws find themselves increasingly maligned by the Left, notwithstanding the fact that they are carrying out their sworn duty to support the federal and state constitutions, and in accord with the wishes of the voters they represent.
Consider Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva, who declared in 2021 that he would not force officers under his command to be vaccinated against COVID, as mandated by that county’s liberal Board of Supervisors.
Even more vexing to liberals, however, is the number of sheriffs who in recent years have refused to enforce what they consider unconstitutional infringements on the rights of citizens in their jurisdictions to exercise their Second Amendment rights in the face of Blue State gun control laws.
The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) berates these sheriffs who follow the Constitution of the United States as “radicalized” officials who do not themselves understand the Constitution. The recently discredited SPLC simply cannot bring itself to accept that elected law enforcement officials should be permitted to resist such government overreach.
However, these “constitutional sheriffs” are not alone in their views. Since the Supreme Court’s seminal Bruen decision in June that tossed New York’s Sullivan Act, similarly restrictive laws in other states have fallen. Even more to the point, some of the very restrictions in the legislation signed by Gov. Kathy Hochul just days after the Supreme Court rendered its opinion, as part of her attempt to undercut the High Court’s directive, were blocked last week by a federal judge in New York City.
With state and federal courts seeming to agree with sheriffs who decline to vigorously enforce laws they view as inconsistent with their oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, especially as related to Second Amendment rights of citizens in their jurisdictions, it is becoming increasingly difficult for their detractors on the Left to argue with a straight face that the sheriffs are the outliers.
Three years ago, the gun control group founded by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg — “Everytown for Gun Safety” — published a paper highly critical of sheriffs who declined to prioritize the gun control measures the organization championed. The title of the piece was, When Sheriffs Refuse to Follow the Law.
It is, however, becoming increasingly clear to citizens across the country that it is liberal, anti-gun public officials like Hochul who are not following the law, and that it is constitutional sheriffs who are the ones following it.
Civilian gun club sues Fort Devens for violating statutory, constitutional rights
Lawsuit alleges the Fort violated federal law granting access to military ranges.
Fort Devens Rifle & Pistol Club members engaging popup targets with rifles on Fort Devens’ Hotel Range. (Photo courtesy of the Fort Devens Rifle & Pistol Club).
A small civilian rifle club located just 50 miles northwest of Boston is suing nearby Fort Devens for violating federal law granting them access to military rifle ranges at reasonable rates, as well as violating their members’ constitutional rights to due process and equal protection under the law.
Ultimately, the club believes the Biden-Harris administration is responsible.
A little-known section of U.S. code requires the Army to make rifle and pistol ranges available for civilian use as long as it does not interfere with military training, and it prohibits officials from charging exorbitant fees for range access. Another federal statute requires the Army to provide logistical support to the Civilian Marksmanship Program. The Fort Devens Rifle & Pistol Club, Inc., is an affiliate of both the Civilian Marksmanship Program and the National Rifle Association.
For decades prior to the 2020 election, club members had been using a wide array of rifle and pistol ranges at Fort Devens free of charge. Club members supplied their own targets, ammunition, Range Safety Officers and other supplies. They even policed their own brass. Most of the members are veterans, so they are intimately familiar with range safety protocols and other best practices. To be clear, in terms of taxpayer dollars, the club cost the Fort very little.
[Click here to watch a video of the club members at Fort Devens’ ranges.]
Just days after the 2020 election, the club was notified in writing that they would have to start paying a minimum of $250 per range, and that the fees would increase based upon the total number of shooters.
“This did not start until three days after Biden got into office. We found that very interesting,” said Jim Gettens, treasurer of the Fort Devens Rifle & Pistol Club, Inc. “I don’t think they ever would have pulled this under President Trump’s administration. If we had contacted President Trump about this, I think it would have gone away ASAP.”
For the past 40 years, we’ve always had a ‘car gun’, and, except for the ’12by12′, it’s usually been some form of rifle.
MORE ROOM MORE GUN
RETHINKING THE CAR GUN
One of the places that rifles outshine pistols is the sight radius — note that the sight radius of the AR here, which is short by rifle standards, is still about twice as long as that of this S&W M&P .45 — which is big by pistol standards.
These days, a “car gun” is generally considered to be any reasonably-powered handgun that can be slid under the driver’s seat and left there perpetually, to be rattled and scratched about largely at random — and hopefully be functional if ever needed. Often an inexpensive gun (police trade-in .357s are great for such duty), the owners will usually justify their selection of pistol by describing it as one they don’t mind having stolen. But it hasn’t always been this way. Think back to cowboy movies, did you see a spare Peacemaker holstered on John Wayne’s saddle, or a rifle?
Except for a few pretty hardcore guys, most people with CCW licenses select their carry gun by what they can conceal on their person, often virtually ignoring whether or not the pistol is capable of actually stopping a bad guy. While I think this is backwards, the logic does apply well to cars. Since a vehicle gives you far greater flexibility about what you carry in it, it makes sense to carry more gun in your car than you do on your person. Never forget that Bonnie and Clyde used a BAR — a full-auto .30/06 — as their car gun.
Before we get into the nuts-and bolts of long guns for vehicle defense, let me go ahead and point out that if you’re getting a gun out of your car, or firing one from inside it, you’re in a car, which means you can leave the scene. There aren’t a whole lot of situations where staying put and getting into a rifle fight is a wise — or justifiable — option. The obvious exceptions are when you’re returning to your own home, or where your vehicle is disabled or somehow blocked in. Beyond that, it can get pretty sketchy, so make sure you know your state’s law on weapons and self defense, and follow it.
BLUF
Democrats, Demoncraps, who have spent years delegitimizing the Supreme Court and rule of law, undermining legislative norms, cheering on unprecedented and blatant executive abuses, and using the DOJ to target their political enemies, among other “democracy”-destroying behaviors, do not occupy any high moral ground. And while “democracy” was once just a transparently silly euphemism for “stuff we want,” it has since evolved into a rhetorical device that denotes a decisively illiberal mindset.
DEMOCRATS Demoncraps: The Only Way To Save Democracy Is One-Party Rule.
‘Save Our Democracy’ is the new ‘Russia Collusion.’
At this point, it would save everyone time if Democrats could simply point to a policy agenda item that isn’t going to save democracy — if such a thing exists.
If Republicans vote, they are killing democracy. If they don’t vote, they are killing democracy. The only way to “save democracy,” writes The Washington Post’s Max Boot, is to empower one-party rule — a position that probably sounds counterintuitive to anyone with a middle-school education. “Now you need to vote to literally save democracy again,” contends President Joe Biden, or we will lose our “fundamental rights and freedoms like the right to choose, the right to privacy, the right to vote — our very democracy.”
Chilling stuff. But it doesn’t end there. You will remember that by failing to “reform” the filibuster, which would entail authorizing the thinnest of fleeting majorities to shove through massive generational “reforms” without any national consensus or debate, we are also killing democracy. This has been the position not only of left-wing pundits and the New York Times editorial board, but also senators tasked with defending their institution. I wonder if they will support this democracy-saving fix next session, as well?
Then again, if we don’t nationalize the economy to avert a climate crisis, we are also killing democracy. “We’ve got to save democracy in order to save our species,” Jamie Raskin explains. And if we don’t empty the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to temporarily keep gas prices low to help Democrats win in 2022, we are killing democracy. “We find ourselves in a situation, where keeping gas prices low is key to preserving and strengthening the future of our democracy,” MSNBC’s Chris Hayes says.
We must allow the president to unilaterally create trillion-dollar spending bills and break existing private sector contracts by fiat. For democracy. We must pack the court to “save democracy.” We must create a Ministry of Truth to help with “strengthening democratic institutions.” We must vote for a Pennsylvania candidate who can’t cobble two consecutive coherent sentences together because the “fate of our democracy” is at stake, says our former president.
Arizona Defies CDC, Will Not Require COVID-19 Vaccine for Public School Students
Arizona will not require students to receive the COVID-19 vaccine in order to attend public schools in the state, the legislature announced in a statement.
The state’s Senate Majority Leadership Team, via an email press release, pointed to HB 2086, a now-signed law, that “clearly and explicitly states that COVID-19 vaccinations cannot be a requirement for school attendance in Arizona.”
Last week the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) voted unanimously to add the COVID-19 vaccine to the adult and childhood immunization schedules. The ACIP recommended the receipt of four shots in total, beginning at six-months-old.
Consequently, some states will now legally require that students receive the vaccine in compliance with CDC recommendations, but Arizona will not be among them. A majority of states use the ACIP vaccination schedule as a reference for their own laws. The CDC itself does not determine state policy on public school admissions in relation to vaccination status.
“This is just another example of how out of touch the federal government and its agencies are with everyday families. With Republicans currently in control of our state government, we can promise that we will never subject Arizonans to the requirement of an experimental vaccine that has raised questions over long-term health implications,” Republican Senate President Karen Fann said of the ACIP vote.
Opinion: Gun control and the right to self-defense in a Culture of Death
Those in favor of gun control are right about one thing: there is no excuse for inaction. But they are wrongheaded in acting toward stricter but ultimately futile regulations.
As the nation continues to mourn the victims of the Uvalde massacre, and with old wounds aching over the sentencing of the Parkland shooter and the Sandy Hook conspiracy theorist trial, Catholics should be the ones who offer answers when it comes to gun violence.
Some legislators want to focus on gun ownership and gun control. But the remedy won’t be found there. Rather, the remedy is spiritual. The nation must realize that saving lives begins with returning sanctity to life in all its stages. And sometimes, as counterintuitive as it may seem to say so, it might, at times, actually take a gun to do that.
A common response to the continual tragedy of school shootings in the United States is to assert that if there are no guns, there will be no shootings. But this perspective is both impractical and misguided. Christians are still called to defend the lives of the helpless—and sometimes an opposing firearm is the best tool to accomplish that. To a virtuous person, the Second Amendment bestows the real potential to be a lifesaver. In these dark days, exercising the right to keep and bear arms may even be considered a responsibility where it is permissible.
As the Left makes arguments that gun control is about saving lives, Pope Francis and the American bishops have taken this tack as well. Though the USCCB’s emphasis is certainly on sensible measures (such as reasonable background checks), the push to have Congress tighten the legislation around the buying and selling of firearms ever since Columbine seems a little too in lockstep with the liberal sectors of government—such as their support for banning assault-style weapons and limiting handgun ownership.
In the wake of Uvalde, Cardinal Blase Cupich of Chicago was particularly direct:
The Second Amendment, unlike the Second Commandment, did not come down from Sinai. There is an understanding that we all have in our hearts, engraved in our hearts, a natural law about the value of human life. And there is no amendment that can trump that.
His Eminence is both right and wrong. Yes, the right to bear arms is not a sacred right, as is the right to life. But there is an often-neglected angle of argument concerning that truth that responsible citizens bearing arms can save lives, and at certain times and situations, it does take an amendment to protect the lives that Cardinal Cupich affirms is a duty of natural law.
But, in fact, the criminals and even the criminally insane will often get their hands on firearms. Severe legislative restrictions, however, will keep many honest citizens unarmed, and that can lead to more unnecessary deaths as well. The bishops might say that being anti-gun is being pro-life, but allowing for the increasingly common scenario where the strong will take evil advantage over the weak is not pro-life at all.
Now, we’ve all heard from those people who don’t even want armed, in uniform, police resource officers in schools. These people are pro-criminal.
Of course, even if you do have armed security in a school, they have to have the fortitude to use their arms, not just stand around.
Good Guys with Guns End Monday Morning Attack at St. Louis School
A shooting at Central Visual and Performing Arts High School (CVPA) Monday morning shortly after nine was “quickly stopped” by police inside the school.
Fox2Now points out that “an adult female” and a teenager were killed in the shooting. The shooting suspect is deceased as well.
Police indicate there were seven active officers on the campus and there was “an exchange of gunfire” between the suspect and police. KMOV reports that the shooting suspect had a long gun and was “a man around 20 years old.”
At 9:47 a.m. St. Louis Public Schools tweeted: “Police are on site at Central Visual and Performing Arts this morning following reports of an active shooter and both CVPA and Collegiate are on lockdown. The shooter was quickly stopped by police inside CVPA. We have reports of 2 students injured and on the way to the hospital.”
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch notes, “David Williams, a math teacher at the school, said the school principal came over the loudspeaker around 9 a.m. and said the code word that indicates a school shooter is in the building.”
Williams said he then heard gunshots outside of his classroom.
New Low(y): Gun Controllers Register as Foreign Agents to Undermine American Freedom
Beginning last year, NRA-ILA has been keeping readers up to date with an ongoing effort by the Mexican government and domestic gun control supporters to attack the American firearms industry. According to a new report from Politico, this conspiracy to leverage a foreign sovereign to undermine an American constitutional right has become more formalized in recent days with the creation of a new advocacy group named Global Action on Gun Violence.
Back in August 2021, the Mexican government filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts against the most prominent U.S. gun manufacturers alleging that these heavily regulated businesses were somehow responsible for Mexico’s violent crime problem. The suit was the international version of a domestic gun control strategy from the 1990s, when anti-gun jurisdictions and avaricious plaintiff’s attorneys teamed up in an effort to bankrupt the U.S. firearms industry by holding companies accountable for the third-party criminal misuse of their products. This wild departure from long-established tort law eventually necessitated Congress enacting the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).
In an attempt to get around the PLCAA, the Mexican suit argued that the U.S. federal courts should ignore both U.S. law and the Second Amendment and instead rule against the gun companies under the laws of Mexico.
Some observers will find it ironic that Mexico has sought to exert sovereignty over foreign businesses in this manner when the Mexican government has failed to exercise sovereignty over its own purported territory. A 2020 Washington Post item stated,
In a classified study produced in 2018 but not previously reported, CIA analysts concluded that drug-trafficking groups had gained effective control over about 20 percent of Mexico, according to several current and former U.S. officials.
The Mexico suit was filed with the help of handgun prohibition group Brady (formerly Handgun Control, Inc.), and specifically longtime Brady counsel Jonathan Lowy. At the time, NRA pointed out, “That Brady would ally itself with a foreign government that has become virtually synonymous with corruption proves just how detached the gun control movement has become from the values and traditions that define America.”
Sorry border Democrats, but this is the White House's response to the crisis that is going to sink your campaigns in the home stretch. https://t.co/k6xUClNVvU
— Matt Whitlock (@mattdizwhitlock) October 24, 2022
Susan Liebell, a political science professor at Saint Joseph’s University in Philadelphia, said that gun control provisions with large amounts of popular support are unlikely to advance in the current political environment.
“The way this should play out politically is that senators and representatives would be punished in elections because they don’t support the kind of gun safety laws that Americans want,” Liebell said. “However, there’s no evidence that Americans are willing to vote on gun safety the way they’re willing to vote on the economy.”
Liebell also pointed out that the conservative legal movement spent much of the last four decades building the Supreme Court majority that led to the Bruen decision, one that is not likely to go away anytime soon.
“We’re not really talking about history, we’re not really talking about the original interpretation of the Second Amendment, we’re talking about the number of votes that you have on the Supreme Court,” Liebell said.
— Michael Macagnone in Court rulings wipe out gun laws in wake of Supreme Court decision
The Progressive Socialist War on American Children
The time has come that we — as constitutional conservatives and Republicans — stop playing this absurd adherence to the Marquis of Queensberry’s rules. It is imperative to understand the strategy, goals, plans, and objectives of the radical leftists and Marxists; that is why I have a copy of Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” in my home. The leftists in America have no issue with wrongly castigating and demonizing their political opposition in the most despicable and heinous terms. We need not lower ourselves to such a level of depravity, but we must simply tell the truth. As we head into the final stretch of this midterm election cycle it is no longer debatable: the progressive socialists have declared war against American children. After this past week, what else should we deduce?
I am committed to ensuring that the unalienable rights of our children, born and unborn, are not violated. America is looking for courageous adults who will stand upon the ramparts for our children.
This past week we witnessed 15 unelected bureaucrats of the Centers for Disease Control advisory board unanimously voted that the COVID shot be included in child immunization requirements. So, 15 individuals – who, behind the anonymity of their vote — decided that our children, as young as 6 months, must be given a shot to get an education in a public school. You can bet that most Democrat-controlled states will then mandate all children must adhere to the CDC guidance (Never forget that it was Karl Marx who listed state control of education as one of the Marxist planks). This decision was met with unrestricted angst and anger from our youngest daughter who blatantly refuses to have such an injection go into little Jaxton Bernard’s body.
COVID is not a disease–it is a virus; therefore, the so-called mandated “vaccine” is not such. A vaccine eradicates a disease. It has been proven that this COVID shot does not prevent this viral infection. As a matter of fact, in young people, the COVID shot has proven to have adverse effects. Furthermore, COVID was most dangerous for those with specified comorbidities — heart disease, hypertension, diabetes, and obesity. The demographic that was the least impacted by COVID was the 0-17-year-old group. So, why mandate this ineffective shot, and leverage education, rather indoctrination, on its inoculation?
It kind of reminds me of Joe Biden threatening to cut off school lunch programs for school districts that refused to adopt the LBGTQ+ and gender dysphoria agenda.
As well, we have a new abhorrent assertion emanating from the progressive socialists. Murdering unborn babies in the womb is now an economic issue. Yes, so says Stacey Abrams, and even Joy Reid of MSNBC. It appears, according to Abrams, that if women dismember their babies in the womb, they lessen their economic concerns. Talk about a creepy take on budget cuts. Now leftists, in the need to make abortion relevant, have reduced unborn babies to a budget line item . . . and they want veto power. Our children are a gift from God, and they are endowed with the very first unalienable right: life.
The leftist position goes beyond anything reasonable or moral and, instead, promotes infanticide. Ralph Northam referred to a born child as “it.” Maryland and California have legislation advancing the idea that a born child can still be left to die. This is a demonic evil.
As well, there is an abominable drive towards child gender modification, mutilation, and surgeries along with life-altering hormonal therapies and puberty blockers. Parental rights, in this instance, are not part of the leftist ideological agenda. After all, leftists believe that our kids are not ours, but the property of the State. A leftist judge here in Dallas County, Texas, has ruled that a mother can, against the dad’s wishes, take her 10-year-old son to California so he can undergo gender modification surgery because she wants him to be a girl.
We have the American Medical Association asking the DOJ to investigate anyone speaking out against child gender modification surgery. Planned Parenthood has now added child gender modification surgery to its business plan. There are medical centers now seeing this as a lucrative, profitable endeavor and are pushing for these procedures, which the American Psychiatric Association designated as child abuse. Yes, we are chemically and physically castrating our kids. In Virginia, a progressive socialist elected official wanted to introduce legislation that parents who did not “affirm” their child’s chosen gender should lose custody. She has since back-peddled, no doubt due to the outcry when the story broke, including members of her political party who shunned her . . . and rightfully so.
Perhaps collusion exists between the medical-industrial complex and the educational-indoctrination complex. The CDC is mandating the COVID shot to attend public school. Some cannot afford private schooling. Children are then forced into public, government indoctrination centers, especially since Randi Weingarten and the leftists despise educational freedom and parental choice in education. The children are therefore indoctrinated, having drag queens paraded before them, while they are told, against parental knowledge, that they can choose their gender . . . and the teachers will enable them to do so.
Never forget, the medical-industrial complex makes the money from this purposeful and intentional grooming.
The progressive socialists do not talk about child sex trafficking. They are redefining pedophilia to be “minor-attracted persons.” They are sexualizing our children. Remember the Netflix series “Cuties?”
There is a progressive socialist war on our children. I am reminded of Jesus, who said:
“It would be better for them to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around their neck than to cause one of these little ones to stumble.” (Luke 17:2)
Metaphorically speaking, there are a lot of progressive socialists who do not realize that they have a millstone tied around their necks.
Steadfast and Loyal.
One dead after early morning apparent self-defense shooting in Reno
RENO, Nev. (News 4 & Fox 11) — One person is dead after an early morning self-defense shooting near the Atlantis casino, according to the Reno Police Department.
According to Lieutenant Anthony Elges with the Reno Police Department, officers responded around 4:45 a.m. on Oct. 23 to the 3000 block of S. Virginia St. on reports of a shooting and found a man who was suffering from a gunshot wound. The man died on scene.
Detectives determined the shooting appears to be in self-defense, so no one has been arrested. The person who shot in self-defense remained on scene and is cooperating with the investigation.
It was the second deadly self-defense shooting in Reno in the past week. One person was shot dead in another self-defense shooting near UNR on Wednesday night.
