Referring to the Christmas day post which he has since deleted, Hamilton wrote on micro-blogging platform Twitter Wednesday that ” I was playing around with my nephew and realised that my words were inappropriate so I removed the post. I meant no harm and did not mean to offend anyone at all. I love that my nephew feels free to express himself as we all should.”
Continuing to disavow his instinctive reaction upon seeing his nephew wearing girls clothes, Hamilton wrote: “My deepest apologies for my behaviour as I realise it is really not acceptable for anyone, no matter where you are from, to marginalise or stereotype anyone.
“I have always been in support of anyone living their life exactly how they wish and I hope I can be forgiven for this lapse in judgement.”
Forced Transgender Boy Quickly Returns To Normal After Removal From Mother’s Care
In the original video, which has now been removed from social media, the celebrity racing driver told fans as he pointed the camera towards a young boy wearing a princess dress and holding a wand: “I’m so sad right now. Look at my nephew.
“Why are you wearing a princess dress? Is this what you got for Christmas… Boys don’t wear princess dresses!”
Hamilton was attacked on social media and in print by transgender activists and there have been calls for the driver to be stripped of his MBE, an award from the British crown for services to sports, for his use of social media.
Government Confirms Compulsory Sex Ed for Young Children Will Include Transgender Issues http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/12/19/compulsory-sex-ed-young-children-trans/ …
Government Confirms Compulsory Sex Ed for Young Children Will Include Transgender Issues
The government has confirmed that children will learn about transgender issues s when compulsory sex education is brought into primaries.
breitbart.com
The Metro free newspaper reports some were concerned about the sincerity of Hamilton’s apology after he ‘liked’ a number of tweets defending him, including one that criticised the “PC brigade”, which said: “You’ve done absolutely nothing wrong Lewis. You should never have to apologise to the PC brigade who are getting worse every year. Have fun with your family and don’t worry what others think.”
The princess dress episode is not the first social media incident for the driver. Breitbart reported in 2015 after Hamilton was ordered by his race boss to take down a video and photographs of himself enjoying time on a rifle range hitting targets with an AR-15 rifle.
Hamilton removed the posts at the instructions of his employer but was otherwise unapologetic, remarking: “I went to the shooting range, shot some fun targets. It was a lot of fun.”
This Goon Thinks Transgender Grown Ass Men Should Be Called Women
President Donald Trump has re-nominated radical sexual identity activist Chai Feldblum, the architect of former President Barack Obama’s LGBT agenda, to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
Feldblum is a nightmare of a nominee for those who value religious freedom, private property rights, and the science-based standard that there are two sexes – male and female. As Obama’s most liberal gender ideology activist, Feldblum has said that whenever LGBT issues conflict with religious liberty and private property rights, religious liberty and private rights should lose.
“When push comes to shove, when religious liberty and sexual liberty conflict, she admits, ‘I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win,’” Maggie Gallagher reported at the Weekly Standard in 2006, after interviewing Feldblum when the news broke that Catholic Charities in Boston would need to place adoptive children with same-sex couples in order to remain a licensed adoption agency.
Paul Mirengoff at Powerline first wrote of Trump’s re-nomination of Feldblum who, if confirmed, will serve until 2023. He explains:
The Trump administration hoped to smuggle Feldblum’s nomination through the Senate with minimal fuss. As we reported, and Newsweek confirmed, there was talk on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee of getting her nomination through committee without a hearing, during “executive session.”
Mirengoff further observes, “It’s astonishing that a radical LGBT activist and Obama nominee who faced fierce resistance the first two times she was before the Senate was (is?) on the verge of being confirmed with virtually no fuss now that the White House and Senate are controlled by Republicans.”
Christian Adams at PJ Media notes the mysterious nature of Trump’s re-nomination of someone who would appear to be at odds with much of the president’s agenda:
Feldblum is the ideological architect of all of the most radical LGBTWHATEVER agenda items of the Obama presidency: transvestites in girls locker rooms, lawless expansion of federal employment oversight, you name it.
So why would Feldblum be renominated?
There is backstory on Feldblum that hasn’t been fully reported. All of the normal clearance and vetting procedures usually used for Senate-confirmed nominees were short-circuited. Her nomination was rushed through the Senate HELP Committee. Feldblum even bragged to some that her goal was to trick Republicans before they knew what was happening.
Currently, Democrats have a majority on the EEOC, and Republicans were reportedlyhoping to trade a confirmation of Feldblum for a confirmation of two Republicans to give the GOP the majority.
“It seems obvious that getting a GOP majority on the EEOC a couple of months early is not worth five more years of Chai Feldblum, plus the likelihood that she will become Chair of the Commission if Democrats win the presidency in 2020,” Mirengoff explains. “ It’s not even close.”
In an update, Mirengoff says he has confirmed that the Feldblum nomination has been “hotlined,” a situation in which “Senators are informed that unanimous consent will be sought to confirm a nominee … If no one objects, the nominee is confirmed.”
“In this case, I’m told, there are Republican Senators who intend not to consent, at least as things stand now,” he added.
The EEOC is one of those “independent” – read rogue – federal agencies created by Congress that exercises considerable power with no accountability to American citizens. The commission is not part of one of the three branches of government, yet still does its share of legislative, judicial, and executive decision-making. Actually operating as part of a “fourth branch of government,” the EEOC – in the parlance of Trump himself – is smack in the middle of “the swamp.”
Daniel Horowitz at Conservative Review observes Trump’s re-nomination of Feldblum “comes at a particularly dangerous time, as the EEOC is bringing a number of lawsuits encouraging the courts to enshrine the sexual identity agenda into Title IX of the Education Amendments and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.”
“She is the lead architect of Obama’s transgender agenda, mandating that schools and states bring one gender into private dressing rooms of the opposite gender,” Horowitz notes. “Under her tenure, the EEOC has codified the entire sexual alphabet soup agenda, including ‘sex stereotyping,’ into the Civil Rights Act without approval from Congress. An ‘independent’ agency, indeed!”
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) passed the FCC’s “Restoring Internet Freedom Order” on Thursday, which will repeal the agency’s 2015 net neutrality regulation.
Chairman Pai told Fox News host Tucker Carlson on Monday, “I think what net neutrality repealed would actually mean is we once again have a free and open Internet. The government would not be regulating how anyone in the Internet service providers, how anyone else in the internet economy manages their networks.”
The FCC’s Restoring Internet Freedom order will reclassify the Internet as an “information service” compared to the FCC’s 2015 net neutrality order, which regulated the Internet as a public monopoly. The order will also require Internet service providers (ISPs) such as Comcast or Verizon to release transparency reports detailing their practices towards consumers and businesses.
The FCC’s net neutrality repeal order will also restore the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) traditional authority and expertise to regulate and litigate unfair, deceptive, and anti-competitive telecommunications practices without onerous regulations and increased cost.
On Monday the FCC and the FTC agreed to share the responsibility to police unfair ISP practices regarding unfair or deceptive practices to block, throttle, or promote web content.
Chairman Pai explained in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal why repealing net neutrality will preserve a free and open internet.
Pai wrote:
We have proof that markets work: For almost two decades, the U.S. had a free and open internet without these heavy-handed rules. There was no market failure before 2015. Americans weren’t living in a digital dystopia before the FCC seized power. To the contrary, millions enjoyed an online economy that was the envy of the world. They experienced the most powerful platform ever seen for permission-less innovation and expression. Next month, I hope the FCC will choose to return to the common-sense policies that helped the online world transform the physical one.
The FCC’s Restoring Internet Freedom Order and Breitbart News’s Allum Bokhari argued that under net neutrality content providers such as Facebook, Google, and Twitter have censored the internet, stifled conservative and alternative voices, and serve as a greater threat to free speech compared to ISPs.
Pai charged in a recent speech that Facebook, Twitter, and Google serve as a greater threat to free speech and an open internet.
“I love Twitter, and I use it all the time,” said Pai. “But let’s not kid ourselves; when it comes to an open Internet, Twitter is part of the problem. The company has a viewpoint and uses that viewpoint to discriminate.”
In further comments, the FCC chairman specifically called out the censorship of Rep. Marsha Blackburn’s pro-life ad, which was blocked by Twitter for “inflammatory speech.”
Pai charged, “Two months ago, Twitter blocked Representative Marsha Blackburn from advertising her Senate campaign launch video because it featured a pro-life message. Before that, during the so-called Day of Action, Twitter warned users that a link to a statement by one company on the topic of Internet regulation ‘may be unsafe.’”
FCC Chairman Pai previously referenced Robert McChesney, the founder of Free Press, who remains a staunch supporter of net neutrality. Pai explained that McChesney openly bragged about taking over the internet. McChesney said, “At the moment, the battle over network neutrality is not to eliminate the telephone and cable companies. We are not at that point yet. But, the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control.”
Robert McChesney even said, “In the end, there is no real answer but to remove brick by brick the capitalist system itself, rebuilding the entire society on socialist principles.”
To put McChesney’s influence on net neutrality in context, he was cited 46 times in the Obama net neutrality order.
Democrats and Silicon Valley companies argued that content providers cannot compete on an even playing field without net neutrality.
Congressman Mike Doyle (D-PA) said on Tuesday, “All you have to do is look at what went on over the last 10 or 15 years to see how the [internet service providers] repeatedly sought to crush potential competitors and challenged the FCC’s previous net neutrality rules in court to understand why the Open Internet Order was needed — and to see what will happen if the Open Internet Order is repealed.”
Net neutrality protesters gathered outside the FCC on Thursday morning to rally against the FCC’s repeal of the agency’s 2015 Open Internet Order.
At the FCC meeting Pai charged:
This bipartisan policy worked. Encouraged by light-touch regulation, the private sector invested over $1.5 trillion to build out fixed and mobile networks throughout the United States. 28.8k modems gave way to gigabit fiber connections. Innovators and entrepreneurs grew startups into global giants. America’s Internet economy became the envy of the world.
And this light-touch approach was good for consumers, too. In a free market full of permissionless innovation, online services blossomed. Within a generation, we’ve gone from email as the killer app to high-definition video streaming. Entrepreneurs and innovators guided the Internet far better than the clumsy hand of government ever could have.
Fellow Republican Commissioner Michael O’Reilly said, “No one can label more than a handful of examples of why we need this regulation.”
“Please take a deep breath. This decision will not break the Internet,” O’Reilly added.
Republican Commision Brendan Carr argued, “Americans will have robust Internet consumer protections.”
Democratic Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel said at the FCC meeting, “Net neutrality is internet freedom. I support that freedom. I dissent from this rash decision to roll back net neutrality rules.”
Democratic Commissioner Mignon Clyburn announced that next Tuesday she will host a town hall meeting to discuss the future of net neutrality.
Chairman Pai and FCC Commissioner Michael O’Reilly have argued that Congres should enact a permanent, legislative solution to the issue of net neutrality.
Pai explained:
I think the best solution would be for Congress to tell us what they want the rules of the road to be for the FCC and the country when it comes to the digital world. Part of the problem is that we are consistently looking at 1934 laws and 1996 laws then we try to shoehorn our modern marketplace to some of those paradigms that frankly we didn’t anticipate a marketplace as dynamic as the internet. I really think that Congress, ideally looking at all the opinions, and all the constituencies they can come to a consensus. Because again as Commissioner O’Reilly pointed out we don’t want the regulatory winds to keep shifting every four or eight years we want to provide some level of consistency to the marketplace so that consumers and companies alike can enjoy the digital revolution.
Pai concluded his remarks at the FCC meeting, “Many words have been spoken during this debate but the time has come for action. It is time for the Internet once again to be driven by engineers and entrepreneurs and consumers, rather than lawyers and accountants and bureaucrats. It is time for us to act to bring faster, better, and cheaper Internet access to all Americans. It is time for us to return to the bipartisan regulatory framework under which the Internet flourished prior to 2015, it is time for us to restore Internet freedom.”
That’s right. Leave your brain at home. It’s not needed at college.
Here’s some of the most outrageous college classes of 2017-18: REPORT
A recent survey of course catalogs detailing classes taught at colleges nationwide this school year has revealed that current higher education trends include an emphasis on “queering” topics, teach that gender is a choice and a fluid construct, and argue that capitalism is evil.
That according to Young America’s Foundation, which recently published its annual survey of course catalogs, reviewing 2017-18 class offerings at more than 50 institutions, including the Ivy League, US News & World Report’s Top 10 liberal arts colleges, and other prominent schools.
The survey revealed a big push to “queer” topics, noting the University of Michigan offers “Rednecks, Queers, and Country Music,” Swarthmore hosts “Queering God: Feminist and Queer Theology” and “Queering the Bible,” Carleton College has “Queer Religion” and Middlebury offers “Queering Food.”
Academia also continues to argue that gender is not a biological mandate but rather some sort of spectrum, according to the survey’s results:
A topic du jour in this year’s report is gender, or lack thereof, perhaps. Northwestern University has a class titled “Beyond the Binary.” The school’s history department offers a medieval sexuality course on the “fluidity of sex and gender roles in an age before ‘sexual orientation.’”
In Indiana University’s Gender Studies program, students can enroll in “We’re All A Little Crazy: Gender, Madness, & Popular Culture,” which promises to discuss “resting b***h face” and “hails of ‘Yaaas, Queen!’” Wellesley College asks, “Beyond the social construct of gender, what are the actual differences between the sexes?” in its “What’s up with Men & Women?” course. Carleton College has a course to examine “how globalization and militarism are gendered.” Middlebury’s Gender, Sexuality, & Feminist Studies Department has a class asking “What is your gender and how do you know?”
Meanwhile, progressive professors’ loathing of capitalism could be seen in courses such as Williams College’s “Racial Capitalism,” which aims to “interrogate the ways in which capitalist economies have ‘always and everywhere’ relied upon forms of racist domination and exclusion,” according to the class description.
At Amherst College, “Race and American Capitalism” explores “our present day reality of deeply rooted, and racialized, economic inequality,” the report found. Brown University also offers a course glorifying dictators Che Guevara and Fidel Castro, placing them “among the twentieth century’s most iconic figures,” the report added.
The survey also found many fringe classes students can chose from, too.
Some schools are offering bizarre courses that would be more at home on the pages of a satire, not a course catalog: The University of Kentucky offers a course titled “Vampires: Evolution of a Sexy Monster” that promises to answer the following questions: “What is a vampire? Where do they come from?” among others. Similarly, DePaul University students can take “Zombies: Modern Myths, Race, and Capitalism,” examining “the development of the zombie myth as a reflection of US societal concerns while using the lenses of Post-Colonial and Post-Marxist theory.” Brown University’s American Studies Department includes a course that uses specific objects “including sugar, milk, vibrators, and Spanx” as case studies “to critically consider how material culture informs and signals identity.” A few other course names that gave pause include Dartmouth’s “Black Feminisms in the French Atlantic,” Harvard’s “Trying Socrates in the Age of Trump” and “Leaning In, Hooking Up,” along with Princeton’s “Black to the Future.”
Young America’s Foundation cautions that this is just the tip of the iceburg.
“This is not an exhaustive list of every biased course offered by the schools sampled, but
should serve as an overview of the most egregious offenders,” the report states.
Still spending your money on Hollywood, Christians? Shame on you.
Corey Feldman labels film example of “child grooming”
Despite a wave of sexual assault allegations that have rocked Hollywood, film executives at Sony have decided to show a film depicting a relationship between a teenage boy and an adult male – a decision slammed by former child actor Corey Feldman.
The Sony Pictures Classics film “Call Me By Your Name,” which depicts a relationship between a 17-year-old boy and a 24-year-old man, has been generating rave reviews and drawn speculation about an Oscar nomination after picking up three Golden Globe nominations and an award for best picture by the Los Angeles Film Critics Association.
Released in select theaters on November 28, the movie has earned a 98 percent rating from critics on Rotten Tomatoes and 90 percent from audiences.
Despite the film’s creepy premise, made more so in light of the wave of sexual assault allegations that have rocked Hollywood, defenders of the film assert that the love affair is consensual and would not be illegal given that it takes place in Italy, where the age of consent is 16.
Actor Corey Feldman, who announced plans to name Hollywood pedophiles who abused him as a child actor following a incident during which two trucks drove towards him at high speed, questioned the premise of the film after another Twitter user claimed it did not depict “child grooming.”
“We think it’s at least questionable, and at worst glorifying pedophilia,” declared Gabe Hoffman, co-producer of “An Open Secret,” a documentary about child sexual abuse in Hollywood released in 2014.
David Sims of The Atlantic described the film as a “sumptuous new romance, which follows a deep connection that springs out of those restless days of late adolescence.”
Others who reviewed the film wisely questioned the timing of the film’s release.
“Perhaps we can, at least, agree that maybe promoting a movie about a 25-year-old man seducing a 17-year-old boy is not exactly wise in light of the revelations about Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey and a dozen other Hollywood A-listers?” asked Paul Bois in The Daily Wire. “Apparently not.”
