Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney joined SiriusXM host Rebecca Mansour on a special Friday night edition of Breitbart News Tonight to discuss a recent court ruling that the military must accept transgender recruits and what President Trump’s administration should do about it.
“The issue that really is at the heart of this matter as far as I’m concerned is, does the president have the unquestioned authority under the Constitution of the United States Article II, which vests exclusively in him, the role of Commander-in-Chief of the United States’ armed forces, or does that authority now get subjected to the whim of any federal judge in the United States judiciary?”
Gaffney said the issue is of immediate significance for the administration as it does not appear that the Department of Justice is going to ask the Supreme Court to stay the judge’s order to compel the Department of Defense to begin enlisting more transgender individuals at the beginning of the new year.
This is what the military has become. Yes he was a man and still is damit!
Gaffney said he believes that makes this “nothing short of a constitutional crisis” and opens the door for a federal judge to intercede in military decisions going forward, perhaps even to the extent of countermanding a presidential order to go to war.
“That could be fatal to our republic,” said Gaffney, adding, “I think the predicate, the precedent for it is being set as we speak.”
Gaffney urged the administration “to fight this effort by the judiciary to essentially intrude upon and eviscerate his authority as commander-in-chief.”
He said the first order of business for the White House should be to order the Justice Department to seek an emergency stay by the Supreme Court, allowing for the decision to be properly adjudicated.
Added Gaffney, “I would hope that the president would try to establish through another order to the Defense Department – and by the way the Homeland Security Department because it’s responsible for the Coast Guard – that anybody who is brought in under these existing court rulings if they are not stayed – is done on a conditional basis. It seems to me that’s the bare minimum that can be done here.”
Gaffney indicated that then, if the Supreme Court does overturn current rulings, transgender individuals admitted into the military under the rulings would not be allowed to remain in the armed services.
“I believe that’s a safety valve on this and it seems to me to be a sensible one,” Gaffney said.
Why Don’t The Homosexuals Ever Go After Allah and The Muslims?
Swarthmore College, founded by Quakers, is offering courses in “queering the Bible” and “queering God.” The courses were first reported by Campus Reform.
Get up to speed quickly on new legal projects with Practical Law Connect, the unique solution designed for in-house counsel. Get annotated model documents and know-how…
“Queering the Bible” is a one-credit class that surveys “queer and trans readings of biblical texts.”
“By reading the Bible with the methods of queer and trans theoretical approaches, this class destabilizes long held assumptions about what the Bible – and religion – says about gender and sexuality,” the course description reads.
The school’s religion department is also teaching a class that questions the sexuality of the Almighty called, “Queering God: Feminist and Queer Theology.”
“The God of the Bible and later Jewish and Christian literature is distinctively masculine, definitely male. Or is He?” the course description reads. “If we can point out places in traditional writings where God is nurturing, forgiving, and loving, does that mean that God is feminine, or female?”
Key themes of that particular class include exploring the “tensions between feminist and queer theology” and examines “feminist and queer writings about God.”
Critics blasted the college’s religion courses and suggested they were meant to undermine Christianity.
“This is about sanitizing and neutralizing the prohibitions on homosexual acts that Scripture unequivocally condemns,” one observer noted online.
The president of Truett-McConnell University, a conservative Christian school in Georgia, accused Swarthmore of prostituting the Bible.
“If there were a list entitled, “Best Snowflake Colleges in America,” I am quite certain that Swarthmore College would be near the top of the list,” Dr. Emir Caner told the Todd Starnes Radio Show. “Keep in mind, this is an institution of higher learning that has produced such ‘accomplished’ politicians as failed presidential candidate Michael Dukakis.”
“While I am not surprised that lost people would so prostitute Scripture, perhaps there is a rainbow at the end of the storm when the student comes across John 3:16 and recognizes God’s unconditional love for them through Jesus Christ,” Caner said. “Perhaps such an open-minded student will recognize the conviction of the Holy Spirit over the noise of liberal indoctrination, bow their knee to the One True Living God and be transformed.”
Dr. Robert Jeffress, the pastor of the First Baptist Church in Dallas and a spiritual advisor to President Trump, warned about the spiritual dangers of twisting God’s word.
“In suggesting that God is ‘queer’ Swarthmore College is guilty of nothing short of modern day idolatry,” Jeffress told the Todd Starnes Radio Show.
“When you read the Bible you will discover that God reserved His harshest condemnation for individuals and nations that practiced idolatry – creating an imaginary god who conformed to a culture’s immorality,” Jeffress said.
Swarthmore College did not return my calls seeking comment. Nor did they respond to a question about whether they had read the Book of Revelation, Chapter 22, Verse 19.
I also inquired about whether the religion department will be offering courses on “Queering Mohammed” or “Queering the Koran.”
Something tells me they won’t be respond to that query either.
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!”
Washington (CNN) The Supreme Court will take up one of the most momentous cases of the term on Tuesday as it considers arguments from a Colorado baker who refused to make a cake to celebrate a same-sex couple’s marriage because he believes that God designed marriage to be between a man and a woman.
The case pits the religious liberty claims of Jack Phillips, who owns Masterpiece Cakeshop, against the couple, David Mullins and Charlie Craig, who say Phillips’ actions amount to discrimination.
Some spectators and place holders began waiting in line last Friday to secure one of the rare seats open to the public in the majestic court room.
LGBT rights advocates fear that if the Supreme Court ultimately sides with Phillips, it will diminish its landmark opinion from two years ago that cleared the way for same-sex marriage nationwide. Both sides agree that a ruling in favor of Phillips would also open the door to claims from others who engage in professional services — florists, for example — to claim that their religious liberty exempts them from public accommodation laws applicable to other businesses.
It was back in 1993 that Phillips opened the bakery, knowing at the outset that there would be certain cakes he would decline to make in order to abide by his religious beliefs. “I didn’t want to use my artistic talents to create something that went against my Christian faith,” he said in an interview, noting that he has also declined to make cakes to celebrate Halloween.
Flash forward to 2012, when same-sex marriage was not yet legal in Colorado, but two men walked into the bakery.
“The conversation was fairly short,” Philips remembered. “I went over and greeted them. We sat down at the desk where I had my wedding books open.”
The men told Phillips they wanted a cake to celebrate their planned wedding, which would be performed in another state. Phillips said he knew right away that he couldn’t create the product they were looking for without violating his faith.
“The Bible says, ‘In the beginning there was male and female,'” Phillips said. He offered to make any other baked goods for the men.
“At which point they both stormed out and left,” he said.
The couple filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which ruled in their favor, citing a state anti-discrimination law. Phillips took his case to the Colorado Court of Appeals, arguing that requiring him to provide a wedding cake for the couple violated his constitutional right to freedom of speech and free exercise of religion. The court held that the state anti-discrimination law was neutral and generally applicable and did not compel Masterpiece to “support or endorse any particular religious view.” It simply prohibited Phillips from discriminating against potential customers on account of their sexual orientation.
Phillips then took his case to the Supreme Court and the justices agreed to take it up after mulling it for several weeks.
In court papers, Kristen K. Waggoner, a lawyer from the conservative Alliance Defending Freedom who is representing Phillips, argued that the First Amendment guarantees him the right to decline to make wedding cakes that celebrate marriages that are in conflict with his religious beliefs. She said that Phillips is protected by two parts of the First Amendment: its protections of religious exercise and free speech. While she argued that the free exercise clause forbids the commission from targeting Phillips “and like-minded believers for punishment,” she reserved the bulk of her brief for the free speech clause, perhaps targeting potential swing vote Justice Anthony Kennedy, who has at times shown an expansive view of free speech.
Waggoner argued that a person viewing one of Phillips’ custom wedding cakes — his “artistic expression” — would “understand that it celebrates and expresses support for the couple’s marriage.” She said the Supreme Court’s compelled speech doctrine “forbids the commission from demanding that artists design custom expression that conveys ideas they deem objectionable.”
In the interview, Phillips said, “I feel I’m being compelled to create artwork for an event — an inherently religious event — that goes against my faith, and I’m being compelled to do so under penalty of jail time and fines.”
Not surprisingly, Mullins and Craig see the case through an entirely different lens: discrimination.
“This case is about more than us, and it’s not about cakes,” Mullins said in an interview. “It’s about the right of gay people to receive equal service.”
“This isn’t about artistic expression,” said Craig. “I don’t feel like we asked for a piece of art, or for him to make a statement, we simply asked him for a cake, and he denied that to us simply because of who we are.”
The couple is being represented in court by the American Civil Liberties Union.
“In essence, the bakery seeks a constitutional right to hang a sign in its shop window proclaiming, ‘Wedding Cakes for Heterosexuals Only,'” the ACLU’s David D. Cole wrote in court briefs.
Cole said that whether a cake is an artistic expression is not at issue. “The question, rather, is whether the Constitution grants businesses open to the public the right to violate laws against discrimination in the commercial marketplace if the business happens to sell an artistic product.” The answer, Cole contends, is “no.”
Twenty other states and the District of Columbia likewise expressly prohibit places of public accommodation from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
The Trump administration sides with Phillips in the case, arguing that it falls “within the small set of applications of content-neutral laws that merit heightened scrutiny” from the courts. “A custom wedding cake is not an ordinary baked good; its function is more communicative and artistic than utilitarian,” Solicitor General Noel Francisco argued. “Accordingly, the government may not enact content-based laws commanding a speaker to engage in protected expression: An artist cannot be forced to paint, a musician cannot be forced to play, and a poet cannot be forced to write.”
But the government lawyers did draw a line when it comes to race, arguing that laws targeting race-based discrimination may survive heightened First Amendment scrutiny in part because racial bias “is a familiar and recurring evil that poses unique historical, constitutional and institutional concerns.”
Red Cross Demands Branches Remove Crucifixes to Be More Secular
Volunteers have criticised the Red Cross charity after receiving a communication telling them to remove crucifixes from the walls of their branches as the organisation looks to become more secular.
The Belgian branches of the international aid organisation received an email from the Provincial Committee of the Red Cross in Liège to remove all crucifixes. André Rouffart, president of the Red Cross in Verviers, said: “We were asked to respect the principles of the Red Cross”, and not to distinguish between race or religious belief 7sur7 reports.
Mr. Rouffart said there had been pushback from volunteers and other members on the issue but downplayed the issue, saying: “I think it’s a storm in a teacup.”
Several volunteers spoke to Belgian broadcaster RTL and expressed hostility to the move, with one saying: “Let things remain as they are. We used to say ‘Christmas holidays’, now it’s ‘winter holidays’. The Christmas market in Brussels has become the ‘Winter Pleasures’.”
“For a certain part of the population — because of the Muslims — the crosses were removed in the Red Cross houses and, more particularly, in that of Verviers,” the volunteer added.
The order follows the proposed removal of a cross in France which was located above a statue of Saint John Paul II in Ploërmel, Brittany. The move sparked outrage among many and led to the Polish and Hungarian government offering to take the cross.
“Such measures must be regarded as attempts to do away with the continent’s civilisation and culture,” commented Hungarian foreign minister Péter Szijjártó.
In Ireland, Catholic priest Father Desmond O’Donnell has called on Christians to abandon the word ‘Christmas’ entirely, saying that the commercialisation of the holiday had replaced the original Christian meaning.
While old Christmas traditions being replaced, others have emerged — including anti-terror barriers wrapped in Christmas wrapping paper and bright red bows in the city of Bochum, Germany, to prevent radical Islamic terror attacks like the Berlin Christmas market massacre of December 2016.
May blasts Trump for retweeting videos posted by the deputy leader of Britain First – including footage claiming to be ‘a Muslim man destroying a statue of Virgin Mary’ – but his invite for a State Visit STILL stands
Donald Trump has retweeted three anti-Muslim videos posted by far-right group
Videos posted by Britain First’s Jayda Fransen show ‘Muslims’ committing crimes
Labour MPs say Mr Trump is ‘not welcome here’ and call for invite’s withdrawal
Jo Cox MP was shot and stabbed last year by a man who shouted ‘Britain First!’
US President Donald Trump was ‘wrong’ to share anti-Muslim videos posted by a far-right UK group, Downing Street said today.
Furious MPs insisted Mr Trump was ‘not welcome here’ following the Twitter posts but No 10 said his invite to come to Britain on a state visit still stands.
The storm over the posts – first shared by Britain First’s deputy leader – deepened as the widow of murdered MP Jo Cox accused him of ‘spreading hatred’.
The furious backlash came after the 71-year-old President retweeted content posted by Britain First’s Jayda Fransen.
Labour politician Mrs Cox was stabbed and shot outside her constituency office in Birstall, West Yorkshire, in June 2016 by a man who shouted ‘Britain First’.
The first video retweeted by Mr Trump was claimed to show a ‘Muslim migrant’ beating up a Dutch boy on crutches.
But Dutch media this afternoon said the video was ‘fake news’. The video features a born and raised Dutch man and no reports have detailed the suspect’s religion.
Mr Trump also retweeted a video of a Muslim man ‘destroy(ing) a statue of Virgin Mary’, and another where Ms Fransen wrote: ‘Islamist mob pushed teenage boy off roof and beats him to death!’ The provenance of the footage is unknown.
The row casts fresh doubt on the prospects for Mr Trump’s state visit, which has been repeatedly pushed back since Prime Minister Theresa May extended the invite in January.
Speaker John Bercow has already made clear he would block the President from getting the honour of addressing both Houses of Parliament if he does come.
The Prime Minister’s official spokesman said Britain First sought to divide communities through its use of ‘hateful narratives which peddle lies and stoke tensions’.
‘It is wrong for the president to have done this,’ the spokesman said.
Despite the slapdown, Mrs May’s spokesman made clear that the controversial invitation for the president to make a state visit to the UK, made when Theresa May met Mr Trump in Washington in January, still stood.
‘The invitation for a state visit has been extended and accepted. Further details will be announced in due course,’ the spokesman said.
The spokesman said that Britain First ’cause anxiety to law-abiding people’, adding that: ‘British people overwhelmingly reject the prejudiced rhetoric of the far-right which is the antithesis of the values that this country represents – decency tolerance and respect.’
There have been claims Mr Trump has been dragging his heels on agreeing a date because he does not want to face protests – after more than 1.8million people signed a petition demanding the visit be cancelled.
Mrs May did not take PMQs in the Commons today because she is on a trip to the Middle East, but Downing Street said it would respond later.
Brendan Cox, the husband of Mrs Cox, who was killed during the EU referendum campaign last year, said: ‘Trump has legitimised the far right in his own country, now he’s trying to do it in ours.
‘Spreading hatred has consequences and the President should be ashamed of himself.’
Labour MP Mary Creagh posted: ‘Jo Cox’s killer shouted ‘Britain First’. (Trump) retweeting this hate criminal demeans his office. He is not welcome here.’
London Mayor Sadiq Khan, who was embroiled in a spat with Mr Trump last year over his call for a travel ban on mainly-Muslim countries, said: ‘Britain First is a vile, hate-fuelled organisation whose views should be condemned, not amplified.’
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn also urged Mrs May to take a tough stance against the President.
‘I hope our Government will condemn far-right retweets by Donald Trump. They are abhorrent, dangerous and a threat to our society,’ he said.
Labour MP Chuka Umunna told Sky News: ‘I don’t think the president of the United States, a president who has not only promoted bigotry, misogyny and racism in his own country, I don’t think he is welcome here.
‘I think the invite that has been made to him to come to our country in early 2018 should be withdrawn.
‘What we see here is the president retweeting and promoting the propaganda of a far right racist bigoted group members of which have been arrested and convicted for promoting hatred in this country.
‘I am absolutely astounded that a man – any person – in his position holding the office that he does should be promoting the propaganda of a far right British group.’
A tweet from Fransen’s account, which is verified by Twitter, appeared to celebrate the retweets by Mr Trump.
It said: ‘THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, DONALD TRUMP, HAS RETWEETED THREE OF DEPUTY LEADER JAYDA FRANSEN’S TWITTER VIDEOS! DONALD TRUMP HIMSELF HAS RETWEETED THESE VIDEOS AND HAS AROUND 44 MILLION FOLLOWERS! GOD BLESS YOU TRUMP! GOD BLESS AMERICA!’
Britain First leader Paul Golding said: ‘We’ve never spoken to him (Trump) before. But the fact he’s shared his alarm at Jayda’s arrest means we’re going to reach out to him. Jayda is recording a video message directly to him later.
‘We’re looking forward to all the new followers and support we’ll get from Trump’s publicity.’
Last year, Ms Fransen was found guilty of religiously aggravated harassment after accosting a Muslim woman.
The charge stemmed from a January 2016 incident in which Fransen, wearing a political uniform and during a so-called ‘Christian patrol,’ accosted a Muslim woman named Sumayyah Sharpe in Luton, England.
Ms Fransen admitted that she told Sharpe, who was wearing hijab, that Muslim men force women to cover up to avoid rape ‘because they cannot control their sexual urges.’
‘That’s why they are coming into my country raping women across the continent,’ Fransen told Sharpe, according to the Independent. Ms Sharpe was in front of her four children at the time.
Ms Fransen, and Britain First leader Paul Golding, 35, also of Penge, are due to appear at Folkestone Magistrates’ Court today for a pre-trial review over allegations of religiously aggravated abuse in Canterbury and Ramsgate, Kent.
A trial is scheduled for January 29, the Crown Prosecution Service said.
She will also appear in court in Northern Ireland in December charged with using threatening and abusive language in connection with a speech she made at an anti-terrorism demonstration in Belfast on August 6.
Home Secretary Amber Rudd did not immediately respond in the House of Commons when Labour MPs Stephen Doughty and Yvette Cooper raised Mr Trump’s retweets as a point of order.
Mr Doughty said the videos were ‘highly inflammatory’ and Ms Cooper said the president had given Fransen a ‘huge platform’ as one MP shouted ‘Disgraceful’ and others said ‘Go on, stand up’ at Ms Rudd.
Brexit minister Lord Callanan said Mr Trump may have not been aware of the ‘appalling’ nature of Britain First, but said the incident showed the president should be ‘more careful’ in his tweeting.
The Conservative peer told BBC Radio 4’s World At One: ‘Britain First is an appalling organisation and there is no excusing the things they stand for.
‘I can only assume that he has made a mistake and that he did not realise who Britain First were. Most people in the UK don’t know who Britain First are.
‘I’m not excusing it. He clearly needs to be more careful what he tweets to 44 million followers. This is manna from heaven for them.
‘We are doing exactly what they want in publicising them and giving coverage to their awful views, and Trump has helped them in that.’
Britain First previously denied any involvement in the attack on Mrs Cox, and there is no suggestion that Mair was influenced by or in any way involved with the group.
