Terrifying Moment Blonde Tranny Attacks Customers With Axe at 7-Eleven

It could be any night in a suburban 7-Eleven store – as CCTV shows customers queuing for milk and wandering though the aisles.

But this is Enmore, in Sydney’s inner west, on Saturday night – and two customers are about to be hacked in the head in a brutal and seemingly random attack . . .

And police allege that the attacker is Evie Amati, 24, a union organiser who is now in custody charged with two counts of grievous bodily harm with intent . . .

[He] asked the court to supply [him] with Progynova and Spiractin, which boost oestrogen production and reduce testosterone, respectively, and Zoloft – an antidepressant, according to The Daily Telegraph.

Officers say they arrested Amati on a nearby street with the axe in [his] possession, and later recovered a kitchen knife from the scene. (Read more from “Terrifying Moment Blonde Tranny Attacks Customers With Axe at 7-Eleven” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


State of Alaska Uses Radical LGBTQ Group to Train Teachers to Encourage Kids to Choose Different Sex, Hide Information From Parents

The State of Alaska sponsored a workshop, open to all state educators, instructing them how to assist students — elementary age and older — who wish to transition away from their biological sex and identify otherwise.

In an address to nearly 40 teachers, school nurses and other educators, a representative from Identity Inc., a gay, lesbian and transgender activist group, called on educators to alter the culture, language and policies of Alaska’s schools, while keeping sensitive information about children away from parents who may take issue with the school enabling their child’s gender experimentation.

“Are male and female the only option at birth?” asked Identity Inc. spokesman Billy Farrell. “We want to break out of the mindset of thinking of biological sex as two rigid boxes that you have to fit in, but more along a spectrum.”

Farrell was one of several presenters at the three-day Alaska School Health & Wellness Institute, sponsored by the state’s Department of Education and Early Development and Department of Health and Social Services. The Oct. 24-26 institute, which took place at the BP Energy Center in Anchorage, dealt with other issues such as sex education, nutrition, health, substance abuse and internet crimes.


Farrell’s talk was titled, “LGBTQ Cultural Competency Training.” The presentation encouraged Alaska’s educators to abandon the idea that people are made male and female and to embrace the deeply controversial notion that students as young as kindergarten can choose their own gender, and should be encouraged to do so.

Ferrell began by claiming that gender and sex “are not the same thing.”

“Gender is how we understand our own experience,” he said. “And again we want to break out of our rigid boxes and look at this on a spectrum.”

In some cases, that might mean a student doesn’t identify with being either male or female, a situation Farrell called “gender queer.” Gender, he added, should be understood as fluid and changeable even from day to day.

In some cases, he explained a person born male may wish to live their life as a female, changing their name, legal identification and even undergoing hormonal and surgical procedures. Others, he said, never make a full transition to either male or female.

Educators may find this challenging, but Farrell encouraged them to avoid automatically identifying students as either fully male or female.

“Just try to drop assumptions,” he said.


Gender expression, Farrell explained, refers to the way a person “expresses” their identity to society, and this can be “incredibly fluid” depending on the person. As an example, Farrell highlighted a “young man” he works with who attends Bartlett High School in Anchorage.

“He strongly identifies as a man but how he expresses his gender differs, day to day, week to week, experience to experience,” Farrell said, noting that sometimes the student wears makeup and jewelry to school, other times he appears more masculine.

In cases where educators are unsure about whether a person identifies as male, female or otherwise, they should ask students what their “preferred pronoun” is, Farrell said. “Options are he, him, his — she, her, hers — or something that is gender neutral: They, them, theirs.”

One educator attending the presentation from an alternative school in Juneau said teachers there already receive “a lot of training” on using pronouns when addressing kids.

Farrell praised this, but warned educators to make sure they ask students where they can use their “preferred pronouns,” so as not to inform parents or legal guardians of the child’s situation.

“We just want to make sure that we are not, um, potentially outing someone unintentionally,” he said.

Likewise, Farrell, advised educators to be careful about what they include in the students official records.

“If you are working with a young person who is not out to their family or legal guardians, you don’t necessarily want to include something in their legal file that a parent could access,” he said.


Regarding transgender students, those who wish to be seen and treated as members of the opposite sex, Farrell claimed this happens at a very young age.

One teacher present said she works in a K-2nd grade school and deals with kindergarteners who wish to use bathrooms that do not conform to their biological sex.

“Some kids who are trans from a very early age will assert the fact that they are trans,” Farrell said. Examples of this are seen when children claim to be the opposite sex or wearing certain clothes and prefer colors which are not associated with their sex, he said.

Farrell admitted that it is best to wait on assisting very young children in transitioning, but said it is sometimes the correct course of action.

However, as children approach ages 11 or 12, “puberty blockers” are a “really good option for a young trans person” to delay the onset of puberty and give them time to talk about what they want to do, Farrell said.


Puberty, Farrell said, is often a crisis moment for kids who wish to be identified as the opposite sex but then experience hormonal and physical changes that naturally come with puberty.

Farrell called on teachers to connect students with health professionals who will support them in their sexual identity experimentation. He also referred educators to his group, Identity, which encourages trans youth to explore their sexual identity.

“Support groups are often a really good place for people to try on the gender for the first time,” Farrell claimed. They can experiment with pronouns, names, how they dress, act and talk, he said.

For youth who wish to go all the way with hormonal and surgical procedures, Farrell walked educators through that process as well.

He noted that these steps can be challenging, especially in terms of cost since most insurance companies don’t cover sex change operations. For others, the medical technology does not exist for them to “get to where they want to be,” he said.

Nevertheless, Farrell said some young people desire to take these steps.

Farrell recommended that serious talk about hormone therapy begin around age 15. He lamented that he doesn’t know of any doctors who will do hormone therapy on children younger than that, which creates a “barrier” as Farrell sees it. Another potential problem is Alaskan parents.

“All of this care, under 18 in the state of Alaska, you need parental consent for, which is also a huge barrier for a lot of our young trans teens,” he said.


Farrell appealed to educators to change Alaska’s public schools regarding how they approach sexual identity and expression.

He praised the Anchorage School District, which already has policies catering to students who identify as gay, lesbian or transsexual. Across most of Alaska, however, such policies don’t exist, a situation Farrell called on his audience to change.

A good place to start, he said, is with bathroom policies that allow students to use whichever restrooms they identify with.

One participant asked Farrell about a girl who attends Dimond High School in Anchorage and wants to use the male locker rooms.

Based on Anchorage law and the Anchorage School District Policy Farrell said the student is already “legally entitled to go use that men’s locker room and be on any sports team. If they are actually being denied from that, Dimond High School is breaking the law,” he said.

He further urged educators to push for policies that will allow students to participate in team sports based on the gender they identify with. In terms of housing on overnight sports trips or other school functions, Farrell said districts should create policies that allow students to board and sleep with whichever gender they identify.


The push for gender ideology is not unique to Alaska. Last summer the Obama administration issued a letter to all public schools saying they should allow members of one biological sex to use the showers, locker rooms and restrooms – and stay in the same hotel rooms during field trips – as members of the opposite sex or risk losing federal funding.

As these policies infiltrate schools, advocates of the long held understanding of human sexuality are speaking up.

The Cardinal Newman Society, for example, is a leading nonprofit group that promotes and defends faithful Catholic education. With schools around the country facing political pressure to embrace gender ideology, the Newman Society released a resource this past spring to help schools maintain their core identity and mission.

The Newman Society notes that the American College of Pediatricians recently warned against encouraging students to embrace a gender identity that contradicts their biological sex.

“Endorsing gender discordance as normal via public education and legal policies will confuse children and parents, leading more children to present to ‘gender clinics’ where they will be given puberty-blocking drugs,” the Newman Society stated. “This, in turn, virtually ensures that they will ‘choose’ a lifetime of carcinogenic and otherwise toxic cross-sex hormones, and likely consider unnecessary surgical mutilation of their healthy body parts as young adults.”

Pope Francis has warned against gender ideology and the separation of sex from gender as harmful to individuals and society.

In his exhortation, “Amoris Laetitia,” he said youth “need to be helped to accept their own body as it was created.” He explained that young people should be helped to “accept their own bodies and to avoid the pretension ‘to cancel out sexual difference because one no longer knows how to deal with it.’” (For more from the author of “State of Alaska Uses Radical LGBTQ Group to Train Teachers to Encourage Kids to Choose Different Sex, Hide Information From Parents” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Why a Little Girl Should Not Be Allowed to Join the Cub Scouts

The Cub Scouts are now under increasing pressure for refusing to allow an 8-year-old girl, who identifies as a boy, to join their ranks. As reported on a New Jersey website (the child is from Secaucus, NJ), “From the moment he joined, 8-year-old Joe Maldonado eagerly looked forward to camping trips and science projects as a member of the Cub Scouts. But his expectations were dashed after his mother said she received a phone call from a Scouting official who told her that Joe would no longer be allowed to participate because he was born a girl” (my emphasis).

To be more accurate, Jodi (the child’s original name) is no longer allowed to participate because she was not just born a girl. She is a girl, and Cub Scouts are for boys. That’s why CBS News reported that, “Joe’s family says parents of other children had complained.”

Surprise, surprise. They had ample reason to complain, since Cub Scouts are for boys — little boys — and Jodi is a girl — a little girl.

But for Jodi’s mom, this came as a total shock, since, she says, the Cub Scouts were aware of Jodi’s biology and had no problem with initially accepting him. Plus, her mom reports, Jodi was now accepted at school as a boy.

CBS News reporter Errol Barnettasked Jodi’s mother, “As a parent, how do you know that you don’t just have a girl who is a tomboy, and that it’s a transgender issue?”

She replied, “I took a couple years; I didn’t realize it.”

With all respect to Jodi’s mom, there are experts who say that the worst thing a parent can do is accommodate a younger child’s gender confusion, while others would remind us that most kids experiencing gender confusion no longer do so after puberty.

But no, Jodi is Joe, and she/he is sure of it, even at 8. Not only so, but the rest of the world must accept it.When Barnett asked Jodi, “Why did you want to join the Boy Scouts?”, she replied, “Because all of my favorite friends were there.”

And that’s why the Cub Scouts should change their policy and allow girls to join their groups: because a little girl has more boy-friends than girl-friends and because she identifies as a boy.

According to CBS News, “The [Boy Scouts of America] told CBS News it offered the family alternative, co-ed programs for Joe, but Maldonado told us she’s not interested and instead wants an apology for her son.”

No surprise here either. It’s not a matter of working out a practical solution. It’s about the rest of the world changing its policies to accommodate a confused little child.

Of course, the Boy Scouts of America have only themselves to blame, since their accommodation to gay activism has made them as an easy target for trans activism, making their official statement sound quite lame and short-sighted: “No youth may be removed from any of our programs on the basis of his or her sexual orientation. Gender identity isn’t related to sexual orientation.”

Do the Boy Scouts of America really think that they will be able to say yes to gay activism but no to trans activism, that they will be able to dodge the accusation of being homophobes without being nailed with the accusation of being transphobes? Have they not noticed that the acronym LGBT — notice that T at the end! — has been around since the early 1990’s? If you say yes to the LG part, the B part is automatically included and the T part is right behind.

Let’s see how long the Boy Scouts hold out on this one. After all, if the Obama administration was pushing for this kind of acceptance in the schools — with penalties for non-compliance — and if Bruce Jenner being named woman of the year is old hat, why should the Scouts resist? Plus, the already-more-liberal Girl Scouts of America announced a few years back that a boy who identifies as a girl would be welcome in their midst. Social madness indeed.

But the worst thing about this whole story with 8-year-old Jodi is that the media is talking to her as if she was an expert, asking her how she felt about why she was excluded, to which this precious little child can only say, “I don’t know,” sounding sadly baffled. (To watch the actual video clip, along with my commentary, go here.)

To quote little Jodi, “It made me mad. I had a sad face, but I wasn’t crying. I’m way more angry than sad. My identity is a boy. If I was them, I would let every person in the world go in. It’s right to do.”

It’s a great sentiment, but it’s also the lens of an impressionable, still-developing, 8-year-old. When else do we go to little kids for life counsel and direction? And don’t the parents have a responsibility to shield their kids from this kind of attention? Don’t they actually set their children up for further pain and rejection by presenting them to the world as the opposite of who their biology and chromosomes say they are?

Interestingly, when National Geographic recently featured a 9-year-old boy who identifies as a girl on the cover of its “Gender Revolution” issue, I wrote that the magazine was complicit in a form of child abuse. Unknown to me, the American Family Network was sending out the message that, “National Geographic exploits children to further an agenda.”

Also unknown to me, in 2015, Camille Paglia, the controversial academic and social critic, and herself a lesbian, told a Brazilian TV station that, “Nothing … better defines the decadence of the West to the jihadists than our toleration of open homosexuality and this transgender mania now.”

She also said this, “Parents are now encouraged to subject the child to procedures that I think are a form of child abuse. The hormones to slow puberty, actual surgical manipulations, etcetera. I think that this is wrong, that people should wait until they are of an informed age of consent.

She added, “Parents should not be doing this to their children and I think that even in the teenage years is too soon to be making this leap. People change, people grow, and people adapt.”

Further confirmation for this position comes from Dr. Michelle Cretella, president of the American College of Pediatricians, who also feels that medical facilities that support a child’s transgenderism are engaging in child abuse.

She said that National Geographic is “promoting a political agenda over science and the wellbeing of innocent children” by displaying the young child as the face for their first ever transgender cover.

“Affirming so called transgender children means sterilizing them as young as 11-years-old,” Dr. Cretella told Lifesite News. “Puberty blockers plus cross-sex hormones causes permanent sterility. And biological girls who ‘transition’ to male by taking testosterone may have a double mastectomy at age 16. The life time use of cross-sex hormones also puts these children at risk for stroke, heart disease, diabetes, cancers and more.”

Is this what lies ahead for little Jodi?

I seriously doubt that the Boy Scouts of America will be able to hold their ground against trans activism, but I have no doubt about this: They will one day regret the decisions they made, first caving in to gay activism and then to trans activism.

As for Jodi’s parents, I imagine that they deeply love their child and would do anything to make her happy. Sometimes, though, it’s the job of the parents to do things that make a child unhappy for the moment, knowing that, in the end, it will be for that child’s lifelong happiness.

I look forward to the day when the very real confusion of a little child, which I do not minimize, is not the measure of reality or the arbiter of societal norms. In fact, that day cannot come too soon. (For more from the author of “Why a Little Girl Should Not Be Allowed to Join the Cub Scouts” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Court Strikes Down Transgender Mandate, Protecting Doctors, Children, and Hospitals

While family and friends were counting down to the new year, I was watching a different kind of countdown—whether doctors and health care providers would be forced to violate their medical judgment and provide procedures, including gender transition services and abortions, under a new government mandate.

The mandate is a 362-page regulation that claims to interpret part of the Affordable Care Act. It was issued in May 2016, and major portions of this mandate would have kicked in on Jan. 1.

Becket Law had asked a Texas court for an order protecting health care providers. It was less than nine hours to midnight when we heard the good news: A Texas court issued an injunction protecting doctors and the families they serve from the mandate.

The court ruling came after eight states, an association of almost 18,000 doctors, and a Catholic hospital system challenged a new federal regulation that requires doctors to perform gender transition procedures on children, even if the doctor believes the treatment could harm the child.

Doctors who followed the Hippocratic oath—the historic medical vow that doctors take to act in the best interest of their patients—would have faced severe consequences, including losing their jobs.

This is a commonsense ruling. The government has no business forcing private doctors to perform procedures on children that the government itself recognizes can be harmful and exempts its own doctors from performing. The ruling ensures that doctors’ best medical judgment will not be replaced with political agendas and bureaucratic interference.

The federal regulation applied to over 900,000 doctors—nearly every doctor in the U.S.—and would have cost health care providers and taxpayers nearly $1 billion.

The government itself does not require its own military doctors to perform these procedures. It also does not require coverage of gender transition procedures in Medicare or Medicaid—even for adults—because the government medical experts that oversee those programs did not believe medical research demonstrates that gender reassignment surgery improves health outcomes, with some studies demonstrating that these procedures were in fact harmful.

But under the Department of Health and Human Services rule developed by political appointees, doctors citing the same evidence and using their best medical judgment in an individual case would have faced potential lawsuits or job loss.

A website about this court case provides leading research on the issue, including guidance the government itself relies on. This research shows that up to 94 percent of children with gender dysphoria will grow out of their dysphoria naturally and live healthy lives without the need for surgery or lifelong hormone regimens.

The government desperately wanted to avoid a court ruling on these facts, telling the Texas court that no injunction was needed. Instead, doctors should wait around to see if they got sued and then see whether the government would agree, based on the circumstances, that they were entitled to protection.

That argument was pretty rich coming from the Department of Health and Human Services, which has spent the last five years fighting lawsuits to limit conscience protections for groups like the Green family, who own Hobby Lobby, and the Little Sisters of the Poor.

In those cases and others, the government has been quick to argue for strict limits on protections like the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Church Amendment, which protects providers from having to perform abortions.

Never did the government claim that rulings on the contraceptive mandate should wait until someone brought a lawsuit and the government had time to weigh the issues and pick a side. The court didn’t buy that excuse, instead recognizing that the mandate would create immediate and irreparable harm to doctors nationwide.

This ruling is an across-the-board victory that will ensure that the deeply personal medical decision of a gender transition procedure remains between families and their doctors.

This case was brought jointly by Becket Law—which defended Franciscan Alliance, a religious hospital network sponsored by the Sisters of St. Francis of Perpetual Adoration, and the Christian Medical & Dental Associations—and by the Texas attorney general and the states of Texas, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Kentucky, Kansas, Louisiana, Arizona, and Mississippi. (For more from the author of “Court Strikes Down Transgender Mandate, Protecting Doctors, Children, and Hospitals” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Cub Scouts Facing Transgender Crisis

The Cub Scouts are facing a transgender controversy after an eight-year-old born a girl but who identifies as a boy was asked to leave a New Jersey pack.

Several readers alerted me to this story from Secaucus, New Jersey. Before I get into the heart of the issue, I want to explain why I have chosen not to identify the parent or the child.

I find it reprehensible a grown woman would parade her child in front of the national media to advance some sort of cultural agenda. This parent is sacrificing her child’s privacy and innocence for 15 minutes of fame. And I refuse to give the woman the satisfaction of reading her name in print.

The eight-year-old, who had been a member of the scouting group for about a month, was kicked out of Cub Scout Pack 87 because she is transgender. Local news accounts indicate an unknown number of parents were upset their sons were in a scouting group with a girl who identifies as a boy . . .

But the Boy Scouts of America defended the child’s ouster, pointing out to the newspaper the “child does not meet the requirements to participate in this program.” “Gender identity isn’t related to sexual orientation,” BSA spokesperson Effie Delimarkos told the New York Daily News. (Read more from “Cub Scouts Facing Transgender Crisis” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Catholic Groups Sue Obama Administration Over ‘Transgender Mandate’

Two Catholic groups have sued the Obama administration to halt a mandate requiring them to perform abortions and gender identity surgeries or provide insurance that will pay for them.

In a lawsuit filed on December 28, the Catholic Benefits Association (CBA) and the Catholic Diocese of Fargo say Obama administration’s regulations violate their groups’ religious beliefs. They also say the rules express a political agenda, not sound science.

“For decades, Congress and the courts have understood the term ‘sex’ in federal law to mean biological sex – male and female,” Archbishop William Lori, chairman of the Catholic Benefits Association, said in a press statement. “By redefining ‘sex’ to mean both ‘gender identity’ and ‘termination of pregnancy,’ the Obama administration is not only trying to sidestep Congress and impose radical new healthcare mandates on hospitals and employers, it is creating a moral problem for Catholic employers that must be addressed.”

The “Transgender Mandate”

The CBA and the diocese are not the first organizations to file a lawsuit against the mandate. Earlier this year, five states (Kansas, Kentucky, Nebraska, Texas and Wisconsin) and multiple Christian-based groups sued the federal government over the “transgender mandate.”

The mandate is based upon the same section of the Affordable Care Act that the administration insists requires even religious institutions to provide insurance covering contraceptives, sterilization and abortifacients. That mandate has twice gone to the U.S. Supreme Court, where it lost once and was sent back to lower courts.

According to the lawsuit, provided to The Stream, the Department of Health & Human Services’s regulation is an “expansive interpretation” of one section of the Affordable Care Act. The HHS used “a little-remarked-upon section of the ACA that prohibits discrimination ‘on the basis of sex’” to create “a mandate that coerces” Catholic institutions to perform or pay for sex-change surgery and abortions.

The regulation says (see page 31387 in the Federal Register) that “the term ‘on the basis of sex’ includes, but is not limited to, discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, false pregnancy, termination of pregnancy, or recovery therefrom, childbirth or related medical conditions, sex stereotyping, and gender identity.”

HHS justified its interpretation by appeal to Title IX regulations, rulings by the Supreme Court and other courts, and previous decisions by federal agencies. According to the National Center for Transgender Equality, which praised the regulations, this wording “make illegal the practice of categorically excluding all gender transition-related health care from coverage.” It will apply to companies that have a federal contract or receive federal funds, including Catholic hospitals and ministries.

What CBA Wants

In a press call, CBA’s general counsel Martin Nussbaum told The Stream and other outlets that CBA objects to the mandate for many legal and constitutional reasons. In its press release, the CBA claimed the government was violating the Administrative Procedure Act, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and other federal laws, as well as the First Amendment.

In a follow-up email, Nussbaum told The Stream that the CBA has asked for “injunctive relief,” asking to court to tell the HHS to stop trying to force groups to accept the mandate. The CBA has also asked for “declaratory relief,” a judgment that the agency has no legal basis to enforce the mandate. The goal is making sure its members can “conduct their ministries and work consistent with their religious beliefs.”

Legal Complexities

CBA CEO Douglas Wilson accused the regulations of harming patients instead of helping them. The mandate is “shoddy science,” he said. “HHS’s own experts agree that these procedures can harm patients with gender dysphoria in ways that are often irreversible.”

Nussbaum told The Stream that the mandate is in effect even after President Barack Obama leaves office on January 20. “The orders, regulations and opinions issued by DOE, HHS and EEOC under this administration continue in force when a new president takes office.

Unfortunately, “Some of these have now morphed into judicial and quasi-judicial decisions that are either binding or persuasive precedents.” The new administration cannot undo those decisions by itself. Such actions from a Trump administration “would be a help,” Nussbaum admitted.

“For many CBA members, [judicial] relief would protect them from potentially fatal enforcement actions,” concluded Nussbaum, who in a press statement also accused the Obama administration of engaging in a “continued assault on religious freedom.” (For more from the author of “Catholic Groups Sue Obama Administration Over ‘Transgender Mandate'” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


6th Circuit: Transgenderism Is Settled Law!

How could you take the most irrevocable law of nature — a man being a man and a woman being a woman — and twist it so the exact opposite becomes settled law? Leave it to the courts.

A constitutional right to force transgenderism on the states

In September, a federal district judge ordered Highland Local School District, a school district outside of Akron, Ohio, to treat a boy “as the girl she is” for all official school business. One cannot possibly conjure up a more radical manifestation of judicial tyranny than forcing school districts to violate the most immutable laws of nature. In any other generation, a judge like this would be impeached, the states would ignore the ruling, and Congress would immediately use Art. III Sec. 2 of the Constitution to remove such cases from the jurisdiction of federal court. Unfortunately, none of that happened and nobody in politics even knows or cares about this case.

Instead, plaintiffs were left with no choice but to appeal to the Sixth Circuit for a stay on the district judge’s ruling. Yet, late last week, in a 2-1 decision, the appeals court denied the request. Worse, they tipped their hand on the merits of the case, asserting the notion that “sex stereotyping based on a person’s gender non-conforming behavior is impermissible discrimination” is, in fact, settled law. Referring to the boy as “Jane Doe,” the court’s majority opined that the status quo in this case is transgenderism and that the plaintiffs didn’t even raise “serious questions on the merits.”

First, to the extent we should even engage in a debate with such metal illness and judicial lawlessness, the court’s argument that maintaining separate bathrooms for the sexes is discriminatory, is in itself, internally contradictory. As Ed Whelan explains:

The panel majority fails to recognize the elementary reality that a policy that requires a boy who identifies as female use the boys’ restroom does not involve sex stereotyping at all. On the contrary, that policy treats boys as boys, irrespective whether they engage in gender-conforming behavior. Likewise, that policy does not discriminate on the basis of gender identity: boys can’t use the girls’ restroom, whether or not they identify as female.

More foundationally, how have we stooped to a point in judicial supremacy that the court can not only rewrite legislation, constitutions, history, and traditions, but can alter the most immutable laws of nature and coerce their social transformation agenda on the states and the other branches of government? What’s worse, this comes from the Sixth Circuit, which is supposedly one of the “better circuits” with more Republican appointees. Yet, this decision comes on the heels of some other bad opinions from that circuit, such as the one in the Michigan recount and Ohio’s effort to clean its voter rolls.

Are we as a society going to continue peddling this myth of judicial supremacy even to the point which we allow them to declare the exact opposite of laws of nature as settled law?

Republicans cannot run away from the cultural Marxists on this issue. Within the next two months the Supreme Court will likely render a decision on transgenderism in Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board. Given that we already know where Anthony Kennedy stands on this issue, Grimm will serve as the transgender-version of Obergefell and have far-reaching and disruptive consequences for our society, culture, system of government, and religious freedom.

It’s time for the other branches to get in the constitutional arena?

The solution to this problem is very simple.

As a first step, Congress should pass and Trump should sign into law a judicial reform bill, removing from the federal judiciary jurisdiction to adjudicate any case forcing states or local school districts to redefine sexuality. It’s sad that we’ve reached a point when we even recognize that courts would have jurisdiction in the first place, but this step is unfortunately necessary. This move would redirect any litigation to state courts, whose judges are elected in most states. According to a recent analysis conducted by a sexual identity legal group, state courts that are elected are much less likely to issue rulings tendentious to its movement.

However, in order to act immediately and get around the legislative grind and the filibuster, Congress and the Department of Justice (under the helm of Jeff Sessions) must work to immediately block implementation and enforcement of judicial transgenderism.

The very source from which liberals draw upon to promote a powerful judiciary is also a repudiation of the notion that the courts have exclusive and final jurisdiction over constitutional interpretation. In fact, an honest understanding of judicial review requires that members of the other branches of government also act on their conscience to properly interpret the Constitution as it relates to the interaction of the particular issue with their powers.

The Truth About Marbury v. Madison

To begin with, the notion that a federal court could grant standing to a plaintiff to directly overturn a state or federal law on a broadly political/social issue, based on constitutional interpretation, is very dubious. Everyone agrees that the main job, if not the exclusive job of the federal courts, is to interpret the application of the statute, not to serve as a veto. That power was given to a governor or president.

The legal profession draws upon Chief Justice John Marshall’s opinion in Marbury v. Madison as the foundation for judicial supremacy and the power to veto statutes. Using Marbury, which did not involve a social issue of broad political consequence, as a source for judicial tyranny, is tenuous from the get-go. The opinion in which Marshall established judicial review was merely non-binding dicta because he already ruled that plaintiffs lacked standing to even consider the case. Moreover, he clearly misread the role of Congress and the court’s scope of original jurisdiction and should have recused himself because he was directly involved in the outcome of the case.

Putting Marshall’s political motivations aside, Marbury is actually a refutation of judicial supremacy, especially as it relates to those who interpret the Constitution as a living and breathing document. All Marshall meant by declaring that “it is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is” was that, although the main job of the court is to interpret the statute, the Constitution is ultimately the supreme law of the land. Given that every judge swears an oath to uphold the ultimate law of the land — the Constitution — the court has a duty to grant relief to a plaintiff with legitimate standing against a law that manifestly violates the plain meaning of the Constitution as it was adopted. His main rationale was that for a judge to rule in an individual case against the Constitution, it would violate his oath of office.

Freeze frame: for that very reason, it is a violation of the oath of office for any member of the legislative branch, the executive, or the state governments to exercise their powers in contravention to the Constitution as they understand it because they take the same oath to defend the same Constitution as judges do.

Marshall never intended for the courts to be the sole and final arbiter of constitutional interpretation. He meant that even the courts, the weakest branch — that is unelected and wields “neither force nor will” over public policy — has a responsibility to uphold the Constitution because its members also swore an oath to do so. How much more so the executive branch with the power to enforce the laws and Congress with the powers to legislative and appropriate funds must work to uphold the Constitution as they understand it.

Now let’s returns to the contemporary courts whose members offer not a scintilla of original constitutional interpretation and blatantly seek social transformation on broadly political issues. Does anyone think for a moment that Marshall would have said to follow such nonsense?

Accordingly, in the case of transgenderism, here is what the other two branches can do. The courts were deliberately denied any mechanism to enforce or fund their decisions, which in itself should prove conclusively that they were not intended to have the final say on political issues. When the Supreme Court inevitably rules in Grimm in favor of mandating transgenderism on school districts, Attorney General Jeff Sessions should immediately write an opinion for the executive branch of government (on behalf of the president) saying that his version of the Fourteenth Amendment (and Title IX) actually doesn’t mention anything about a boy thinking he’s a girl. As such, for the purposes of executive powers, they will not enforce this decision. Therefore, if the ACLU sues a principle or school superintendent for not allowing a boy in a girl’s bathroom and they get a lower court to apply Grimm as precedent and issue a bench warrant to arrest that individual, Sessions can refuse to send out the U.S. Marshals to execute the warrant. This is how we avoid Kim Davis situations.

Likewise, members of the House and Senate Judiciary committees should write their own opinions stating that for the purposes of the legislative branch of government, their oath of office dictates that they must defund any federal action taken against a school board on account of the transgender agenda.

Similarly, state executive officers can then say that for their purposes of applying the Constitution, they will not send out state troopers to execute the warrant.

Perforce, the courts can “apply” the Constitution in the most dyslexic way imaginable to their hearts content as it relates to their job of adjudicating individual cases and controversies. But their ruling will be mere “judgment” and will have “neither force nor will” on public policy.

The point is just like there is judicial review, there is also executive review and legislative review (as well as state review). And those branches have a lot more force and will behind their “review” of the Constitution. Thus, the judiciary is not supreme in our system; the Constitution is supreme. And all the branches have a responsibility to uphold it. The entire reason why Marshall said courts can also get in on the business of constitutional interpretation is because if they were to ignore the Constitution as written and just focus on applying a patently unconstitutional law, it “would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions.” By the same token if we allow only the courts to interpret the Constitution — to the point that they now mandate transgenderism on the states — what is the purpose of a written Constitution?

It’s time we finally right the ship on judicial supremacy. There is no better place to start than with their most egregious contortion of natural law. (For more from the author of “6th Circuit: Transgenderism Is Settled Law!” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Science or Propaganda? NatGeo Uses 9-Year-Old as Human Shield in War on Gender

Ever on the forefront of reporting scientific breakthroughs, National Geographic’s January 2017 cover features a 9-year-old transgender girl. Though it’s not even hit shelves yet, “The Science of Gender” has already received praise and criticism, prompting a pre-emptive editor’s note.

The editor’s explanation — and the fact that National Geographic already has one for why it put a transgender girl on the cover of its publication — is as revealing about its ideology as the fact that it put one on the cover at all, touting the “science of gender.” Science isn’t at work here, but an ideological movement that attacks intelligence in the name of emotions, rights in the name of inclusivity, and morality in the name of progressivism.

Transgender children

The complete January issue isn’t yet available, save for one article on how marketing toys by gender has a “profound impact on children” and another on how gender among 9-year-olds worldwide shapes children differently, it’s not clear how the cover story and accompanying articles exactly go about making their case. But the editor’s note states gender is rapidly changing. Really?

The transgender movement at large remains small. Numbers range from 0.3-0.6 percent of the U.S. adult population. An even smaller amount is children. What’s more, the “science” behind kids who report gender dysphoria is somewhat complicated though hardly fluctuating. In a Wall Street Journal op-ed originally published in 2014 and updated in 2016, in Dr. Paul McHugh, wrote:

The transgendered suffer a disorder of “assumption” like those in other disorders familiar to psychiatrists. With the transgendered, the disordered assumption is that the individual differs from what seems given in nature — namely one’s maleness or femaleness. Other kinds of disordered assumptions are held by those who suffer from anorexia and bulimia nervosa, where the assumption that departs from physical reality is the belief by the dangerously thin that they are overweight.

This also explains a point of inconsistency toward many proponents of the transgender lifestyle, particularly sex changes or transitioning for young people. Why is a homosexual born gay but transgenders can choose their gender based on how they feel? Proponents would say because gender and sex are different: Sex is anatomy; gender is a state of mind. Dr. McHugh debunks this.

With Lawrence S. Mayer, another distinguished doctor at Johns Hopkins, Dr. McHugh published this review in August, stating there was not enough scientific evidence to show transgender people were born that way. Their research showed only biological sex is fixed; behavior and persona shifts.

Gender dysphoria — a sense of incongruence between one’s biological sex and one’s gender, accompanied by clinically significant distress or impairment — is sometimes treated in adults by hormones or surgery, but there is little scientific evidence that these therapeutic interventions have psychological benefits. Science has shown that gender identity issues in children usually do not persist into adolescence or adulthood, and there is little scientific evidence for the therapeutic value of puberty-delaying treatments. We are concerned by the increasing tendency toward encouraging children with gender identity issues to transition to their preferred gender through medical and then surgical procedures. There is a clear need for more research in these areas.

Yet proponents continue to push for sex-reassignment surgery or, at least, help transitioning to the gender they “identify” themselves to be.

Jazz Jennings, the transgender teen star of TLC’s “I am Jazz,” was prescribed hormone blockers at age 11. Jazz plans to have surgery when he turns 18. Sex-reassignment surgery often fails to help change a child’s mindset, provided he hasn’t already changed his mind, as many do. Dr. McHugh writes again in The Wall Street Journal:

When children who reported transgender feelings were tracked without medical or surgical treatment at both Vanderbilt University and London’s Portman Clinic, 70%-80% of them spontaneously lost those feelings. Some 25% did have persisting feelings; what differentiates those individuals remains to be discerned.

McHugh wrote that though Johns Hopkins University was the first American medical center to tiptoe into sex-reassignment surgery, “we stopped doing sex-reassignment surgery, since producing a ‘satisfied’ but still troubled patient seemed an inadequate reason for surgically amputating normal organs.”

Why is National Geographic featuring this then?

Everyone laughed when Rachel Dolezal identified as black, claiming the obvious: She’s not black, and she can’t claim to be black just because she feels that way or wants to identify as such.

If science demonstrates biology is actually predetermined, why is this issue — which has proven to effect a small number of children, often in an adverse and controversial way — ever at the forefront of political, socioeconomic, and now scientific news? Why is this on the cover of National Geographic? It’s yet another piece of the progressive puzzle to elevate feelings and downplay logic and science; to push a controversial yet somehow also popular, or en vogue, issue.

In a few states, laws prevent psychiatrists, even with parental permission, from treating dysphoria in children without sex-reassignment surgery. Government guidelines and regulations supersede the rights of parents and children when it comes to this issue.

A look at any number of transgender bathroom cases in the news reinforces this. The most notable case right now is that of Gavin Grimm, the Virginia high school student, who began transitioning from female to male after junior high. The Supreme Court will now rule on that case, and its decision could affect which bathrooms transgender kids use — and which bathrooms everyone else uses — in public high schools nationwide.

See how this works? Proponents not only argue the science backs up their claims (actually, the movement began well before they could find any scientific proof), but they also push for the rights of less than one percent of Americans to supersede the rights of the rest of 99.9 percent.

That’s not science. That’s propaganda. (For more from the author of “Science or Propaganda? NatGeo Uses 9-Year-Old as Human Shield in War on Gender” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


New Transgender Survey Could Set a Terrible Precedent for Policy Based on Feelings, Not Facts

A recent nationwide survey revealed that “60 percent of transgender Americans have avoided using public restrooms for fear of confrontation, saying they have been harassed and assaulted.” The “landmark” survey cites data based on the responses of 27,715 individuals, or an estimated 2 percent of the adult transgender population (which comprises only 0.6 percent of the entire U.S. population).

Reuters refers to transgender people as a “severely understudied group whose experiences and challenges from medicine to law to economics and family relations are poorly understood.” And the National Center for Transgender Equality, the group that conducted the survey, hopes the new data will serve as a basis for researchers and policymakers for years to come.

A survey like this demonstrates the power of the trans-victim class, and it should be a cause of great concern for any American who respects the rule of law.

Lies, damned lies, and statistics

Here is the problem with these “findings” … There is no proof that these claims are accurate. The study cites alleged encounters and experiences reported by transgender people, without a shred of documented evidence to back them up.

According to the survey, 32 percent of transgender people said they limited the amount they ate and drank at least once in the past year to avoid having to use a public restroom. Eight percent reported that they developed a urinary tract infection, kidney infection, or another “kidney-related problem” because they avoided restrooms.

From Reuters:

The findings by the National Center for Transgender Equality on public restrooms counter the message of mainly conservative politicians and religious leaders that transgender people are the antagonists preying on others. It found that 12 percent of transgender people were verbally harassed in public restrooms within the previous year, 1 percent were physically attacked and 1 percent were sexually assaulted. Nine percent said someone denied them access to a bathroom.

Notice the unmistakably ambiguous language used in the study; what constitutes “assault” or “harassment” in these scenarios? The law clearly defines these terms, but the survey does not. The survey doesn’t “counter” the conservative response to transgender people occupying restrooms that don’t correspond with their birth sex, because it doesn’t actually “find” anything.

Transgender people already receive the same level of protection under the law as their fellow citizens. They have the same legal options as any other victim of discrimination, harassment, or assault. But instead of filing a legal claim, they report their experience to a transgender advocacy group who will apply social pressure to advance their interests, without a shred of proof required. How convenient.

He-said, she-said

“Trans people have been in danger in the bathrooms. These numbers are just astronomically high,” Mara Keisling, director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, told Reuters. “This is what’s really happening in bathrooms. The nonsense of what [North Carolina] Governor [Pat] McCrory was saying is not what’s happening in bathrooms.”

Reuters notes that the survey was conducted before the passage of North Carolina’s House Bill 2, which “prohibits local governments in North Carolina from forcing places of public accommodation to allow people to use restrooms and changing facilities that do not align with their biological sex.” The bill was met with powerful backlash that launched a nationwide civil rights debate over whether transgender people should be considered a protected class.

Here’s the thing about North Carolina’s “nonsense” bathroom bill: There have been not only reports, but documented cases that prove transgender bathrooms pose real threats to public safety. But a group like the National Center for Transgender Equality is able to dismiss actual evidence with anecdotal accounts via “surveys.”

This survey is just the latest example of the Left’s “ends justify the means” approach to public policy. Whether it’s the widely disseminated “1 in 5 women are raped on college campuses” propaganda and falsehood, or the countless hate crime hoaxes and fake trends perpetuated by the agenda-driven mainstream media time and time again, unapologetic liberals are notorious for playing fast and loose with the facts. The Left has had an extremely successful track record of furthering their agenda of victimhood by convincing the public that their claims are above (bigoted) scrutiny.

Sixty percent of transgender people have been “harassed and assaulted” in public restrooms? That’s one heck of a statistic to be throwing around without a shred of proof. And seeing as how literally anything and everything can (and is) deemed an “attack” these days, the onus should be greater than ever for the accusers to provide the unassailable evidence proving such charges.

Strength in victimhood

The trans community will argue that many of these incidents of discrimination, harassment, and assault go unreported due to the fear or shame these victims feel. They have already successfully implemented this argument in the past to carve out special provisions in the workplace and, famously, in public restrooms.

In fact, the National Center for Transgender Equality was behind the LGBT report that was cited as the basis for California’s transgender affirmative action jobs program, which subsidizes restaurants who hire trans employees. These people know what they’re doing.

Consider this excerpt from the new survey’s executive summary:

The findings reveal disturbing patterns of mistreatment and discrimination and startling disparities between transgender people in the survey and the U.S. population when it comes to the most basic elements of life, such as finding a job, having a place to live, accessing medical care, and enjoying the support of family and community.

Replace the word “transgender” in the text above with “black,” “female,” or “Latino,” and you have the Left’s basic argument for identity-driven policies that forcibly “level the playing field” at the expense of true equality, justice, and safety for all. The implied claim is that the legal system doesn’t work for certain groups of people, and the only solution is to overthrow the system and create a new one. In other words, civil rights are great, but special accommodations and government handouts are not only better, but an absolute must. (A right, if you will…)

The conversation surrounding the new transgender survey is not about “equality” or “safety”; it is about subverting the rule of law and creating new policies based on feelings, not facts.

Though small, the trans-victim class is more vocal — via government allies, financial means, and political capital (with a virtual monopoly on all the greatest influencers in mainstream culture these days) — and more armed than ever. It is crucial, then, that public leaders and policymakers recognize the identity-driven agenda of the Left’s “equality” crusaders, and shut down any attempts to bulldoze over the rights of other Americans. (For more from the author of “New Transgender Survey Could Set a Terrible Precedent for Policy Based on Feelings, Not Facts” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Obama’s Effort to Force Women into Combat, Allow Transgender Troops Results in $135 Billion Cover-Up, Deaths

Just as the newly-elected Trump administration is preparing to take office, America gets a surprise reveal from The Washington Post that President Obama’s Pentagon deliberately suppressed a 2015 report revealing $125 billion in wasteful spending could be saved over five years. Secretary of Defense (not for long, thank God!) Ashton Carter, his deputy Robert Work and other underlings squashed the report and its findings, placing secrecy restrictions on it and removing it from public view. They were busy with more important things like getting women into combat units and people with gender identity confusion to serve openly. Exposed just three days after the $619 billion National Defense Authorization Act of 2017 was passed, it reeks of a cover-up.

The Post reports:

Pentagon officials knew their back-office bureaucracy was overstaffed and overfunded. But nobody had ever gathered and analyzed such a comprehensive set of data before…Based on reams of personnel and cost data, their report revealed for the first time that the Pentagon was spending almost a quarter of its $580 billion budget on overhead and core business operations such as accounting, human resources, logistics and property management. The data showed that the Defense Department was paying a staggering number of people — 1,014,000 contractors, civilians and uniformed personnel — to fill back-office jobs far from the front lines.

Despite the recommendations to address the waste, namely through attrition and redirection of the funds to weapons repair and development and the troops themselves, officials used the scare tactic that revealing it would result in budget cuts. They used this excuse to hide it.

As I’ve previously reported, our military aircraft are at a mere 30 percent readiness, with the Marines even cannibalizing museum pieces to get some aircraft working. Our carrier fleet is in a similar state of disrepair and decline. The Heritage Foundation’s 2016 Index of U. S. Military Strength notes, with emphasis added:

Admiral Jonathan Greenert, Chief of Naval Operations (CNO), testified in his March 2015 posture statement, the Navy was “compelled to further reduce the capacity of weapons and aircraft, slow modernization, and delay upgrades to all but the most critical shore infrastructure” due to continued budget shortfalls of $11 billion.

The Obama administration has slashed military personnel — 20,000 Marines in 2012, 20,000 from the Army in 2015 and another 30,000 this year — as well as military pay and pensions. While drawing down, however, they’ve prioritized spending for more recruiters to go after women for combat jobs because they want to see an increase in female representation in the ranks. Also on their priority list are mobile “unconscious bias” training units to disabuse grunts of believing in the physiological differences between men and women that are reconfirmed every time they test against men’s standards. And then there’s the “Transgender 101” training, sex change operations and safe spaces now being provided at taxpayer expense.

Reduced flight training due to budget cuts imposed on the services has resulted in several fatal crashes, including one last January that killed 12 Marines. The waste revelation is more than just a disgrace. Marines have died directly due to a lack of funding for the training they need, but Obama’s Pentagon wouldn’t deign to divulge the waste, let alone slash office jobs held by civil servants. The stink of Washington elitism is repugnant. Far from the fray, detached from the consequences of their actions, they’re willing to put men and women in harm’s way without the things they need to succeed and to survive.

The government’s first and most basic responsibility is to protect citizens against enemies foreign and domestic. Yet the hard-earned dollars of those same citizens are being squandered in the worst way. More importantly, the lives of those actually defending the country are not only being put in greater peril but are being squandered just to fund more overpriced contractors and civilian desk jockies. Ashton Carter couldn’t care less.

Luckily for us, far better leadership is soon to take over in the form of retired Marine General James Mattis, a man who cares deeply for America’s defenders. His oversight of the Pentagon can’t come soon enough. (For more from the author of “Obama’s Effort to Force Women into Combat, Allow Transgender Troops Results in $135 Billion Cover-Up, Deaths” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.