Bill De Blasio’s Astonishing Hypocrisy in One Cringe-Worthy Photo

/0 Comments/in , , /by

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio was responsible for an astonishing display of transparent hypocrisy, during a rally Monday against state Republican plans to increase the number of charter schools in New York City.

On June 30, mayoral control over city schools expires, reverting control of city schools back to 32 community school boards. De Blasio claims that if he loses control of the school system, there will be chaos and widespread corruption.

State senate Republicans want to increase the number of charter schools in New York City and are refusing to extend the mayor’s control without legislation raising the cap on charter schools and approving tax breaks for individuals who make donations to public, private, and parochial schools. The Democratic majority in the state assembly opposes the measure, creating a stalemate.

Mayor de Blasio held a rally Monday accusing state Republicans of using children as “political pawns” and demanding that they back off the charter school initiative. Mayor de Blasio made his political point by bringing children on stage with him.

Yes, this actually happened.

This is shameful. Dishonorable. Cowardly. Dishonest. Ignoble. Repugnant, and a thousand other adjectives that invoke some sense of what a small-souled, pathetic cretin the current mayor of New York City is. (For more from the author of “Bill De Blasio’s Astonishing Hypocrisy in One Cringe-Worthy Photo” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The ‘Imam of Peace’ Calls for a Police State. Is Tawhidi a Fraud?

/0 Comments/in , /by

A self-declared “Imam of Peace,” Imam Mohammad Tawhidi appears to have tricked many across the political spectrum into believing he is indeed seeking critical reform from within his religion.

The outspoken Imam has become a rising media darling, noted for his sensationalist claims, his willingness to condemn radical Islam, his calls for increased scrutiny of Salafi mosques, and his declaration that these acts are sanctioned by fundamentalist interpretations of the Koran.

He’s apparently received death threats, but has nonetheless persisted in speaking out about extremist strains within his religion.

Sounds good so far, right?

But as Tawhidi continues his meteoric rise, leaders within the Muslim Reform Movement have begun to notice that Tawhidi doesn’t seem to have any credentials, nor does he have much of a public record beyond last year.

Even more disturbing allegations have surfaced, alleging that he’s actually a Shiite Islamist who is making a concerted effort to persecute Sunni Muslims through extrajudicial means.

Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, a U.S. Navy veteran who has dedicated his life to reforming Islam, has declared Tawhidi a “radical of a different flavor.” In a piece for the Asia Times, Jasser notes that for all his tough talk on Sunni strains of Islam, Tawhidi does not say much about the radical Shiite movements inspired by Iran.

“His religious and educational programming originates in Bashar al-Assad’s Syria and radical Shia strains in Iraq and Iran,” Jasser writes.

Shireen Qudosi, another Muslim reformist, also shared her suspicions about the imam’s true intentions and ideology. Like Jasser, she suspects he could be a Shiite Islamist who is conning Westerners into promoting his ideology.

Chloe Patton, an expert on Australia’s Shiite community, warns Tawhidi subscribes to the radical ideology promulgated by the regime in Iran. “In Tawhidi’s black-and-white worldview, anything other than the Shia Twelver Islam that he follows is the terrorist ideology,” she writes.

And on Sunday, the mask finally came off — Tawhidi exposed his anti-Western ideals for the world to see.

The Iranian-Australian “Imam of Peace” openly advocated for a police state in his country of residency, writing the following tweets:

In one tweetstorm, the imam called for laws that would violate almost the entirety of the U.S. Bill of Rights.

It turns out, Mohammad Tawhidi is not the imam many have been waiting for. Instead, he appears to be a “one-trick contrarian” who may actually be an Islamist himself.

His response and calls to action may sound noble in highlighting the atrocities committed by fundamentalist Islamic radicals, as so few within the Muslim community are willing to speak openly and honestly about its problems and the need for reform.

Instead of seeking true reform, however, it appears Tawhidi is attempting to delegitimize opposition Islamist movements so that only his can thrive. (For more from the author of “The ‘Imam of Peace’ Calls for a Police State. Is Tawhidi a Fraud?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump CANNOT Be Indicted, Say DOJ Memoranda

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Yes, it’s just that simple. The long-held official policy of the Department of Justice is that a sitting president of the United States cannot be indicted, according to official DOJ memoranda. Even The New York Times agrees…

Mark Levin informed his listeners of this fact during his radio program Monday night, saying, “whether I agree with that position or not is quite beside the point.”

“So all this talk about whether Trump personally is under investigation for obstruction of justice, or whether Trump violated the law, it will never go to court … if Robert Mueller should seek to indict Trump, a sitting president, in the end the Supreme Court would throw it out,” Levin continued.

So why does the endless cloud of investigation around the Trump administration exist? It exists generally to distract and derail Trump’s presidency, and specifically for the purposes of impeachment.

Levin said as much: “Mueller’s investigation, to the extent it involves Trump himself, has as its purpose to lay a predicate or a pretext, if you will, for impeachment — and that’s not that man’s job!” (For more from the author of “Trump CANNOT Be Indicted, Say DOJ Memoranda” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

After US Shoots Down Russian-Made Fighter, Russia Threatens to Shoot Down US Jets

/0 Comments/in , /by

By MICHAEL R. GORDON and IVAN NECHEPURENKO. Long-running tensions between the United States and Russia erupted publicly on Monday as Moscow condemned the American military’s downing of a Syrian warplane and threatened to target aircraft flown by the United States and its allies west of the Euphrates.

The Russians also said they had suspended their use of a hotline that the American and Russian militaries used to avoid collisions of their aircraft in Syrian airspace. . .

The latest escalation comes as competing forces converge on ungoverned swaths of Syria amid the country’s six-year civil war. Syrian forces and Iranian-backed militias that support them are extending their reach east closer to American-backed fighters, including forces that the Pentagon hopes will pursue the militants into the Euphrates River valley after they take the Islamic State’s self-declared capital of Raqqa. The collision of the disparate forces has, in effect, created a war within a war. (Read more about Russia’s saber-rattling after the US shoots down a Syrian SU-22 HERE).

_______________________________

Pentagon: US Shoots Down Syrian Fighter Jet for First Time

By Robert Burns. The U.S. military on Sunday shot down a Syrian Air Force fighter jet that bombed local forces aligned with the Americans in the fight against Islamic State militants, an action that appeared to mark a new escalation of the conflict.

The U.S. had not shot down a Syrian regime aircraft before Sunday’s confrontation, said Navy Capt. Jeff Davis, a Pentagon spokesman. While the U.S. has said since it began recruiting, training and advising what it calls moderate Syrian opposition forces to fight IS that it would protect them from potential Syrian government retribution, this was the first time it resorted to engaging in air-to-air combat to make good on that promise.

The U.S.-led coalition headquarters in Iraq said in a written statement that a U.S. F-18 Super Hornet shot down a Syrian government SU-22 after it dropped bombs near the U.S. partner forces, known as the Syrian Democratic Forces. (Read more from “Pentagon: US Shoots Down Syrian Fighter Jet for First Time” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Federal Judge Rules Cross Violates Law and Must Be Removed

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Atheists across the fruited plain are rejoicing after a federal judge declared that a cross erected in a Florida park violated the law and must come down.

“I am aware that there is a lot of support in Pensacola to keep the cross as is, and I understand and I understand and respect that point of view,” U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson wrote in his ruling. “But, the law is the law.”

The lawsuit was filed in 2016 by the notorious Freedom From Religion Foundation and the American Humanist Association on behalf of four Pensacola citizens. Click here to view photos of the cross.

The judge pointed out that park has hosted tens of thousands of people for roughly 75 years without causing anyone offense — until now.

“When a city park serving all citizens — nonreligious, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim and Christian — contains a towering Latin cross, this sends a message of exclusion to non-Christians, and a corresponding message to Christians that they are favored citizens,” said Annie Gaylor, the organization’s perpetually offended co-founder. (Read more from “Federal Judge Rules Cross Violates Law and Must Be Removed” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Church Will Never Embrace Homosexual Practice

/0 Comments/in , /by

There’s a bizarre argument which basically goes like this. “Look at how many churches are embracing homosexual practice. This proves we’re getting closer to the truth.” The logic behind this argument is as wrongheaded as it is unbiblical. All it really proves is that more and more churches are apostasizing.

‘Many False Prophets Will Arise’

To argue that acceptance of homosexuality by churches is proof of spiritual growth is like arguing that acceptance of obesity by doctors is proof of medical progress. The reverse is actually true.

The Bible often warns us against compromise and apostasy, both moral and creedal. In every generation, there are heretics who depart from the faith. Should we celebrate every heretical doctrine and practice as proof of our spiritual maturity?

Jesus warned His disciples, saying “See that no one leads you astray” (Matt. 24:4). He also said, “And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray. And because lawlessness will be increased, the love of many will grow cold. But the one who endures to the end will be saved” (Matt. 24:11-13).

What is to be celebrated is not apostasy but faithfulness. Not deception, but steadfastness. Not moral laxity, but moral firmness. The words of Jesus may have more specific application to certain times in history. But there is certainly an application to our day, in which “lawlessness” has greatly increased.

4 Reasons Why the Church Will Never Embrace Homosexual Practice

Last month, the gay activist organization Faith in America announced its plans to ask the Southern Baptist Convention to remove homosexual practice “from the sin list.”

“Ultimately,” they said, “we at FIA believe LGBT people should be removed from the sin list. We know interpretations and new revelations come to light. We believe the Church will one day stop diminishing the lives of those who are LGBT and we strive to help this come to pass. We are optimistic people and see the glass 75% full!”

They are encouraged by what they have seen in recent years, as more and more churches in America and Europe drop homosexual practice “from the sin list.” Soon enough, they believe, the whole Church will follow suit. To paraphrase (in my words, not theirs!), “We’re encouraged by the increasing apostasy we see in the Church. We’re expectant that one day, the whole Church will be completely apostate.”

The facts are as follows.

First, as I’ve stated repeatedly:

No new textual, archeological, sociological, anthropological, or philological discoveries have been made in the last fifty years that would cause us to read any of these biblical texts differently. Put another way, it is not that we have gained some new insights into what the biblical text means based on the study of the Hebrew and Greek texts. Instead, people’s interaction with the LGBT community has caused them to understand the biblical text differently.

The truth hasn’t changed. Instead, some professing Christians have departed from God’s unchanging truth. This is because of personal relationships and cultural decline.

Second, most church groups that have removed homosexual practice from the sin list are in numerical and spiritual decline. In contrast, most church groups that are holding to biblical truth, especially overseas, are growing numerically and spiritually.

Third, the embrace of homosexual practice cannot be separated from the larger cultural embrace of the sexual revolution. This includes an increase in extra-marital sex, out of wedlock births, pornography, and divorce, along with all kinds of sexual perversions. That’s why the same society that celebrates same-sex “marriage” is increasingly celebrating polyamory, polygamy, and consensual adult incest. (I’ve documented this in many articles and several books. See, conveniently, the relevant chapters here.)

This points to spiritual and moral regress, not progress.

Fourth, the idea that the whole Church will one day embrace homosexual practice is as certain not to happen as the idea that the whole Church will one day deny Jesus. Forget about not holding your breath. Don’t even think about holding your breath.

Tragic Self-Deception

It’s certainly possible that in some locations, parts of the Church will fall away, and this will be marked by numerous spiritual compromises. But the notion that the whole Church will fall away is completely self-contradictory. If there is a true Church, it has been established by Jesus Himself. And it was He who said that He would build His church and that “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18).

It is not only theologically ignorant to imagine that the Church worldwide will one day embrace homosexual practice. It is also missiologically ignorant. Wherever the Church is growing worldwide, it is growing with a conservative message and morality.

I truly believe that the leaders of groups like Faith in America mean well. They believe they are doing God’s work. That makes their self-deception all the more tragic. (For more from the author of “The Church Will Never Embrace Homosexual Practice” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Same-Sex Marriage Is Not Today’s Replay of Interracial Marriage

/0 Comments/in , /by

June 12 was the 50th anniversary of Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court case that made interracial marriage legal across the United States. So someone was bound to publish an article, claiming that arguments made against same-sex marriage today are just like arguments made against interracial marriage fifty years ago. Therefore (so it goes) people who oppose same-sex marriage are on the wrong side of history, just like those who once opposed marriage between races.

I’ll be glad to agree with them. Sure, the arguments are the same. There’s no difference at all! Just like there’s no difference between a man and a mouse.

Take Dave Singleton’s article at Salon.com. For the most part it’s a story — a moving and very personal one, at that. He tells what it was like when he found out it was his godfather and uncle, Robert McIlwaine, who had argued the state’s position against interracial marriage before the Supreme Court in the Loving case.

It’s a great read, except for the errors he makes here:

The similarity in language used by lawyers arguing on both sides of interracial and gay marriage is undeniable. I’ve heard the same faulty logic used in Loving v. Virginia applied to gays and lesbians: Gay marriage is a sacrilege that will topple society, and heterosexual marriages will suffer. One state shouldn’t have to accept what another state legitimizes. And what about the kids Adam and Steve aren’t fit to raise? Unless reared by Adam and Eve, they will be messed up, scorned by society and miserable.

Yes, there’s “similarity” there. Humans and mice have a lot in common, too. Mice and men both have four limbs, two eyes, two ears, a nose, a mouth and hair. Therefore what’s true for men is true for mice, right? Sure — if you ignore all the differences. That’s what Singleton did here.

Those differences are plenty. I’ll focus on just four of them.

1. Common Beliefs Across All of Humanity

Unlike the situation with same-sex marriage, people in general have never taken it as given that there’s something wrong with marriage between races. As Francis Beckwith wrote in a very helpful 2010 Public Discourse article, common law never put forth any ban on marriage between races. That means that “interracial marriage was a common-law liberty,” of a sort that could only be turned back by laws specially written to have that effect. Some states wrote those laws to that end, but they were the exception, not the rule.

Same-sex marriage, in contrast, could never have been anything but an exception — if anyone even thought about it, that is, which never happened until just a few years ago.

2. Interracial Marriage was “Wrong,” Same-Sex Marriage Didn’t Exist

Some states made interracial marriages illegal — but just as an illegal left turn is still a left turn, those illegal marriages were still marriages. Those states might have considered them harmful marriages, the wrong sort of marriages, and ultimately illegal marriages, but they still considered them marriages. Beckwith reminds us (quite sensibly) that it would have made no sense to write laws against people of different races getting married, unless it was in some real sense possible for them to marry.

All this is completely different when it comes to same-sex marriage. It wasn’t the case (as it had been with interracial marriage) that same-sex couples were getting married, and lawmakers decided to call it off because they thought it was wrong or harmful. There was nothing there to call off. Same-sex marriage didn’t even exist. The Supreme Court in 2015 didn’t just declare it legal, as they had in the Loving case; the Court actually created a new thing that had never existed before, except in those few states that had already done the same thing before then.

In fact, as Beckwith points out, same-sex marriage has a lot in common with these former laws against marriage between races. Both of them rely on state coercion to define marriage in terms of something other than the natural, historic understanding of male and female uniting as a couple and to build a family.

3. Interracial Marriage was Banned, Same-Sex Marriage Wasn’t

Look at it this way: Same-sex marriage was never banned. It was never even “against the law.” While some states banned marriage between races, no state ever did that with same-sex marriage. Instead states took it to be non-existent simply by the way marriage was defined.

The Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage decision two years ago was very different from Loving, for it reversed no ban. Instead it created a new definition for marriage. Rather than letting marriage be defined as it always has been: the lifelong committed union between a man and a woman, whose natural expectation is (for the great majority) the building of a family, the court made it something else entirely, the law. It became, for the first time, the committed union of any two adults who get along together, and probably have a romantic attraction to each other.

4. How Marriage is Defined

And that matter of how marriage is defined has always been at the heart of the case against same-sex marriage. The single most influential work against same-sex marriage was a paper by three scholars for the Harvard Journal of Law and Policy, followed by a book on the same topic by the same authors, both of them centered on the definition of marriage. There is something that marriage is, they say; there is something that makes marriage marriage, and that something necessarily includes the male-female aspect. Their reasons for that go far beyond the social effects Singleton lists in his article (and beyond what I have room to discuss here).

That’s not to say no one has ever put forth other arguments besides these. Singleton names a few of them (with a dismissive sneer). But those arguments are like ears, nose and hair: they tell part of the story, but they don’t omit some of the knowledge that counts the most.

Summary: A Man or a Mouse?

Let me summarize before I close.

Some states made decisions contrary to the rest of the country and against most of history. They decided marriage between races was a bad idea, so it should be banned.

In contrast to that, no state has ever banned same-sex marriage. Until an eye blink of history ago, no state ever took action against it because it was a bad idea. Instead, marriage was always, by definition a relationship for opposite-sex couples. There are good reasons it was defined that way. That definition and its reasons have always been at the heart of the case against same-sex marriage.

I’m sure Dave Singleton can tell a man from a mouse. I’m sure he knows differences matter, even where similarities may also exist. In the matter of marriage, though, he ignores real differences that really exist. Either that, or else he hides them.

Interracial marriage and same-sex marriage are just too different to be called the same sort of thing. (For more from the author of “Same-Sex Marriage Is Not Today’s Replay of Interracial Marriage” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

How to Resolve Tangled Relationship Between Congress and Homeland Security

/0 Comments/in , /by

With homeland security being such a national priority, one would expect Congress and the Department of Homeland Security to have a well-organized relationship.

Unfortunately, that is not the case.

On Wednesday, the House Homeland Security Committee marked up a bill that would reauthorize the Department of Homeland Security for the first time since 2002, when the department was conceived.

Why has Congress put off the task for so long? In large part because over the past 15 years, Homeland Security has reported to between 80 and 120 different committees and subcommittees in Congress.

This complicated oversight arrangement exists because the committees that originally had jurisdiction over the department’s component organizations refuse to give up their power.

When portions of 22 different organizations, spanning from the Department of Defense to the Department of Transportation, were consolidated following 9/11 to form the Department of Homeland Security, they all continued to report to their original congressional committees.

Ultimately, this fractured reporting process complicates the reauthorization process. Why do eight committee chairs have to work together to authorize a single department?

In addition, Congress’ impracticable way of organizing its jurisdiction lends itself to producing an oversight process that is duplicative and contradictory.

For example, the homeland security committees could provide guidance to the Department of Homeland Security on how ports or border crossings should be improved. The agriculture, finance, judiciary, and other committees, however, could have completely different opinions, forcing Homeland Security to reconcile multiple views from Congress.

Not only does this harm Homeland Security operations, it lessens the impact of congressional oversight.

Further, because the department reports to around 100 committees and subcommittees, it spends countless work hours and millions of dollars testifying before Congress on its progress and status.

This repetitive and wasteful habit must be eliminated in order to allow the department to return to its primary mission of protecting the homeland.

In order to resolve the oversight conflict, the Department of Homeland Security’s reporting system must be streamlined.

The department should only report to six congressional committees: the House and Senate Homeland Security, Intelligence, and Appropriations Committees. In doing so, Homeland Security would be following the model of the Department of Defense.

After all, it’s a bit ridiculous that Homeland Security, which has a budget one-tenth the size of the Department of Defense, currently reports to over three times as many committees.

The current Department of Homeland Security oversight structure that Congress has in place prioritizes politics over security. Countless bipartisan organizations and individuals have acknowledged that the prevailing system is outdated and only remains in existence to satisfy narrow parochial interests.

As such, it is pivotal that these power politics are put aside in order to protect the interests of the American people.

Streamlining congressional oversight would allow both Congress and the Department of Homeland Security to function more efficiently, and the U.S. homeland will be safer because of it. (For more from the author of “How to Resolve Tangled Relationship Between Congress and Homeland Security” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

‘The Oversight Man’ Explains Why Washington Doesn’t Change

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Just a couple of months ago, investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson profiled Rep. Jason Chaffetz, the Republican chairman of the powerful House Oversight Committee which was poised to dig deep on wide-ranging investigations into government mischief, waste, fraud, and abuse.

A few weeks later, Chaffetz abruptly announced he would resign from Congress. We asked the Oversight Man what changed his mind about being a lead watchdog with not only a GOP majority in Congress, but also a Republican in the White House. He told me it’s more a matter of what hasn’t changed. We started the interview with me asking how he told party leaders he was quitting.

The following is Attkisson’s Full Measure interview with Chaffetz.

Sharyl Attkisson: Some people might think this is a great time to be a Republican Chairman of an important committee because Republicans control the House, they’re the majority in the Senate, and they hold the president’s office. That means, you would think, that federal agencies can’t stonewall investigations of spending, waste, fraud, and abuse.

Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah: The reality is, sadly, I don’t see much difference between the Trump administration and the Obama administration. I thought there would be this, these floodgates would open up with all the documents we wanted from the Department of State, the Department of Justice, the Pentagon.

In many ways, it’s almost worse because we’re getting nothing, and that’s terribly frustrating. And with all due respect, the Attorney General has not changed at all. I find him to be worse than what I saw with Loretta Lynch in terms of releasing documents and making things available. I just, that’s my experience, and that’s not what I expected.

Attkisson: What were some of the investigations that this committee was stalled on that you hoped could be picked up now, that’s not been able to happen in terms of documents not provided by federal agencies?

Chaffetz: We have everything from the Hillary Clinton email investigation, which is really one of the critical things. There was the investigation into the IRS. And one that was more than seven years old is “Fast and Furious.” I mean, we have been in court trying to pry those documents out of the Department of Justice and still to this day, they will not give us those documents. And at the State Department, nothing. Stone cold silence.

Attkisson: To what do you attribute that?

Chaffetz: I think if we went to the senior most people, even the president himself, they would be pulling their hair out and they would hate to hear that but within the bowels of the organization, they just seem to circle the wagons and think, oh we just, we can just wait you out. We can just wait you out.

Attkisson: Republicans were very upset in the last few years over the IRS Commissioner, John Koskinen, who they said allowed destruction of documents and investigations and other things. This committee, I believe, even called for him to be impeached. He’s still IRS Commissioner even though Republicans are now in charge of pretty much everything. Why is that?

Chaffetz: Now look, you have more than 50 Republicans pleading with President Trump to release him, to let him go, fire him. Or at least encourage him to retire. No, he’s still there. No changes. Nobody was fired. Nobody was prosecuted. Nobody was held accountable. We tried to issue subpoenas, we tried to hold people in contempt and the Obama administration said, no, and the Trump administration came in and did zero. Nothing. Nothing changed.

Attkisson: Do Republican leaders have an appetite to do the kind of oversight that needs to be done?

Chaffetz: No, no. No, I mean the reality is, there aren’t very many people that want to play offense. There aren’t many people who say, look, we have a duty and an obligation to fulfill the oversight responsibility that was put in place at the very founding of our country. (For more from the author of “‘The Oversight Man’ Explains Why Washington Doesn’t Change” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Canadians Could Be Jailed or Fined for Using Incorrect Gender Pronouns

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Canada passed a law Thursday making it illegal to use the wrong gender pronouns. Critics say that Canadians who do not subscribe to progressive gender theory could be accused of hate crimes, jailed, fined, and made to take anti-bias training.

Canada’s Senate passed Bill C-16, which puts “gender identity” and “gender expression” into both the country’s Human Rights Code, as well as the hate crime category of its Criminal Code by a vote of 67-11, according to LifeSiteNews. The bill now only needs royal assent from the governor general.

“Great news,” announced Justin Trudeau, Canada’s prime minister. “Bill C-16 has passed the Senate – making it illegal to discriminate based on gender identity or expression. #LoveisLove.”

“Proud that Bill C-16 has passed in the Senate,” said Jody Wilson-Raybould, the country’s attorney general and minister of justice. “All Canadians should feel #FreeToBeMe.”

“[There’s an argument] that transgender identity is too subjective a concept to be enshrined in law because it is defined as an individual’s deeply felt internal experience of gender,” said Grant Mitchell, a conservative senator, in November 2016. “Yet we, of course, accept outright that no one can discriminate on the basis of religion, and that too is clearly a very deeply subjective and personal feeling.” (Read more from “Canadians Could Be Jailed or Fined for Using Incorrect Gender Pronouns” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.