Judge Reaffirms Nationwide Ban on Obama Transgender School Bathroom Policy

/0 Comments/in , /by

A federal judge has stopped President Obama’s policy forcing public schools to allow boys in the girls’ locker room.

U.S. District Court Judge Reed O’Connor rejected the Obama administration’s request to lift an injunction against enforcement of the transgender bathroom policy put forth by the Department of Education.

In response to 13 state attorney generals, Judge O’Connor issued the nationwide injunction in August. The Justice Department requested the injunction at least be limited to the 13 objecting states, but O’Connor ruled late Tuesday against the Obama administration.

“It is clear from Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit precedent that this Court has the power to issue a nationwide injunction where appropriate. Both Title IX and Title VII rely on the consistent, uniform application of national standards in education and workplace policy,” O’Connor, a George W. Bush appointee, ruled. “A geographically-limited injunction would be ineffective.”

The Justice Department vowed to appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court in New Orleans if it did not prevail. (Read more from “Judge Reaffirms Nationwide Ban on Obama Transgender School Bathroom Policy” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Undeniable, Glaring Bias of the Mainstream Media

/0 Comments/in , /by

On March 30, 2016, the National Enquirer released a bombshell report, accusing Sen. Ted Cruz of having 5 mistresses, and the mainstream media was all over it, pressing him on the accuracy of the charges, reading between the lines if he didn’t explicitly deny every detail of the report, and talking about it incessantly for days.

Yet all of this was based on one single report from a notorious tabloid, and without any substantiated claims at that.

More recently, after the 2005 video surfaced of Donald Trump’s infamous conversation with Billy Bush, a number of women came forward accusing Trump of inappropriate sexual behavior (serious charges to be sure), and he too was dogged with this incessantly by the mainstream media, who now had even more salacious material to report.

The women were interviewed on TV, and their accusations dominated the headlines day after day. This — in contrast with the flood of stunning, Clinton-hurting, WikiLeaks revelations — was big news. This was what really mattered to the American people. This is what they needed to hear in the closing weeks before the elections.

Hillary Exposed, the Media Ignores

And then yesterday, October 18, lightning struck again, but this time, it was Hillary Clinton being accused of sexual scandals (with both men and women), and the accuser was actually someone who allegedly worked closely with the Clintons for years.

The bombshell was reported once more by the National Enquirer, and it was given immediate, massive exposure by being featured as the lead story on the Drudge Report, read by millions of people each day.

You might say, “That’s odd. I didn’t hear anything about that.”

But of course. The mainstream media doesn’t think you should hear about it, just like they don’t think you should hear about the WikiLeaks revelations or other stories that could help Donald Trump and hurt Hillary Clinton.

Yet it was nothing more than an Enquirer story that launched the non-stop attacks on Ted Cruz, and from the initial reports, it appears that the witness indicting the Clintons is far more credible than those attacking Cruz. Yet thus far, the mainstream media is largely silent on the matter.

As I scanned the online news sites of ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, along with the New York Times, the Washington Post, Time, and Newsweek, not one of them had one syllable about these charges against Hillary Clinton — and I searched these sites 8 hours after the Drudge headline went live.

At the same time, almost all of them had one or more article about Trump’s alleged sexual sins. (But wait. I stand corrected. The Washington Post website really did have much more important news to cover, giving pride of place to this story: First lady shimmers in Versace at the Obamas’ final state dinner. Yes, this is far more important than the other national news.)

Why the Double Standard?

Why the ridiculously obvious double standard? Why the frenzied reporting of a National Enquirer report accusing Cruz of sexual infidelities but such studious silence when the same publication accuses Hillary? Did this notorious tabloid suddenly become reputable when it targeted the staunchly conservative Cruz but again became disreputable when it targeted Hillary?

Worse still, as others have pointed out, the mainstream media has all but ignored the WikiLeaks email dumps, although the information contained in them so far would be enough to sink most campaigns. The coverage has been minimal, at best, and quite understated at that, giving the viewer the feeling that the news is marginal, while what really matters is whether Trump touched a woman on a plane 30 years ago (or, more recently, in other settings).

To further underscore this glaring double standard, if the current batch of WikiLeaks emails had come from the Trump campaign rather than the Clinton campaign, with his people insulting Catholics and with his right-hand man expressing disappointment that it was a Muslim, not a white American, who was one of the San Bernardino murderers, the media would virtually crucify Trump, with shrill calls across the nation demanding that he step down and that he fire his campaign manager immediately.

But when it is Hillary Clinton and John Podesta at the center of the firestorm, the email scandals take a very distant back seat to the sex charges against Trump. (Which, to repeat, I absolutely do not minimize, if true.)

And what if Trump had been guilty of using a private email server for classified government correspondence, as Hillary was? What if his staff had destroyed his laptops and cellphones, refused to answer more than 100 incriminating questions from Congress, pleading the Fifth Amendment, and then were granted immunity? The media would be shouting hysterically, “Cover up! Expose the dirty rascals!”

Instead, when it is Hillary at the center of these very serious charges, they join in the cover-up.

But should this surprise when recently released reports indicate that political donations from the media are 27-1 in favor of Hillary over Trump? And should it surprise us when off-the-record meetings are set up with media elites and the Clinton campaign?

As if further evidence of the media’s extreme bias was needed, just look at the mainstream media’s virtual blackout of two damning videos produced by James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas, apparently documenting serious campaign abuses by operatives allegedly working directly with the Clinton campaign. You didn’t hear about those either? No surprise. The media doesn’t seem to think you should.

Recently, conservative pundits Pat Buchanan and George Will have agreed with Trump that, on some level, “the system” is rigged, with Buchanan claiming that, “Big Media is the power that sustains the forces of globalism.”

It’s No Surprise

But again, none of this should surprise us.

As I noted in Outlasting the Gay Revolution:

[Liberal media bias] has been documented for several decades, beginning in 1981, when professors S. Robert Lichter and Stanley Rothman “released a groundbreaking survey of 240 journalists at the most influential national media outlets — including the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Time, Newsweek, U.S. News & World Report, ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS — on their political attitudes and voting patterns.” The survey found these “media elites” to be shockingly liberal, to the point that “54 percent did not regard adultery as wrong, compared to only 15 percent [of the general public] who regarded it as wrong,” while, “Ninety percent agree that a woman has the right to decide for herself whether to have an abortion; 79 percent agree strongly with this pro-choice position.”

I say it’s high time for a media revolution and a listener-viewer-reader revolt, which would mean that the media leaders report the news in an unbiased way, and if that is not possible, they then clearly declare their biases.

And if they won’t do either (or if their biases are too offensive), we take our business elsewhere.

Are you with me? (For more from the author of “The Undeniable, Glaring Bias of the Mainstream Media” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Debate 2016: The Cave Man Versus the Borg Queen

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Last night’s presidential debate put me in an uncharacteristically Bible-quoting mood. After watching it, this inspired verse haunted my mind: “I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse; therefore choose life, that you and your descendants may live.” (Deuteronomy 30:19).

I realized that this is the choice that faces us on Election Day: The seedy, fallen, life that all of us slog through after the Fall, with sudden irruptions of Grace that can save us, if we will let it. Or a shiny, polished, smoothly crafted death, a beautiful death (euthanasia).

Donald Trump is the lumpy, rough-shod reminder of how man really is — comprehensively fallen, with occasional glimpses of decency, with natural virtues that God made crusted over by sinful habits and clouded by self-deception. The kind of man whom preachers have to yell at, but whom they bother to since they have ears. They aren’t cyborgs.

Trump knows that men can be dogs because he has for decades been one. He knows that businessmen will take whatever advantage the law allows them because he has done so. He’s aware that foreign relations rest on strength and self-assertion, not happy talk and children’s scrawls of rainbow-pooping unicorns. He’s the sin-hammered face we see in the mirror each day, when we peer through our own deceptions and make an examination of conscience. And it isn’t pretty. We’d rather look at some shiny, man-made idol.

Hillary Clinton is the flawless mechanical goddess of a newborn pagan religion. She’s the Witch-Queen of Narnia, dispensing endless boxes of delicious Turkish Delight that makes us so very sleepy. In her dream world, if we can believe it, politicians can take tens of millions of dollars from dictatorships like Saudi Arabia that torture rape victims for the “crime” of adultery, but not be tainted by it. They can be trusted to delete tens of thousands of emails from illegal private servers holding national security secrets, because why would the leaders of our democracy lie to us? Isn’t that a cynical, ugly thing to think? It’s in our interest to think happy thoughts instead.

Every refugee, whatever his age or commitment to jihad, is one of the innocent “women and children” whom we may safely welcome into our country. An apocalypse-hungry despotism like the government of Iran can be trusted with nuclear weapons, because they really mean us no harm. No woman would ever abort her nine-month-old child except for the very best of reasons. It is cruel to suggest otherwise. (What kind of monster are you? Trump’s simple, visceral horror at such abortions just proves what we always said about that man.) The “rebels” in Syria who are backed by al Qaeda only want to establish a Swedish-style democracy, and if you don’t agree then you are clearly someone who is sick with Islamophobia.

Your sickness is deplorable. But it is not incurable. Just turn over the power to rule by decree to the nice judges whom Hillary will appoint from Harvard Law School, and they will make laws for you — you won’t even have to vote on them. If you tried to, it wouldn’t matter, anyway. So rest your little head on her icy lap and let her tell you a story. Don’t talk back—that isn’t polite.

Donald Trump is the seedy boss you’re pretty sure will sexually harass your daughter. Hillary is the cool, unflappable doctor whom you learn, too late, intends to euthanize your parents. Trump has no good excuses for his behavior — it’s just what guys do, ya know? But Hillary’s story is letter perfect. She has charts ready, and figures. She has calculated to the minute and even the second the number of “happy moments” your aging parents (an army vet, a mother of five, it doesn’t matter) can expect out of earthly life. She has totaled them up in an algorithm against the “happy moments” she can offer some stranger in Syria with the money not wasted on their “useless” medical care. She can quote the U.N. Charter, and maybe Kahlil Gibran, on why you ought to be happy with her decision. But the bottom line is: she decides. If you got involved, started invoking some of those obsolete religious tenets she already told you need changing … well that would just make things messy.

And we like things neat and clean. We like to think well of ourselves. We like to imagine that we are pretty much free of sin, while those other people — those troglodytes in tacky hats who listen to trashy music — embody what’s wrong with the world. They subscribe to “middle ages dictatorships” and bitterly cling to their guns and their religion. We don’t want to be grouped with them. The taint might rub off on us.

And that’s why the best and brightest, the folks who know how to look out for their long-term rational self-interest, are backing Hillary Clinton. They know that it suits their good cheer and bottom line to believe in the icy goddess, and repeat her happy tales. They know none of it is true, but it doesn’t really matter. By the time of the day of reckoning they will be dead. And as every parent in a no-fault divorce has told himself as a mantra, “Kids are so… resilient.” (For more from the author of “Debate 2016: The Cave Man Versus the Borg Queen” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Planned Parenthood CEO: HHS Mandate Is My ‘Proudest Moment’

/0 Comments/in , /by

In a wide-ranging interview with Texas Observer, Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards says that her “proudest moment” at America’s largest abortion company was when she found out the federal government’s birth control and abortifacient mandate was about to become federal policy. Asked by the liberal magazine to name her proudest moment, she answered:

Definitely the day President Obama called to say he was about to announce that birth control would be covered for all women under their insurance plans, because it had been a hard-fought battle, long before I came to Planned Parenthood. We were fighting to make sure that insurance companies covered it and pharmacies would fill prescriptions. The fact that now, I believe, for your generation, all women will be able to get it without a fight, and they’ll be able to get the best birth control, is an enormously important moment. It was a win for the movement.

Elsewhere in the interview, Richards said that her movement is “fighting these issues in the Supreme Court for some employers who are completely unwilling to allow their employees to get access to birth control….” After the establishment of the Affordable Care Act, the Department of Health and Human Services created a “contraceptive mandate” requiring almost every organization to include contraception coverage in its insurance plan. Religious groups were not given an exception, and the administration vigorously fought in the courts to force religious groups to comply.

The Mandate Against Religious Groups

The mandate’s backers have said it is an important way for women to gain access to contraceptive measures. Though Richards doesn’t say so, almost all these groups are Christian ministries or businesses, such as the Little Sisters of the Poor, Priests for Life, Franciscan and Oklahoma Wesleyan universities, the Catholic diocese of Pittsburgh and the Hobby Lobby business. Most have sued the Obama administration, saying they have no intention of preventing women from accessing birth control. They argue they simply do not wish to participate in insuring their employees’ use of birth control and abortifacients.

Many of the contraceptives that are required to be insured also double as abortion-inducing drugs and devices — products that end the life of unborn children. This is one reason mandate supporters and opponents, as many who back the mandate claim that human life is not created until after implantation in the womb. Catholic organizations object to contraception of any sort, in keeping with Catholic teaching.

The mandate has faced legal difficulties since it was first announced in 2012. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled the mandate partially unconstitutional in its 2014 Hobby Lobby decision, and earlier this year ordered lower courts to reconsider how the mandate could be worked without requiring religious non-profits with moral objections to cover the products.

The face of the mandate’s non-profit opponents is the Little Sisters of the Poor, an order of Catholic nuns that provides care to the elderly poor. Represented by The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, the nuns have received enormous support from Members of Congress, including two Democrats. In an exclusive interview earlier this year,a spokesperson for the order told The Stream that the Obama administration has admitted women can easily access contraceptives and abortifacients without involving the nuns, priests and others opposed to the mandate. (For more from the author of “Planned Parenthood CEO: HHS Mandate Is My ‘Proudest Moment'” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Busted: Hillary Gets Nailed on Her Open-Border Policies

/0 Comments/in , /by

Hillary Clinton demonstrated tonight that if we only had a political party committed to American sovereignty — sans the gratuitous baggage that has come along with Trump — the Democrats would be decimated on the issue of immigration alone, not to mention other policies.

Kellyanne Conway must have invented a pill to finally keep Trump on message about the issues, and it especially showed with regard to immigration before it wore off later in the debate. Hillary got ensnared in the classic open borders canard in which the radicals extol the virtues of illegal immigration, but then are forced to proclaim why they still support border security. Which begs the question: what exactly are they trying to secure if they want illegal immigrants?

Hillary referred to “undocumented” immigrants almost a dozen times and refused to recognize the interests of American citizens. At one point she brazenly said this used to be a bipartisan issue. She is more correct than she knows!

In the 1995 State of the Union Address, her husband, President Bill Clinton, exalted the work of the Jordan Commission on immigration — which called for a reduction in immigration and comprehensive enforcement against illegal immigration. He railed against the unfairness of illegal immigration and sounded, ironically, a lot like …Trump.

During tonight’s debate, Hillary went on to offer the false choice between open borders and mass deportations by trains and buses. Nobody is buying that line anymore. We already have a deportation force — it’s called ICE. Husband deported four times as many people as Obama did and more than the Bush administration did using that force. And don’t even get me started on Harry Reid’s strong position on immigration in the ‘90s and the bipartisan bill after 9/11 to cut off visas to countries with a presence of Islamic terrorists.

Indeed, there was a time when both parties supported the concept of a nation state with borders.

Then, Chris Wallace caught her in the tight rope act between what she really believes on immigration and what she tells the public:

Secretary Clinton, I want to clear up your position on this issue, because in a speech you gave to a Brazilian bank, for which you were paid $225,000, we’ve learned from the WikiLeaks, that you said this, and I want to quote. “My dream is a hemispheric common market with open trade and open borders. So that’s the question…”

Hillary simply could not answer the question, and in an awkward pivot, began hitting Trump on his comments about Putin. She simply demurred on the issue of immigration by saying the comments were only about energy. Yeah, right.

You could hear the sucking sound coming out of her level of support from your average swing voter.

Unfortunately, this was probably a dollar late and a dime short to get to issues of substance, given that the contours of this race are already defined by baggage. But what this debate did demonstrate is that when the focus is on issues, Democrats lose; when it’s about personalities, Democrats win. It’s that simple. The few times Chris Wallace veered off his very effective and disciplined agenda into personal stuff you could feel Trump doing damage to himself. When it was about issues, Trump’s performance vacillated depending on the issue, but Hillary was not winning points on a single policy and was an utter disaster on immigration. In general, Trump expressed the least support for some of his liberal positions and the most support for conservative ideas than at any other time, especially towards the beginning on the topics of the Constitution and immigration.

Does this mean he is back in the game? It’s hard to see enough people moving beyond the character issues to dramatically alter the entrenched impressions of him, especially when he is down by so much with early voting already under way. He also didn’t help himself by refusing to accept the outcome of the election. Once again, when he wasn’t attacking Hillary from principle on issues he was hemorrhaging support. However, the exposure of Hillary’s radicalism on policies such as immigration will likely help Republicans down ballot by reminding voters that there is more to life than Donald Trump’s zaniness after November 8. The American people don’t want to give the keys of all of the federal government to the Democrats. Hillary will not have a mandate to pursue a single policy issue.

The field is wide open for a new movement, unencumbered by the distraction of personal baggage, to fight the Democrats on the issues. The Left has nothing left but to fight Republicans on their own glass jaw. What if we had a party unvarnished by Trump-like personal baggage or pale-pastel immigration and economic views of establishment Republicans? Perhaps, even if we accepted the outcome of the presidential election, their dangerous agenda would be crushed in the states and in Congress.

A Hillary victory will be an utter disaster. But tonight’s debate performance shows why there might also be a critical opportunity to finally fight back on the issues in a way we’ve never done before. (For more from the author of “Busted: Hillary Gets Nailed on Her Open-Border Policies” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Senators Promise to Block Potential Clinton Supreme Court Nominees

/0 Comments/in , /by

Two U.S. senators say they plan to oppose Hillary Clinton’s Supreme Court nominees should she win the presidency.

In the past week, both Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, have indicated they would continue to block confirmation of a Supreme Court nominee next year.

According to CNN, McCain said in a radio interview that he believes the Republican Party will take a united stand to block Clinton’s nominees.

“I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up,” McCain said. “I promise you … ”

According to The Hill, since making this statement on Monday, Rachael Dean, a spokeswoman for McCain, has softened the senator’s claim. She said McCain “will, of course, thoroughly examine the record of any Supreme Court nominee put before the Senate and vote for or against that individual based on their qualifications as he has done throughout his career.”

Lee said that he will oppose potential Supreme Court nominees put forward by Clinton.

“Make no mistake: As a former law clerk … I don’t believe there would be a real substantive distinction, a real noticeable difference between the voting pattern of a justice who would be appointed by a President Hillary Clinton … and Merrick Garland,” Lee said to reporters. “I just don’t think there is much, if any, difference.”

Garland is the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. He was nominated by President Barack Obama to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in February. Garland has yet to be confirmed by the Senate.

Carrie Severino, chief counsel and policy director of the Judicial Crisis Network, a conservative judicial organization, said she is heartened by the fact that Lee and McCain are committed to doing all they can to support nominees whose only agenda is to uphold the Constitution.

“I am very impressed with the stance that the senators are taking,” Severino told The Daily Signal in a phone interview. “They are taking seriously their oath to uphold the Constitution. It is exciting to see them taking their job seriously.”

Severino said it is refreshing to see these senators take the initiative to do what they can to ensure that conservative values will be considered in the Supreme Court nominee process.

In contrast, Marge Baker, executive vice president of People For the American Way, an organization “dedicated to making the promise of America real for every American,” said the statements from Lee and McCain are inappropriate. Baker said in an email to The Daily Signal:

These new statements make clear that Republicans’ blockade of Merrick Garland was never about principle and always about partisanship. With almost a year left in the president’s term when the Supreme Court vacancy first opened up, Republicans said, “let the voters decide” (ignoring the fact that the voters had in fact elected Obama in 2012 for a full four-year term). Now that it’s looking more likely that the voters will elect Hillary Clinton, they’re coming up with new reasons to justify their unconstitutional blockade. Republicans’ refusal to do their job and give fair consideration to a nominee shows a real contempt for the Constitution.

Rather than seeing the opposition of Lee and McCain as “contempt for the Constitution,” Severino said she believes that Clinton is being inconsistent with the way she has been discussing her potential nominees, as Clinton was quite vocal in her opposition to President George W. Bush’s Supreme Court nominees. (For more from the author of “Senators Promise to Block Potential Clinton Supreme Court Nominees” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Obamacare’s ‘Bailouts,’ Explained

/0 Comments/in , /by

There has been a lot of talk on Capitol Hill and in the news about taxpayer-funded “bailouts” for insurance companies under Obamacare. But what exactly are lawmakers talking about when they reference these “bailouts?”

The “bailouts” have come in the form of two programs—the risk corridor and reinsurance programs—written into the health care law and designed to mitigate risks for insurance companies.

But they haven’t worked out quite the way they were intended.

Learn more about the risk corridor and reinsurance programs, as well as the debate surrounding their futures, in the video above. (For more from the author of “Obamacare’s ‘Bailouts,’ Explained” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

University Threatens to ‘Silence’ Professor Protesting Genderless Pronouns

/0 Comments/in , /by

A psychology professor at the University of Toronto who is protesting a law that would force him to use certain pronouns for transgender and other gender nonconforming individuals says the school is trying to “silence” him.

“The university, yesterday, basically told me to silence myself,” Jordan Peterson told The Daily Signal. “That’s the second warning letter.”

Peterson has been a vocal opponent of a measure before Canada’s Parliament known as C-16, which would amend the nation’s human rights and criminal codes to make it illegal to discriminate based on gender identity and gender expression.

If passed, failure to refer to a person by the preferred pronoun or refusing to hire someone based on gender identity could qualify as discrimination and be punishable by law.

In a phone interview with The Daily Signal, Peterson said he has no problem with addressing people “as whatever gender they appear to be presenting themselves as.”

Peterson, a clinical psychologist, is a tenured professor.

“If Caitlyn Jenner wants to be called ‘she,’ I don’t give a damn,” he said. “If someone’s going through a fair bit of work to manifest themselves as a female or manifest themselves as a male, I’m not going to make an issue of it.”

What Peterson takes issue with, however, is the Canadian government potentially forcing him to speak in a manner that reflects a particular ideology, such as using the genderless pronouns “zie” or “hir.”

“The law should be very careful when it mandates what people have to say,” Peterson said, adding:

That’s the fundamental issue here. The mistake of this legislation is, it’s an attempt to force people to utter certain words that are not of their choosing. There’s a big difference between being required to not say something, and being required to say something. It’s a different category of law. One is closing your mouth. The other one is putting a hand inside you and forcing you to be a puppet.

As part of his opposition to C-16, which currently is in committee, Peterson got involved in free speech rallies, published a video series online, and wrote articles explaining his stance.

Some students and other members of the University of Toronto community took immediate offense to Peterson’s remarks, telling school leaders they found his comments “unacceptable, emotionally disturbing, and painful.”

Some fear for their safety because of his perspective, two university officials said in a letter to Peterson. David Cameron, dean of the Faculty of Arts & Science, and Sioban Nelson, vice-provost for faculty and academic life, wrote:

Some members of the university community report that the statements and the invective that has followed in the ensuing commentary and debates on social media have caused them to fear for their safety on the university campus.

The university first warned Peterson to stop making “discriminatory” remarks in an Oct. 3 letter from Susanne Ferber, chairwoman of the Department of Psychology, who wrote:

Concerns have been raised by members of the University of Toronto community regarding statements you have made publicly regarding transgendered persons in a recent YouTube presentation. I wish to remind you that in your activities as a University of Toronto faculty member you are expected to comply with applicable human rights law.

The Daily Signal sought comment from the University of Toronto, but did not receive a response by deadline.

The letter signed by Cameron and Nelson, dated Oct. 18, informs Peterson:

The impact of your behavior runs the risk of undermining your ability to conduct essential components of your job as a faculty member and we urge you to consider your obligations as a faculty member to act in a manner that is consistent with the law and with university policy.

Peterson’s tenure status provides “some protection” from being fired, he said, “but the limits of that can always be tested.”

The university officials object to what they call Peterson’s “discriminatory intentions”—that, as a matter of principle, he has said he’d refuse to comply with rules or laws dictating pronoun usage.

“You should also be aware that many members of the university community are concerned and distressed about the declarations of your discriminatory intentions,” Cameron and Nelson write.

The letter also cites the Ontario Human Rights Code, which already bans discrimination based on gender identity and expression. The university is located in Toronto, the capital of Ontario.

“Depending on the context, if personal pronouns are being used, the refusal by a teacher or colleague to use the personal pronoun that is an expression of the person’s gender identity can constitute discrimination,” they add.

Peterson said he doesn’t intend to stop speaking out on the issue, and warned that political correctness is spiraling out of control, particularly in the U.S.

“This has also happened in New York City, where you can be fined $250,000 for misgendering someone,” he said.

Under the New York City policy, landlords, employers, and businesses face civil penalties up to $125,000 per violation and up to $250,000 “for violations that are the result of willful, wanton, or malicious conduct.”

Peterson said he was discouraged by the thought of losing his job, and possibly losing his license to practice psychology. He said the situation has been hard for his family to bear.

On principle, however, Peterson told The Daily Signal he refuses to be silenced, and knows that as a result, he stands a real chance of losing his job and livelihood:

I think the university will send me a third warning letter, because I think they’re getting the documentation in order, and then I think there’s a reasonable probability that they’ll take action against me. And I think there’s a nontrivial possibility that I’ll be held up in front of the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal. I’m obviously prognosticating with regards to something I can’t predict, but the university did yesterday tell me to silence myself, and I didn’t expect them to do that.

(For more from the author of “University Threatens to ‘Silence’ Professor Protesting Genderless Pronouns” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

BOMBSHELL!! Rigged Election? Democrat Operative Admits Massive Voter Fraud

/0 Comments/in , , /by

The second video in Project Veritas’ “Rigging the Election” series was released Tuesday, and, in the words of Project Veritas Action President James O’Keefe, it’s “so damning, we’ll have corporate media forced to cover this. Even if they’re dragged kicking and screaming.”

In this video, a Democratic operative explains how they commit mass voter fraud.

“We manipulated the vote with money and action, not with laws,” Democratic operative Scott Foval explains in the video.

Foval, who was fired from Americans United for Change after O’Keefe exposed him in the first video Monday, explains how Democrats have been manipulating voter turnout for “years.”

“We’ve been bussing people in to deal with you f*****g assholes for fifty years, and we’re not going to stop now, we’re just going to find a different way of doing it.”

From there, Project Veritas Action writes in their post, the revelations get worse.

Foval then goes on to explain the sinister plot and how they avoid getting caught. The undercover reporter asks why they can’t just “bus in” voters, but get them to use their own personal vehicles. Foval describes how they avoid being detected and free of criminal charges. “Would they charge each individual of voter fraud? Or are they going to go after the facilitator for conspiracy, which they could prove? It’s one thing if all these people drive up in their personal cars. If there’s a bus involved? That changes the dynamic.”

How do they keep it a secret from the American people and the FEC? Foval explains, “So you use shells. Use shell companies.”

The final straw is Foval and the Democrats don’t think journalists, the media or the law can do anything to stop him, the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign. “The question is, whether when you get caught by a reporter, does that matter? Because does it turn into an investigation or not? In this case, this state, the answer is no, because they don’t have any power to do anything.”

Donald Trump has been sounding the alarm on a “rigged” election. It seems his claims aren’t too far off.

What is clear from this video is the Democrats are committing voter fraud.

As O’Keefe said in a short message posted before the release of this latest bombshell, the liberal media refuses to report this story because they know it’s TRUE. According to his “sources,” TV networks dropped the story because they were “threatened with retaliation.”

Though the mainstream media ignored the first video, O’Keefe urges those that watch this video to “send it to everyone you know” for “maximum impact” to force the mainstream media to cover this story.

Whose heads will roll after this new video? What other revelations does Project Veritas have in store? Will these allegations be brought up during Wednesday night’s presidential debate?

And how long will the mainstream media continue to ignore what is plain for everyone to see? (For more from the author of “BOMBSHELL!! Rigged Election? Democrat Operative Admits Massive Voter Fraud” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Wikileaks Emails Show Beyond a Doubt What Hillary Thinks of Americans

/0 Comments/in , /by

WikiLeaks flooded the internet with thousands of leaked emails by Clinton campaign head, John Podesta, exposing serious issues about Hillary Clinton and her team.

The leaked emails caught Clinton using completely different positions depending on whether she was talking to potential supporters in private settings or public campaign stops. On a wide range of important issues, such as immigration, hydraulic fracturing, and trade, Hillary argued two different sides a revelation that adds to the existing doubt about Clinton’s trustworthiness.

In addition, Clinton’s team criticized ordinary Americans for their race, religion, and for living in the South.

Other emails showed CNN contributor and new DNC head Donna Brazile sent a debate question to the Clinton campaign prior to a CNN town hall.

In total, the emails expose Clinton’s duplicitous nature, provide evidence that she will say anything to get elected, and proves that she really meant it when she called Americans a “basket of deplorables.”

I had the opportunity to debate these topics on Fox Business Network’s “Risk & Reward” with guest host Liz MacDonald and Democrat strategist Jessica Tarlov. (For more from the author of “Wikileaks Emails Show Beyond a Doubt What Hillary Thinks of Americans” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.