43 Republicans Join Democrats to Support Obama’s Transgender Agenda

On Wednesday night, 43 Republican members of Congress joined the Democrats to vote for President Barack Obama’s transgender agenda.

Whereas last week Congress voted to reject this proposal—known as the Maloney amendment—last night they voted to ratify Obama’s 2014 executive order barring federal contractors from what it describes as “discrimination” on the basis of “sexual orientation and gender identity” in their private employment policies.

And, of course, “discrimination” on the basis of “gender identity” can be something as simple as having a bathroom policy based on biological sex, not gender identity, as we learned last week from Obama’s transgender directives. And “discrimination” on the basis of “sexual orientation” can be something as reasonable as an adoption agency preferring married moms and dads for orphans, than other arrangements.

Indeed, in the past few weeks we’ve seen additional examples of what counts as “discrimination” on the basis of “gender identity.”

The New York City Commission on Human Rights issued official legal guidance saying employers can be fined up to $250,000 for not addressing employees by the pronoun of their choice—including pronouns such as “ze” and “hir.” As UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh explains, this would require “employers and businesses to prevent [the use of “wrong” pronouns] by co-workers and patrons and not just by themselves or their own employees.”

A public school district in Oregon paid a teacher $60,000 because colleagues declined to use the pronoun “they” to describe the teacher. The teacher, Leo Soell, does “not identify as male or female but rather transmasculine and genderqueer, or androgynous.” As Volokh explains: “Soell wants people to call Soell ‘they,’ and submitted a complaint to the school district objecting (in part) that other schoolteachers engaged in ‘harassment’ by, among other things, ‘refusing to call me by my correct name and gender to me or among themselves’ (emphasis added).”

The 4th Circuit Court has said a Virginia school district must allow bathroom access based on “gender identity” not biology. The school district created a policy that says bathroom and locker room access is primarily based on biology, while also creating accommodations for transgender students: only biological girls can use the girls’ room, only biological boys can use the boys’ room, and any student can use one of the three single-occupancy bathrooms, which the school created specifically to accommodate transgender students. But the court said this commonsense policy was itself “discrimination” on the basis of “gender identity.”

Congress should not be ratifying Obama’s radical transgender agenda and imposing these outcomes on private employers just because they contract with the government.

All Americans should be free to contract with the government without penalty because of their reasonable beliefs about contentious issues. The federal government should not use government contracting to reshape civil society about controversial issues that have nothing to do with the federal contract at stake.

Obama’s executive order and the Maloney amendment treat conscientious judgments about behavior as if they were invidious acts of discrimination akin to racism or sexism.

But sexual orientation and gender identity are not like race. Indeed, sexual orientation and gender identity are unclear, ambiguous terms. They can refer to voluntary behaviors as well as thoughts and inclinations, and it is reasonable for employers to make distinctions based on actions.

By contrast, “race” and “sex” clearly refer to traits, and in the overwhelming majority of cases, these traits (unlike voluntary behaviors) do not affect fitness for any job.

Congress tried to minimize the damage of the Maloney amendment with two provisions last night. One provision, introduced by Rep. Joe Pitts, R-Pa., amended the Maloney amendment to say that it couldn’t violate the U.S. Constitution. Another provision, the Byrne Amendment, attempted to attach existing religious liberty protections to the bill. Neither adequately protects against the damage of Maloney.

Liberal activist judges will do all they can to ensure that sexual orientation and gender identity policies will trump religious liberty protections.

This is why Congress should not be elevating sexual orientation and gender identity as a protected class garnering special legal privileges.

Here is a list of the 43 Republicans who voted for the amendment:

Justin Amash, Mich.
Susan Brooks, Ind.
Mike Coffman, Colo.
Ryan Costello, Pa.
Carlos Curbelo, Fla.
Rodney Davis, Ill.
Jeff Denham, Calif.
Charlie Dent, Pa.
Mario Diaz-Balart, Fla.
Bob Dold, Ill.
Daniel Donovan, N.Y.
Tom Emmer, Minn.
Michael Fitzpatrick, Pa.
Rodney Frelinghuysen, N.J.
Chris Gibson, N.Y.
Joe Heck, Nev.
Will Hurd, Texas
Darrell Issa, Calif.
David Jolly, Fla.
John Katko, N.Y.
Adam Kinzinger, Ill.
Leonard Lance, N.J.
Frank LoBiondo, N.J.
Tom MacArthur, N.J.
Martha McSally, Ariz.
Pat Meehan, Pa.
Luke Messer, Ind.
Erik Paulsen, Minn.
Bruce Poliquin, Maine
Tom Reed, N.Y.
David Reichert, Wash.
Jim Renacci, Ohio
Tom Rooney, Fla.
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Fla.
John Shimkus, Ill.
Elise Stefanik, N.Y.
Fred Upton, Mich.
David Valadao, Calif.
Greg Walden, Ore.
Mimi Walters, Calif.
David Young, Iowa
Todd Young, Ind.
Lee Zeldin, N.Y.

(For more from the author of “43 Republicans Join Democrats to Support Obama’s Transgender Agenda” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Instead of ‘Happy Memorial Day,’ Let’s Say a Prayer

When I log into Facebook, I see the faces of children who have lost parents in Afghanistan or Iraq.

Three of these Gold Star children are Kristie, Evelyn and Alia Robertson. Their father, U.S. Army Sgt. 1st Class Forrest Robertson, was killed in Afghanistan on Nov. 3, 2013.

“Some days are just hard on them,” Sgt. 1st Class Robertson’s wife, Marcie, recently posted on Facebook. “I don’t think I will ever know how to respond when one of them starts venting and ends in tears saying … ‘and I don’t have a dad.’ It shatters my heart every single time.”

Forrest and Marcie’s daughters, who are 16, 13 and 8, respectively, have already been through more than most of us can imagine. They are part of a new generation of American children shouldering the cruelest burdens of our country’s post-9/11 conflicts.

When I think of the Robertsons, who have suffered enormously, it is impossible to utter an unfortunate phrase that somehow seeped into our national consciousness: “Happy Memorial Day.” As this courageous family’s struggle demonstrates, Memorial Day is not “happy.” It is a time to honor those who have made the ultimate sacrifice in service to our nation.

“It’s pretty hard to believe it’s been three years since I last saw him,” Marcie wrote in February while sharing one of her husband’s last Facebook messages. “I’m not sure it will ever feel real.”

As Marcie told me in the months following Forrest’s passing, the 35-year-old soldier, who was on his fifth deployment, was only a few weeks from coming home to Kansas.

“I couldn’t speak,” Marcie said at the time about receiving the devastating news of her husband’s death in Afghanistan. “I couldn’t form words.”

Three U.S. service members have died so far this year in the country where Forrest was killed, and as the May 3 death of U.S. Navy Chief Petty Officer (SEAL) Charles Keating IV reminds us, our troops still face grave danger in Iraq, too. Memorial Day was created during the Civil War to salute departed warriors like them.

As we are taught by an inspiring war widow who is raising three kids, however, Monday doesn’t have to be filled with sadness and tears. Last year, family and friends joined Marcie and her daughters to honor Forrest with a Memorial Day barbeque.

“Thank you is becoming completely inadequate to describe how much I appreciate all that has been done for us,” Marcie wrote. “It is so comforting to know we have so many people in so many places willing to do so much for us.

“People tell me all the time ‘I can’t imagine. I don’t know how you do it,’” she continued. “It is because of all the love and support shown to us (sometimes by complete strangers) that we are still standing.”

Marcie’s poignant words show us that a community’s support can help a Gold Star family persevere. So on Monday, instead of walking around saying “Happy Memorial Day,” what if we all joined together in praying for the Robertsons and thousands of brave families like them?

“The storm that was sent to break you is going to be the storm that God uses to make you,” Marcie, whose strength defines the resilience of our nation’s Gold Star community, recently shared.

When the Robertsons visit Forrest’s place of rest, they see an American flag and a quote from Thomas Payne on the fallen soldier’s majestic headstone.

“I prefer peace but if trouble must come, let it come in my time so my children can live in peace,” the quote reads.

Kristie, Evelyn and Alia Robertson are growing up in a country that their father gave all to defend. They are worthy of his ultimate sacrifice. How we mark Memorial Day – and how we choose to honor the fallen – will help determine whether we are worthy, too. (For more from the author of “Instead of ‘Happy Memorial Day,’ Let’s Say a Prayer” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Ted Cruz Vows to Fight Trump on Abortion

Senator Ted Cruz (A, 97%) may have suspended his presidential campaign, but he is keeping his promise to continue to fight for conservative principles, vowing to challenge Donald Trump on the abortion plank of the Republican Platform.

During an interview on the “Today” Show on NBC in late April, Trump said he would change the Republican Party platform on abortion, adding exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother to the party’s pro-life position.

Cruz, speaking to Oklahoma radio host Pat Campbell, pledged to use his delegates to the Republican National Convention to fight that change.

“You have my word. One of the reasons that we are continuing to work to elect conservatives to be delegates, even though Donald has the delegates to get the nomination, we intend to do everything we can to fight for conservative principles to prevent Washington forces from watering down the platform,”

Cruz continued:

“The platform is a manifestation of what we believe as a party, and I think it is important that it continue to reflect conservative values, free-market values, constitutional liberties, Judeo-Christian principles, the values that built this country, and that is exactly what I intend to fight for.”

In his speech announcing an end to his presidential campaign, Senator Cruz made a promise:

“I am not suspending our fight to defend the constitution, to defend the Judeo-Christian values that built America. Our movement will continue and I give you my word that I will continue this fight with all of my strength and all of my ability.”

His vow to fight to keep the Republican Party platform unequivocally pro-life shows that Cruz intends to keep that promise. (For more from the author of “Ted Cruz Vows to Fight Trump on Abortion” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

World’s Largest Muslim Organization Admits Extremism Problem Springs From Islamic Teachings

There’s been so much debate as to whether violent extremism—which has triggered numerous terrorist attacks that have claimed thousands of innocent lives—should be attributed to Islam as a religion.

The largest Muslim organisation in the world recently admitted that bad elements of Islam are indeed part of the extremism problem.

During an international meeting of moderate Islamic leaders in Jakarta earlier this month, the Indonesia-based Nahdlatul Ulama group came out with a strong condemnation of their fellow Muslims, particularly extremist groups like the Islamic State (ISIS) and al-Qaeda.

“We are like traditional opposition to supremacist Islamism,” Yahya Staquf, an Indonesia cleric affiliated with the Nahdlatul Ulama, told CNN, as quoted by CBN News.

Staquf openly admitted that to be able to combat the global jihadi movement, world leaders and the general public must recognize the fact that extremism originates from Islamic teachings, which are being used by terrorist groups to justify the use of violence. (Read more from “World’s Largest Muslim Organization Admits Extremism Problem Springs From Islamic Teachings” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Two-Thirds of Babies Born at 22 and 23 Weeks of Gestation Survive If Given Care

Babies born at 22 weeks and 23 weeks of gestation are likely to survive if given proper care, according to a new study of infants born at a German hospital. 25 percent “born at the border of viability and offered active care survived without severe complications.” The study appeared in the Journal of the American Medical Association Pediatrics.

The University of Cologne Medical Center’s study, which looked at babies born from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2014, found that 67 percent of these babies who were given “active pre-natal and postnatal care” were discharged from the hospital alive. Out of 106 babies born at 22 or 23 weeks, 86 received that kind of care and 58 survived to be discharged.

“The survival rate was 61% (17 of 28) for infants born at 22 weeks of gestation and 71% (41 of 58) for infants born at 23 weeks of gestation,” according to the online abstract for the study. Half of the babies who died died from respiratory failure and one-quarter from multiorgan failure. Others suffered from severe complications.

The study’s publication came shortly after a 21-week old unborn child was left to die at an abortion clinic in Arizona. In a statement, Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser tied the study’s results to her organization’s support for a ban on abortions after 20 weeks’ gestation as well as the Born Alive Protection Act. The latter would require doctors to give proper medical care to babies who survive abortions.

The recorded 911 call made from the Arizona clinic showed that the child was not given care that would have helped it survive. According to Dannenfelser, the baby “suffered, awaiting medical care the abortion clinic was incapable of providing.”

SBA spokesperson Mallory Quigley told The Stream that the German study shows the survivability of extremely premature babies is “approaching what the survival rates would be for babies born later in pregnancy.” (For more from the author of “Two-Thirds of Babies Born at 22 and 23 Weeks of Gestation Survive If Given Care” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

How a Pro-Life Video Changes Minds on Abortion

A pro-life advocacy group published a series of man-on-the-street interviews to make the case that some pro-choice Americans shift to a pro-life position when encountered with the reality of abortion.

On Tuesday, Live Action,a nonprofit organization based in Arlington, Va., released a video that showcases a series of self-proclaimed pro-choice Americans watching a four-minute video made in late February. It portrays former abortionist Dr. Anthony Levatino describing in detail the steps of a second-trimester dilation and evacuation abortion.

Live Action aims to uncover and shed light on abortion procedures in an effort to make the practice illegal in the U.S. Their mission is to “end abortion by leading the culture to embrace the rights and dignity of every person.”

Guttmacher Institute, a sexual and reproductive policy organization, states that “nearly half of pregnancies among American women in 2011 were unintended, and about four in 10 of these were terminated by abortion.” This statistic is just one of many that prompted groups like Live Action to take action.

“We wanted to show America that most people who support abortion have no idea what it actually entails for the mother and the defenseless child inside her,” Live Action president and founder Lila Rose told The Daily Signal. “We also wanted to show how quickly hearts and minds can be changed when we simply expose people to the truth with the four-minute ‘Abortion Procedures’ videos . We hope this stunning man-on-the-street video encourages people to share the ‘Abortion Procedures’ videos with everyone they know until millions more have come over to the pro-life position.”

If born at 24 weeks and given sufficient medical care, a baby can make a full recovery and live a healthy life, according to Baby Center, a tool for expecting mothers. Because abortion up to 24 weeks is legal in many states across the country, Live Action decided to show Americans what an abortion at 24 weeks really looks like.

According to a statement released by Live Action, the video also includes “medically accurate animations to give viewers a window into the womb during an abortion and show how developed a baby is during the procedure.”

When asked to describe their stance on abortion, all eleven of those interviewed believed women should have the right to choose whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term. After watching the four-minute video, every one of them expressed a completely different opinion.

One interviewee’s stance changed from, “I think the person should have a choice to have an abortion or not,” to “abortion shouldn’t be legal.”

While some questioned the legality of the abortion procedure, others questioned the humanity. One observer said, “I believe that’s, like, murder right there–what I saw.” Others labeled abortion “inhumane” and “heinous” after viewing Dr. Levatino’s presentation.

Brian Gottstein, chief communications director of Live Action, told The Daily Signal that the ‘Abortion Procedures’ videos, released over the last three months, have received “over 42 million views,” and are “changing hearts and minds about abortion.” (For more from the author of “How a Pro-Life Video Changes Minds on Abortion” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Memorial Day Crosses Honoring Fallen Soldiers Removed From Public Property After Complaint

A Memorial Day display featuring crosses to honor fallen soldiers was removed from public property in Georgia after someone questioned whether the soldiers were all Christian.

The 79 white, handmade crosses posted on public property along state Highway 92 in Hiram, Ga., were meant to represent the 79 Paulding County residents who died in America’s wars, according to town officials.

But the crosses were abruptly taken down last Friday after someone called Hiram City Hall questioning whether the cross is an appropriate symbol for the memorial.

Hiram Mayor Teresa Philyaw said the cross display, which she approved and planned, was never intended to be religious . . .

“We wanted to make sure that they weren’t forgotten. We also wanted their families to know that our hearts still bleed for them,” she said. “At the time, it never, ever crossed my mind about the religious factor in it.” (Read more from “Memorial Day Crosses Honoring Fallen Soldiers Removed From Public Property After Complaint” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Big Donor to Clinton Foundation Linked to ‘Blood Minerals’

Leonardo DiCaprio once starred in Blood Diamond, a 2006 thriller that takes place during the Sierra Leone civil war in 1999. According to a synopsis on IMDB, “The film shows a country torn apart by the struggle between government soldiers and rebel forces. The film portrays many of the atrocities of that war …” Those atrocities were often committed in the fight over “blood diamonds” — precious stones whose mining and sales are used to fuel brutal conflicts.

While the Hollywood film reflects the real-life stories in the behind-closed-doors dealings of diamonds and minerals in war-torn areas, what it doesn’t portray are the deep-pocket corporations funding the front-door deals involving the extraction of those diamonds and precious minerals.

According to the Daily Caller, one of those corporations donated $100 million to the Clinton Foundation in 2007.

Richard Pollack writes, “When the Vancouver, Canada-based Lundin Group gave its $100 million commitment to the ‘Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative,’ the company had long been cutting deals with warlords, Marxist rebels, military strongmen and dictatorships in the war-torn African countries of Congo, Sudan and Ethiopia.”

The accusations that a donor company was engaged in the often bloody business of precious metal excavation may be of no consequence to the Clinton Foundation, but with the foundation raking in millions from foreign governments, and now corporations with shady business dealings, those questionable donations are now of concern to others, including watchdog groups and humanitarian organizations.

Adolf Lundin, who founded the Lundin Group, reportedly secured mineral rights from the Congo’s brutal dictator Mobutu Sese Seko in 1996 by allegedly donating to Mobutu’s campaign fund, although Lundin reportedly denies it. And in 1997, Pollack writes, the Lundin Group reportedly cut a deal “with Congolese Marxist warlord Laurent Kabila, with a $50 million down payment toward $250 million they would give to the rebels in exchange for mining rights, according to U.N. Inspector Jason K. Stearns. Lundin eventually won majority rights to one of the country’s richest mineral veins.”

Watchdog and humanitarian groups, including Swedwatch, Christian Aid, Enough.org and Human Rights Watch, have all decried abuses for which they say the Lundin Group is responsible. They cite the jailing of journalists, large-scale relocations of entire villages to make way for mining, and starvation of refugees as evidence the mining firm cares more about its business dealings than with humanity as a whole.

The fact the Clinton Foundation received funds from Lundin Group even drew criticism from Washington. Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.) who co-chairs the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, told the Daily Caller that “areas with high conflict over minerals are breeding grounds for human rights abuses on a massive scale, and when entities like the Clintons’ Foundation accept donations from these corrupt actors, they are sanctioning the exploitation.” (For more from the author of “Big Donor to Clinton Foundation Linked to ‘Blood Minerals'” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Infant Survives, Thrives After Being Born With No Skull on the Back of His Head

After finding out they were pregnant, Ben and Alyssa Reidhead thought they were going to the doctor to find out the sex of their baby . . .

At 23 weeks, doctors told them their son’s brain was growing outside of his skull . . .

However, when she delivered by C-section last week at Primary Children’s Hospital, the couple was shocked . . .

Their little boy Will has defied the odds.

“He’s not hooked up to anything. He’s breathing fine. He’s lifting his head. He’s moving around. He’s pretty much acting like a completely normal baby,” Alyssa Reidhead said. (Read more from “Infant Survives, Thrives After Being Born With No Skull on the Back of His Head” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Ask This 13-Year-Old Girl If Transgender Bathrooms Pose a Threat

In the midst of outcries from the transgender community that women don’t face threats in public bathrooms, police in England are looking for a man who allegedly took photos of a 13-year-old girl while she used the bathroom at a McDonalds in Berkshire.

According to police reports, while using the bathroom in an individual stall, the girl heard a click over her head, looked up and saw someone hovering over the cubicle wall. Police say the girl was very upset by the incident, and her family is concerned about what’s going to happen to the photographs and where they might be published.

Police have released photos of the suspect in hopes that someone will be able to identify him. They have asked anyone who recognizes the man to contact them immediately.

This incident has occurred at the same time that transgender activists in America are saying there are no threats to women should transgendered women (i.e., men) be allowed in their bathrooms. The LGBT lobby has been releasing ads in North Carolina that voice opposition to the state’s law requiring people to use public restrooms that match their biological sex. HB2, as the law is known, was designed to help protect the privacy and security of women.

North Carolina has been boycotted by companies and celebrities, who have called the privacy and security law discriminatory against transgender people. Most recently, Elton John wrote an article for The Hill, admonishing N.C. Governor Pat McCrory for being insensitive to transgender people.

John writes:

Forcing transgender people to use the bathroom of a gender with which they don’t identify isn’t just inconvenient or impractical. For many, especially young students still grappling with their transition, it can be traumatic, and at worse, un safe. The failure of McCrory and other lawmakers to see this is a failure of compassion, a failure to recognize the difficult and frequently unwelcoming world transgender people must navigate every day, stigmatized by the fear and ignorance of others.

John says McCrory and others who oppose letting people use the bathroom according to their perceived, not actual, gender “need a lesson in compassion.” If only they could get to know transgender people on a personal level, they would understand, John says.

Those who support privacy and security laws “need to recognize the existence of trans people,” John writes, “and they need to acknowledge that all people have a fundamental desire — and a fundamental right — to be treated fairly.”

Here’s the thing. Does the 13-year-old girl in England have a fundamental right to privacy? Do all the girls in America who don’t want to shower with boys and men or have them in their bathrooms desire the fundamental right to privacy and security as well? Or do only the desires of mentally ill people, who suffer from a dissonance between their mental state and their physical reality, take precedence over 99.7 percent of the population who aren’t confused about their genitalia?

John and others say laws that require people to use public bathrooms that match their biological sex are somehow unfair. How? Everyone has a bathroom to use that correlates with their biology — the parts that are relevant when using a bathroom. There is no such thing as a third sex. Despite this fact, HB2 takes the compassionate step to accommodate those who are confused about their gender, allowing public agencies to create a third bathroom or shower for this tiny minority.

Clearly, the ones who are compassionate in this scenario are those who are supporting laws like HB2 — laws that won’t make it easier for perverts like the one in England to have free rein in women’s restrooms. Yes, this kind of thing obviously happens even with bathrooms being separated by sex, but what will happen if we throw open the doors to these perverts who make up a larger percentage of the population than transgender people?

Media outlets like the Charlotte Observer have tried to make the case that there have been no statistics of sexual predators benefiting from transgender bathroom policies, but this is nonsensical because the practice hasn’t been in effect for very long. It also flies in the face of common sense that there are predators out there — predators like the one in England — who do prey on women and young girls. Why do we want to put them at greater risk?

The law in Charlotte that forced the North Carolina General Assembly to step in and enact HB2 forced all organizations — public and private — to open their bathrooms to men. A man doesn’t have to dress like a woman or even have surgery to make him externally a woman; all he has to do is “identify as a woman” to use the showers, locker rooms, and restrooms reserved for women.

HB2 says that if someone has had an actual sex change and it’s recorded on their birth certificate, then they can use the bathroom that matches that sex. The original Charlotte law just threw open the bathrooms to everyone, whether they’ve actually had a change or not.

In addition, HB2 does not impose its will on private entities, allowing them to decide for themselves what they want to do with their own bathrooms. Those who oppose the North Carolina law want to dictate to private citizens what they can and cannot do with their bathrooms, threatening lawsuits if they don’t comply.

Elton John and other celebrities are presenting themselves as the truly “compassionate” ones, but this is hardly the case. Compassion extends to private entities that have the right to exercise freedom of choice — a choice people like John want to take away. Compassion also extends to women and girls who don’t want their privacy violated or boundaries removed so predators can take advantage of transgender policies.

I would also like to point out that when it comes to transgender people themselves, the compassionate approach is to refuse to accommodate their body dysphoria and delusions. The help they really need is psychological, not legal or political.

If you want to show transgender people compassion, stand by their side as they work through the difficult journey of treating hormone and neuro-chemical dysfunctions as well as psychological disorders that lead to a crisis of identity. Don’t put other people at risk, infringe on their freedoms, or violate the privacy of young girls and women just to advance a political agenda that really does nothing to help gender-confused people in the long run. That’s the opposite of compassion. That’s cruel. (For more from the author of “Ask This 13-Year-Old Girl If Transgender Bathrooms Pose a Threat” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.