The Government and CDC Are Lying About Covid Vaccine and Ivermectin

By Wayne Allyn Root

It’s been quite a week. I’ve been in the media business for decades and I’ve never before witnessed seen such lies, exaggeration, and outright fraud. All with the intent to force everyone to be vaccinated. The question is why?

Let’s start with the vaccine itself. The results in Israel prove what a sham, charade and fraud this all is. The US government and CDC’s argument is that the vaccine is our only chance to survive. And that people are hospitalized and dying with Covid because they are unvaccinated.

Both arguments are pure fraud.

First, are you aware that anyone who dies within 14 days of getting vaccinated is considered “unvaccinated”? No wonder they claim everyone who is dying is unvaccinated. If you die from Covid, whether you’re vaccinated or unvaccinated, they just call you unvaccinated.

If a businessman in the private sector tried that scam, they’d spend the next 20 years in prison for fraud. The CDC has also been using stats of Covid deaths going back to January to make the claim that the deaths are almost exclusively from the unvaccinated. That’s because earlier in the year almost everyone was unvaccinated. That’s called rigging the numbers. The CDC must be using the same Democrats who rigged and stole the 2020 election.

Worst of all, the media has blacked out the developing disaster in Israel. Israel is the most vaccinated country in the world. They all got the Pfizer vaccine. At first, deaths and hospitalizations went to almost zero. Israel declared victory over Covid.

But everything changed. Today a massive Covid pandemic has engulfed vaccinated Israel. Hospitals are full. People are dying. At this moment Israel, the most vaccinated nation in the world, has more Covid infections per capita than any country in the world.

At this moment 0.2% of the entire population of Israel is catching Covid each day.

This past week was the worst week for Covid in Israel EVER. Israel is setting records for vaccinated people in the hospital. Deaths are skyrocketing.

It’s so bad, no-mask, no lockdown Sweden has just banned travelers from Israel. Many EU countries are following suit.

The vaccine isn’t just failing, it’s a spectacular fail. It wore off. It no longer works. And just as my holistic doctor friends predicted, it makes the next wave far worse. The vaccinated people are far more contagious, they carry heavier viral loads, and are far more susceptible to getting severe illness, than someone with “natural immunity.”

This experiment with an “experimental, emergency use only” vaccine is a great big failure. A dangerous and deadly failure.

But at this very moment, Biden, the CDC and the US media are pushing the vaccine, vaccine mandates and vaccine passports harder than ever. The question is why? Why is forcing every American to get vaccinated so important at the exact moment Israel proves the vaccine they’re pushing is a dramatic, dangerous and deadly failure?

And it’s not just Israel. In the UK, a majority of the Covid deaths last month were vaccinated. And the UK death rate from Covid today is dramatically higher today than a year ago- when there was no vaccine. Separate from all that, the VAERS vaccine reporting system reports the vaccine itself is causing tremendous rates of death and crippling injuries. So, vaccinated Americans are dying and becoming severely sick from the vaccine, in addition to dying and becoming severely sick from Covid, after getting the vaccine.

And none of this is featured in the news. It’s a total media blackout.

Worse yet, the same government, CDC and media are trying desperately to denigrate and slander the drug that is most successful in treating Covid. It’s called Ivermectin. In my next column, I’ll show you conclusive proof from around the world that Ivermectin is miraculously effective versus Covid.

Something is very wrong. It sure seems like someone is scared you might actually recover from Covid, doesn’t it?

The question is WHY?

Wayne Allyn Root is known as “the Conservative Warrior.” Wayne’s brand new book, “The Great Patriot Protest & Boycott Book” is out September 16 th and is available for presale at Amazon right now. Wayne is host of the nationally-syndicated “Wayne Allyn Root: Raw & Unfiltered” on USA Radio Network, daily from 6 PM to 9 PM EST and the “WAR RAW” podcast. Visit ROOTforAmerica.com, or listen live at http://usaradio.com/wayne-allyn-root/ or “on demand” 24/7 at iHeartRadio.com.

The post WAYNE ROOT: The Government and CDC Are Lying About Covid Vaccine and Ivermectin. The Question is Why? appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Share

THE GENESIS OF DICTATORSHIP?

I didn’t write the passage below, but I believe it addresses very serious issues and implications concerning the Impeachment of Donald Trump.

“For those of you who are not as legal or politically savvy, and you may not understand what’s going on with this ‘impeachment trial’, and you’re hearing controversy about whether it’s constitutional or not: I will summarize this whole argument in 10 quick concise and easy to follow points which you can share…

  1. Impeachment is a remedy to remove Presidents from office, because they are not subject to criminal indictment while in office.
  2. Donald Trump is either still president or he is not. If he is not, then he cannot be tried in an impeachment trial.
  3. If the President has done something rising to the level of incitement of insurrection, then that is a criminal offense for which he can only legitimately and lawfully be indicted and tried in a criminal trial.
  4. The fact that he is a private person again and yet no one is seeking a criminal indictment against him, can only mean that there is no evidence to charge him with such a thing in a real court, with real punishment, otherwise they would surely have done so. Therefore, Democrats are using the kangaroo court of the Senate for something for which they do not have the jurisdiction, yet they also do not have the evidence to prosecute in the jurisdiction that is correct and legally allowed.
  5. If Donald Trump incited insurrection, then why have none of the rioters been charged with insurrection? Of the ones that have been charged, most of them have been charged with the equivalent of trespassing. In order to claim that someone incited another to commit a crime… mustn’t that crime have actually been committed?
    If that crime was committed, then where are all the defendants to insurrection?
  6. The Constitution does not allow for Senators to take a vote on whether their actions are constitutional, as they did today to try to put an air of legitimacy on this process. If Congress wishes to act outside the impeachment process they are bound by explicitly in the Constitution, then this requires changing the Constitution. They cannot simply take a majority vote on whether they agree with their own actions, in acting contrary to that Constitution. Otherwise, the legislature could just take a vote any time they wanted to violate it. And wouldn’t that be convenient for the police state they’re taking us to?
  7. The Constitution specifically prohibits ‘bills of attainder’ like as were used in England. A political body, such as Congress, holding a trial of any kind over a private citizen, and not actually in a criminal court where all due process rights and right of appeal are afforded under law, is clearly unconstitutional. If a political body could hold a trial and punish any private person who is a former office holder, on simply a majority vote, then they could hold a trial and punish ANY private person outside the legal judicial process. Thus, Democrats and a few complicit traitorous Republicans are setting the precedent and voting themselves the extra-constitutional power to be able to prosecute private parties for political reasons. This is quite a dangerous precedent, which warrants a question of whether these politicians themselves must be removed by the people, via extra-judicial means?
  8. The Constitution states that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall sit as judge of an impeachment trial against the President. The Constitution does not state that Senators may simply decide to appoint one of their own members to sit in his stead – much less for that sitting Senator of the opposing party to also serve as a jury member.
  9. The Constitution specifically states that a conviction in a Senate impeachment trial extends punishment only to ‘removal from office and disqualification’. It does not state removal from office ‘or’ disqualification. Word choice in law does matter. It means that the Senate cannot convict and impose disqualification as punishment, without having first imposed removal. Removal and disqualification are linked together in the Constitution, because it was understood that only sitting office holders could be tried in an impeachment trial. If removal is not possible, because the individual is no longer sitting in office, then constitutionally, he cannot be disqualified.
  10. It does not matter, your opinions by so-called scholars shared on Twitter. Jurisdiction is jurisdiction. Limitation is limitation. It either means something, or it means nothing at all. Constitutional limitations are not ‘loopholes’. The Constitution must be amended by constitutional process if its meaning is to be amended. Period. And all the so-called ‘precedent’ that Democrats are citing, is just as illegitimate as this impeachment trial is. Two wrongs don’t make right? Anyone? Were simply pointing to a precedent the standard by which we call things right, and by-the-rules, then future Congresses could simply point back to this precedent…where the Senate simply voted by majority to grant itself the power to violate the Constitution, which spelled out their powers very explicitly, and then stated further in the 10th Amendment to the Bill of Rights that they did not have the power to give themselves more than what the Constitution itself allowed.

Yes…there is an insurrection happening, my friends. But the insurrectionists against Constitutional government, are in fact the very US Senators sitting in that soiled capitol building. And right now, as far as I am concerned, they are laying out our future case against them as insurrectionist when the reckoning comes.”

Share

Conservative News Outlets

Here is a list of conservative news outlets that report the truth which is pretty much what the main street media and social media hide, or deliberately lie about.

American Thinker
https://www.americanthinker.com/

Breitbart News
https://www.breitbart.com/

The Last Refuge
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/

The Liberty Daily
https://thelibertydaily.com/

The Epoch Times
https://www.theepochtimes.com/

The Gateway Pundit
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/

Newsmax
https://www.newsmax.com/

Newsmax TV can also be found on the internet at:
https://www.newsmaxtv.com/

Share

What is a Republican Precinct Committeeman?

A Republican Precinct Committeeman represents the GOP voters of his or her precinct at the County Republican Party level.

But most importantly, a Republican Precinct Committeeman is the face of the GOP within the precinct. In many cases, a Republican Precinct Committeeman might be the only party official a voter ever meets in person.

This volunteer position is really what one makes of it. Some do more than others. But the Republican Precinct Committeeman’s job is in essence all about helping to grow the GOP and working to deliver the maximum number of Republican votes from his or her precinct on Election Day. Precinct Committeemen comprise the core of any grassroots effort and no political campaign can be successful without these front line GOP ambassadors.

The principle means of doing the job is just an extension of what most people already do – talking to the neighbors.

By becoming a Republican Precinct Committeeman you can take a leadership role in advancing the Republican Platform principles of lower taxes, smaller government, fiscal responsibility, individual freedom, strong national defense, and traditional family values. [emphases added]

Many people begin their political involvement by becoming a Precinct Committeeman. It’s the perfect place to get started for anyone interested in building a better Republican Party and advancing our GOP’s values. And many Republicans have remained Precinct Committeemen even years later after being elected to higher public office. For example, it’s not uncommon to find U.S. Congressmen who are also Precinct Committeemen. They maybe more than anyone appreciate the Precinct Committeeman’s role.

Republican Precinct Committeeman is an elected, all-volunteer position.

~ Source

As highlighted above, it is important that not only precinct committee members adhere to the Republican Platform, but ALL elected Republicans! If the Party chooses not to follow their own platform then what does the Party stand for? The Platform and Resolutions are what defines us as Republicans in Natrona County.

 

Share

SOGI Laws Are Not Fairness for All

by Ryan Anderson, Senior Research Fellow in American Principles and Public Policy

Current proposals to create sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) laws with varying types of religious exemptions would not result in fairness for all.1

The most prominent model for creating specific LGBT policies while showing concern for religious freedom is known as “fairness for all,” a phrase used by proponents to describe a law first adopted in Utah and similar proposals in other states and potentially at the national level. The “Utah Compromise” was a law enacted in Utah in the spring of 2015 that created sexual orientation and gender identity antidiscrimination policy in employment and housing, while also creating certain religious liberty exemptions and protections. Indiana attempted (but failed) to pass similar legislation in January 2016. See Ryan T. Anderson and Robert P. George, “Liberty and SOGI Laws: An Impossible and Unsustainable ‘Compromise,’” Witherspoon Institute Public Discourse, January 11, 2016, http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2016/01/16225/ (accessed November 28, 2018). Thus far, no fairness for all legislation has been introduced at the federal level, but there is discussion among advocates about doing so.

Instead, they would penalize many Americans who believe that we are created male and female and that male and female are created for each other. They would violate the privacy and safety of women and girls, the conscience rights of doctors and other medical professionals, and the free speech and religious liberty rights of countless professionals. Establishing bad public policy and then exempting select religious institutions is not acting for the common good—and is certainly not fair for all.

What SOGI Laws Do

SOGI laws ban disagreement on LGBT issues by enforcing a sexual orthodoxy. Of course, those are not the exact words used, but when “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” are elevated to protected classes in antidiscrimination law, that is the effect the government policy has.2

For example, the Equality Act, the centerpiece of the Human Rights Campaign’s Beyond Marriage Equality Initiative, would add “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to virtually all federal civil rights laws covering race—“Public Accommodations, Education, Federal Financial Assistance, Employment, Housing, Credit, and Federal Jury Service”—and expand them beyond their current reach. Moreover, it is explicitly designed to shrink existing religious liberty protections. It also would stretch the scope of “public accommodations” quite far. The Civil Rights Act of 1964—the purpose of which was to integrate half of the continental United States after centuries of race-based slavery and Jim Crow—covered entities like hotels, restaurants, theaters, and gas stations. The Equality Act would cover almost every business serving the public. See Equality Act, S. 1858, 114th Cong., 1st Sess., https://www.congress.gov/114/bills/s1858/BILLS-114s1858is.pdf (accessed February 7, 2017). The House version of the bill is Equality Act, H.R. 3185, 114th Cong., 1st Sess., https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/3185 (accessed November 28, 2018). See also Human Rights Campaign, Beyond Marriage Equality: A Blueprint for Federal Non-Discrimination Protections, 2014, http://hrc-assets.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com//files/documents/HRC-BeyondMarriageEquality-42015.pdf (accessed February 7, 2017), and Senators Jeff Merkley, Tammy Baldwin, and Cory Booker, “The Equality Act,” 2015, p. 1, https://www.merkley.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/EqualityAct_OnePager.pdf (accessed February 7, 2017).

But not every disagreement is discrimination, and our laws should not presume otherwise.3

See, for example, Ryan T. Anderson, “Disagreement Is Not Always Discrimination: On Masterpiece Cakeshop and the Analogy to Interracial Marriage,” Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy, Vol. 16, No. 1 (March 15, 2018), https://ssrn.com/abstract=3136750 (accessed November 28, 2018).

Heritage Foundation experts have long opposed the expansion of antidiscrimination laws to elevate “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” as protected classes.4

Ryan Messmore and James Sherk, “Freedom of Religious Schools and Employers Threatened by ENDA,” Heritage Foundation Issue Brief No. 1677, October 24, 2007, https://www.heritage.org/jobs-and-labor/report/freedom-religious-schools-and-employers-threatened-enda (accessed November 28, 2018); Ryan T. Anderson, “ENDA Threatens Fundamental Civil Liberties,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 2857, November 1, 2013, https://www.heritage.org/civil-society/report/enda-threatens-fundamental-civil-liberties (accessed November 28, 2018); Ryan T. Anderson, “Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (SOGI) Laws Threaten Freedom,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3082, November 30, 2015, https://www.heritage.org/civil-society/report/sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity-sogi-laws-threaten-freedom (accessed November 28, 2018); and Ryan T. Anderson, “How to Think About Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (SOGI) Policies and Religious Freedom,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3194, February 13, 2017, https://www.heritage.org/marriage-and-family/report/how-think-about-sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity-sogi-policies-and (accessed November 28, 2018).

Where enacted, SOGI laws are frequently used as swords to persecute people with unpopular beliefs, rather than as shields to protect people from unjust discrimination.5

Ryan T. Anderson, “Shields, Not Swords,” National Affairs, No. 35 (Spring 2018), https://ssrn.com/abstract=3141908 (accessed November 28, 2018).

SOGI laws treat reasonable actions as if discriminatory.6

Ryan T. Anderson, “Just Because Liberals Call Something ‘Discrimination’ Doesn’t Mean It Actually Is,” The Daily Signal, March 1, 2017, https://www.dailysignal.com/2017/03/01/just-because-liberals-call-something-discrimination-doesnt-mean-it-actually-is/ (accessed November 28, 2018).

So, for example, if a baker creates custom wedding cakes for marriages, but will not design or create them for same-sex unions, that is considered “discrimination” on the basis of “sexual orientation.”7

See Anderson, “Disagreement Is Not Always Discrimination.”

If a Catholic adoption agency works to find permanent homes for orphans where they will be raised by a married mom and dad, but will not place children with two moms and no dad, or two dads and no mom, that is considered “discrimination” on the basis of “sexual orientation.”8

See Ryan T. Anderson, Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom (Washington, DC: Regnery, 2015), and John Corvino, Ryan T. Anderson, and Sherif Girgis, Debating Religious Liberty and Discrimination (Oxford University Press, 2017).

If a small business provides health insurance that covers a double mastectomy in the case of breast cancer, but not for women who want to transition and identify as men, that is considered “discrimination” on the basis of “gender identity.”9

See Ryan T. Anderson, When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment (New York: Encounter Books, 2018).

If a school provides separate bathrooms and locker rooms for male and female students, but will not let male students who identify as women into the female places, that is considered “discrimination” on the basis of “gender identity.”10

See Ryan T. Anderson, “A Brave New World of Transgender Policy” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Vol. 41, No. 1 (January 1, 2018), https://ssrn.com/abstract=3113625 (accessed November 28, 2018).

Under SOGI laws, the government penalizes these reasonable policies on disputed questions as if they were discriminatory.

The Problems with SOGIs

Of course, business owners should respect the intrinsic dignity of all of their employees and customers—but this is not what laws on sexual orientation and gender identity entail. Their threats to our freedoms unite civil libertarians concerned about free speech and religious liberty, free-market proponents concerned about freedom of contract and governmental overregulation, and social conservatives concerned about marriage and culture.

Trampling Civil Liberties. America is dedicated to protecting the freedoms guaranteed under the First Amendment to the Constitution, while respecting citizens’ equality before the law. None of these freedoms is absolute. Compelling governmental interests can at times trump fundamental civil liberties, but sexual orientation and gender identity laws do not pass this test.

Rather, they trample fundamental liberties and unnecessarily impinge on citizens’ right to run their local schools, charities, and businesses in ways consistent with their values. SOGI laws do not protect equality before the law; instead, they grant special privileges that are enforceable against private actors.

Unintended Consequences. SOGI laws could also have serious unintended consequences. These laws tend to be vague and overly broad, lacking clear definitions of what discrimination on the basis of “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” mean and what conduct can and cannot be penalized.

These laws would impose ruinous liability on innocent citizens for alleged “discrimination” based on subjective and unverifiable identities, not on objective traits. SOGI laws would further increase government interference in markets, potentially discouraging economic growth and job creation.

Penalizing Beliefs. SOGI laws threaten the freedom of citizens, individually and in associations, to affirm their religious or moral convictions—convictions such as that marriage is the union of one man and one woman or that maleness and femaleness are objective biological realities to be valued and affirmed, not rejected or altered. Under SOGI laws, acting on these beliefs in a charitable, educational, or commercial context could be actionable discrimination.

SOGI laws are the ones that have been used to penalize bakers, florists, photographers, schools, and adoption agencies when they declined to act against their convictions concerning marriage and sexuality. Such laws do not adequately protect religious liberty or freedom of speech.

In short, SOGI laws seek to regulate decisions that are best handled by private actors without government interference. SOGI laws disregard the conscience and liberty of people of good will who happen not to share the government’s opinions about issues of marriage and sexuality based on a reasonable worldview, moral code, or religious faith. Accordingly, these laws risk becoming sources of social tension rather than unity.

“Gender Identity” as a Protected Class: Undermining the Common Good

By making “gender identity” a protected class, the government would force Americans to embrace transgender ideology in a variety of settings—with serious consequences for schools, locker rooms, hospitals, and workplace policies that undermine common sense.11

See Anderson, When Harry Became Sally.

Schools would have to redo their bathroom, locker room, and dorm room policies to allow students access based on their subjective identity, rather than their objective biology.12

See Anderson, “A Brave New World of Transgender Policy.”

Employers would have to do the same, force all employees to use “preferred pronouns,”13

Eugene Volokh, “You Can Be Fined for Not Calling People ‘Ze’ or ‘Hir,’ If That’s the Pronoun They Demand That You Use,” The Washington Post, May 17, 2016, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/05/17/you-can-be-fined-for-not-calling-people-ze-or-hir-if-thats-the-pronoun-they-demand-that-you-use/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.0e15223dfb97 (accessed November 27, 2018).

and cover hormonal and surgical transition procedures on their health care plans.14

Ryan T. Anderson, “New Obamacare Transgender Regulations Threaten Freedom of Physicians,” The Daily Signal, May 13, 2016, https://www.dailysignal.com/2016/05/13/new-obamacare-transgender-regulations-threaten-freedom-of-physicians/ (accessed November 28, 2018).

Hospitals would have to provide these procedures, and relevant physicians would have to perform them.15

See Anderson, “A Brave New World of Transgender Policy.”

In essence, elevating “gender identity” to a protected class across our federal antidiscrimination laws could impose a nationwide transgender bathroom policy, a nationwide pronoun policy, and a nationwide sex-reassignment health care mandate.16

See Anderson, When Harry Became Sally, chapter 8.

Already the Department of Education is investigating a complaint from a five-year-old girl who says she was sexually assaulted by a male classmate who was allowed access to the girls’ bathroom.17

News release, “U.S. Opens Investigation into Sexual Assault of Minor Child in Georgia, Violation of Title IX,” Alliance Defending Freedom, October 3, 2018, http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/10619 (accessed November 27, 2018).

Last year, Melody Wood and I documented over 130 examples of men charged with using bathroom, locker room, and shower access to target women for voyeurism and sexual assault.18

Ryan T. Anderson and Melody Wood, “Gender Identity Policies in Schools: What Congress, the Courts, and the Trump Administration Should Do,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3201, March 23, 2017, https://www.heritage.org/education/report/gender-identity-policies-schools-what-congress-the-courts-and-the-trump.

Exemptions Do Not Make Bad Policy into Good Policy

SOGI laws with exemptions along the lines of the so-called Fairness for All (FFA) proposal would impose “sexual orientation and gender identity” laws on everyone, with all of the bad consequences for the common good noted above, while exempting certain religious institutions. As a result, proposals to create new LGBT policies with varying types of religious exemptions will not result in what advocates claim is fairness for all. Instead, they will penalize many Americans who believe that we are created male and female and that male and female are created for each other.

The FFA approach creates bad public policy and then tries to forestall some of its worst consequences through limited religious exemptions. Exemptions, however, do not convert an otherwise bad policy into a good one, and the result here is not fairness for all, but unfairness for many with exemptions for a fortunate few. To impose bad public policy on one’s neighbors while exempting oneself is not the way in which we serve the common good.

It is not FFA when one side uses the law to coerce the other side, and all the other side gets is limited exemptions. Nor is it a compromise—or at least not a good one—when one side gets special new legal privileges applicable almost everywhere, and in exchange the other side gets limited exemptions (which are not guaranteed to last) from this bad public policy. Compromise suggests that each side gets something that it wants, though less than everything, and that both sides stand roughly equal at the end of negotiations. In practice, FFA means that one side advances and the other is punished.

SOGIs, Including FFA, Are About Coercion, Not Freedom

In the United States of America, people who identify as LGBT are free to live as they want. But SOGI laws, including FFA, are not about freedom—they are about coercion. SOGI and FFA are about forcing all Americans to embrace—and live out—certain beliefs about human sexuality. They are not about protecting the freedom of people to live as LGBT, but about coercing everyone else to support, facilitate, and endorse such actions. This is one fundamental problem in equating coercive antidiscrimination laws with permissive religious freedom laws. And imposing a bad coercive policy on everyone while exempting select faith-based institutions is anything but fairness for all.

Antidiscrimination laws are about the government coercing people to live according to the majority’s values. Religious liberty laws are about removing government coercion and allowing people to live by their own beliefs. While there can be good justifications for certain antidiscrimination policies, there is no human right to them. Religious freedom, however, is a human right. FFA mistakenly conflates these rather different concepts.

There Is a Better Way to Help People Who Identify as LGBT

Although SOGI antidiscrimination laws are unjustified, that does not exclude the idea of more tailored policies that would address the mistreatment of people who identify as LGBT and at the same time would leave all Americans—not just the lucky few who are sufficiently well-connected to be exempted from SOGI laws—free to act on their good-faith convictions.19

See Anderson, “Shields, Not Swords.”

Proponents argue that nothing short of elevating SOGI as protected classes in law is sufficient to address existing problems for people who identify as LGBT—but they provide no evidence to support such broad, wide-ranging laws.

Material Harms. In responding to the legitimate needs of people who identify as LGBT while also respecting the rights and interests of all, policymakers must first assess the nature and extent of the problem and then determine whether governmental intervention is required and, if it is, what the appropriate remedy should be. Advocates of SOGI laws must therefore provide evidence that they are facing material harms (in addition to dignitary harms) to show the need for a coercive governmental response—a requirement they have failed to meet.20

Historically, courts have applied civil rights law to shield members of protected classes from discrimination that would have deprived them of access to material goods and services (restaurants, hotel rooms, and jobs). Courts have not applied civil rights laws to redress “dignitary harms” alone, because feelings of offense in interactions between citizens can go both ways. In addition, it would deprive citizens of their freedoms of speech and religion if courts were to draw lines on the basis of feelings of offense.

This is not to say conclusively that such a need does not exist or that we live in a country that is free from discrimination against people who identify as LGBT. It is to say, however, that evidence of discrimination comparable to the evidence used to justify passage of our civil rights laws on race and sex has not been demonstrated. Absent such demonstration, civil rights laws used to combat racism and sexism are not the proper models to use in addressing discrimination against those who identify themselves as LGBT.

Analysis. Once a legitimate need has been identified, policymakers must ask several questions: Is a governmental response appropriate? Are the needs of such a magnitude and extent as to warrant government attention? Are social, economic, and cultural forces sufficient to address these needs on their own? If a government response is judged necessary, it must be tailored to address the documented need at the appropriate level of government (federal, state, or local) while doing everything possible to avoid burdening such rights as the freedoms of contract, conscience, religion, and speech.

Definitions. Most important, any such policy must define what constitutes “discrimination” accurately. Part of the problem with SOGIs, including FFA, is that they leave it entirely at the whim of hostile bureaucrats and judges to declare that commonsense actions are “discrimination.” SOGI laws treat reasonable actions as if discriminatory. A better approach would define specifically what constitutes “discrimination” and target a legal response at that.

Conclusion

In the midst of the redefinitions of marriage, sex, and gender, all Americans—wherever they fall on the political spectrum and whether they are religious, secular, or agnostic—should join the effort to find ways to coexist peacefully. SOGI laws, including FFA, do not achieve this goal.

Instead they penalize disagreement as if discrimination, impose sexual orthodoxy, and coerce dissenters. SOGI antidiscrimination laws are unjustified, but if other policies are adopted to address the mistreatment of people who identify as LGBT, they must leave people free to engage in legitimate actions based on the conviction that we are created male and female and that male and female are created for each other.

Any such laws must protect the privacy and safety of women and girls, the conscience rights of doctors and other medical professionals, and the free speech and religious liberty rights of countless professionals. This would leave all Americans—not just the lucky few who are sufficiently well-connected to be exempted from SOGI laws—free to act on those convictions. This would also protect diversity and promote tolerance; this would promote true fairness for all.

—Ryan T. Anderson, PhD, is William E. Simon Senior Research Fellow in American Principles and Public Policy in the Richard and Helen DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society, of the Institute for Family, Community, and Opportunity, at The Heritage Foundation.

~ Source

References

[1]

The most prominent model for creating specific LGBT policies while showing concern for religious freedom is known as “fairness for all,” a phrase used by proponents to describe a law first adopted in Utah and similar proposals in other states and potentially at the national level. The “Utah Compromise” was a law enacted in Utah in the spring of 2015 that created sexual orientation and gender identity antidiscrimination policy in employment and housing, while also creating certain religious liberty exemptions and protections. Indiana attempted (but failed) to pass similar legislation in January 2016. See Ryan T. Anderson and Robert P. George, “Liberty and SOGI Laws: An Impossible and Unsustainable ‘Compromise,’” Witherspoon Institute Public Discourse, January 11, 2016, http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2016/01/16225/ (accessed November 28, 2018). Thus far, no fairness for all legislation has been introduced at the federal level, but there is discussion among advocates about doing so.

[2]

For example, the Equality Act, the centerpiece of the Human Rights Campaign’s Beyond Marriage Equality Initiative, would add “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to virtually all federal civil rights laws covering race—“Public Accommodations, Education, Federal Financial Assistance, Employment, Housing, Credit, and Federal Jury Service”—and expand them beyond their current reach. Moreover, it is explicitly designed to shrink existing religious liberty protections. It also would stretch the scope of “public accommodations” quite far. The Civil Rights Act of 1964—the purpose of which was to integrate half of the continental United States after centuries of race-based slavery and Jim Crow—covered entities like hotels, restaurants, theaters, and gas stations. The Equality Act would cover almost every business serving the public. See Equality Act, S. 1858, 114th Cong., 1st Sess., https://www.congress.gov/114/bills/s1858/BILLS-114s1858is.pdf (accessed February 7, 2017). The House version of the bill is Equality Act, H.R. 3185, 114th Cong., 1st Sess., https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/3185 (accessed November 28, 2018). See also Human Rights Campaign, Beyond Marriage Equality: A Blueprint for Federal Non-Discrimination Protections, 2014, http://hrc-assets.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com//files/documents/HRC-BeyondMarriageEquality-42015.pdf (accessed February 7, 2017), and Senators Jeff Merkley, Tammy Baldwin, and Cory Booker, “The Equality Act,” 2015, p. 1, https://www.merkley.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/EqualityAct_OnePager.pdf (accessed February 7, 2017).

[3]

See, for example, Ryan T. Anderson, “Disagreement Is Not Always Discrimination: On Masterpiece Cakeshop and the Analogy to Interracial Marriage,” Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy, Vol. 16, No. 1 (March 15, 2018), https://ssrn.com/abstract=3136750 (accessed November 28, 2018).

[4]

Ryan Messmore and James Sherk, “Freedom of Religious Schools and Employers Threatened by ENDA,” Heritage Foundation Issue Brief No. 1677, October 24, 2007, https://www.heritage.org/jobs-and-labor/report/freedom-religious-schools-and-employers-threatened-enda (accessed November 28, 2018); Ryan T. Anderson, “ENDA Threatens Fundamental Civil Liberties,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 2857, November 1, 2013, https://www.heritage.org/civil-society/report/enda-threatens-fundamental-civil-liberties (accessed November 28, 2018); Ryan T. Anderson, “Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (SOGI) Laws Threaten Freedom,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3082, November 30, 2015, https://www.heritage.org/civil-society/report/sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity-sogi-laws-threaten-freedom (accessed November 28, 2018); and Ryan T. Anderson, “How to Think About Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (SOGI) Policies and Religious Freedom,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3194, February 13, 2017, https://www.heritage.org/marriage-and-family/report/how-think-about-sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity-sogi-policies-and (accessed November 28, 2018).

[5]

Ryan T. Anderson, “Shields, Not Swords,” National Affairs, No. 35 (Spring 2018), https://ssrn.com/abstract=3141908 (accessed November 28, 2018).

[6]

Ryan T. Anderson, “Just Because Liberals Call Something ‘Discrimination’ Doesn’t Mean It Actually Is,” The Daily Signal, March 1, 2017, https://www.dailysignal.com/2017/03/01/just-because-liberals-call-something-discrimination-doesnt-mean-it-actually-is/ (accessed November 28, 2018).

[7]

See Anderson, “Disagreement Is Not Always Discrimination.”

[8]

See Ryan T. Anderson, Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom (Washington, DC: Regnery, 2015), and John Corvino, Ryan T. Anderson, and Sherif Girgis, Debating Religious Liberty and Discrimination (Oxford University Press, 2017).

[9]

See Ryan T. Anderson, When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment (New York: Encounter Books, 2018).

[10]

See Ryan T. Anderson, “A Brave New World of Transgender Policy” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Vol. 41, No. 1 (January 1, 2018), https://ssrn.com/abstract=3113625 (accessed November 28, 2018).

[11]

See Anderson, When Harry Became Sally.

[12]

See Anderson, “A Brave New World of Transgender Policy.”

[13]

Eugene Volokh, “You Can Be Fined for Not Calling People ‘Ze’ or ‘Hir,’ If That’s the Pronoun They Demand That You Use,” The Washington Post, May 17, 2016, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/05/17/you-can-be-fined-for-not-calling-people-ze-or-hir-if-thats-the-pronoun-they-demand-that-you-use/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.0e15223dfb97 (accessed November 27, 2018).

[14]

Ryan T. Anderson, “New Obamacare Transgender Regulations Threaten Freedom of Physicians,” The Daily Signal, May 13, 2016, https://www.dailysignal.com/2016/05/13/new-obamacare-transgender-regulations-threaten-freedom-of-physicians/ (accessed November 28, 2018).

[15]

See Anderson, “A Brave New World of Transgender Policy.”

[16]

See Anderson, When Harry Became Sally, chapter 8.

[17]

News release, “U.S. Opens Investigation into Sexual Assault of Minor Child in Georgia, Violation of Title IX,” Alliance Defending Freedom, October 3, 2018, http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/10619 (accessed November 27, 2018).

[18]

Ryan T. Anderson and Melody Wood, “Gender Identity Policies in Schools: What Congress, the Courts, and the Trump Administration Should Do,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3201, March 23, 2017, https://www.heritage.org/education/report/gender-identity-policies-schools-what-congress-the-courts-and-the-trump.

[19]

See Anderson, “Shields, Not Swords.”

[20]

Historically, courts have applied civil rights law to shield members of protected classes from discrimination that would have deprived them of access to material goods and services (restaurants, hotel rooms, and jobs). Courts have not applied civil rights laws to redress “dignitary harms” alone, because feelings of offense in interactions between citizens can go both ways. In addition, it would deprive citizens of their freedoms of speech and religion if courts were to draw lines on the basis of feelings of offense.

~ Source

Share

Communist Propaganda

Author Theodore Dalrymple noted in 2005 that political correctness is simply “communism writ small,” adding:

“I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.”

Share

Wyoming Republican Party Central Committee Resolution Against Tax Increase

The State of Wyoming and its people have long valued Liberty, self-reliance & conservative values. The Republican Party, from the National to State and to County, in their platforms and resolutions has long called for fiscal conservatism.

Whereas since 2000, Wyoming has had unprecedented growth in government, making Wyoming the #1 state in the ratio of government employees per capita; and
Whereas the current economy can no longer sustain the fiscal irresponsibility of our State Government; and

Whereas the State Legislature has recently raised fees & licenses and is discussing creating new revenue enhancements and tax increases; and

Whereas Wyoming’s economy & business climate has put a strain on the remaining citizens personal budgets; and

Whereas the State Republican Platform states: “Liberty is indivisible from economic freedom. The free market economy is the economic system most compatible with the requirements of personal freedom and constitutional government. Government’s undue interference in the market, as well as the fiscal irresponsibility of government, results in economic inequity. There exists no fundamental right to the fruits of another person’s labor”; and

Be it resolved that the Wyoming Republican Party calls upon the State Legislature and the Governor to practice fiscal restraint, reign in spending and cut unnecessary budget items rather than increasing revenue streams.

Hereby passed by the Wyoming Republican Party on 12

August 2017
Ryan Mulholland
, Chairman Wyoming Republican Party

Share