|
|
| From | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
 Christianity And The Survival Of the WestAnyway, a couple of Woke Societies videos on YouTube today has me very fired up! Anyone's who's been paying attention to American politics since President Trump's winning over the DNC and Hillary Clinton in 2016 must KNOW how much American citizens have been snowed! The blatant censorship against the American president and the flat out lies against his administration are without question. Coupled with these prejudiced reporting on the president includes the constant and unverified accusations against President Trump about Russian Collusion. Charges stemmed from FBI and DOJ "investigations" which began right before Trump's inauguration curious enough. The American MSM reported incessantly on this issue for the entirety of the president's term. All of it unsubstantiated. With a new AG and with more information from details of the FBI's actual "missteps" as the Inspector General called it, the real truth about what President Trump did you do began to come to light. President Trump's describing what happened to him as "a witch hunt" is perfectly accurate. Before continuing on with the details recently come to the fore regarding the FBI'S illegal targeting of the American president it is important to connect the spheres of the American president as America's political leader and the American Christian Heritage. The American Christian Heritage has been much revived by the direct and powerful references to this Heritage which President Trump has often made on most of his political speeches. This is unprecedented since President Reagan's Administration. Returning to the illegal crimes committed by the FBI and others herd are some recent articles from the Internet. Predictably the American MSM has not been as enthusiastic about these developments as supportors of the president. 'Trump Was Right': Explosive New FBI Texts Detail Internal Furor Over Handling Of 'Crossfire Hurricane' Investigation" Newly disclosed internal FBI notes and text messages detail the extent of the FBI's desire to take down Trump and his associates at any cost. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents tasked by fired former Director James Comey to take down Donald Trump during and after the 2016 election were so concerned about the agency’s potentially illegal behavior that they purchased liability insurance to protect themselves less than two weeks before Trump was inaugurated president, previously hidden FBI text messages show. The explosive new communications and internal FBI notes were disclosed in federal court filings today from Sidney Powell, the attorney who heads Michael Flynn’s legal defense team. thefederalist.com " ‘It’s A Mad House’: FBI Texts Show Crossfire Hurricane Agents Sought Insurance Protection For Potential Lawsuits" The 13-page court filing reveals a trove of messages between unnamed FBI agents involved in the agency’s investigation of Trump’s alleged ties to Russia. Some of the messages give insight into the state of the FBI after former FBI special agent Peter Strzok, acting on orders from FBI leadership, propped open an investigation into Flynn on Jan. 4, 2017, after agents working the case moved to close it. The next day, former President Barack Obama and former Vice President Joe Biden met with then-FBI Director James Comey, then-Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, and then-National Security Advisor Susan Rice in the Oval Office and discussed aspects of the FBI investigation into Flynn. Unnamed FBI agents discussed Strzok’s interference in the Flynn investigation as well as the Oval Office meeting later that day, according to messages made public in the court filing. As The Federalist reports: “So razor is going to stay open???” an agent wrote on Jan. 5. “[Y]ep,” another FBI agent responded. “[C]rimes report being drafted.” “F,” the first agent wrote back. “[W]hat’s the word on how [Obama’s] briefing went?” one agent asked, referring to the Jan. 5 meeting. “Dont know but people here are scrambling for info to support certain things and its a mad house,” an FBI agent responded. “[J]esus,” an agent wrote back. “[T]rump was right. [S]till not put together….why do we do this to ourselves. [W]hat is wrong with people[?]? www.dailywire.com "Obamagate Gets Worse With DAMNING Declassified Memo" pjmedia.com And that "Stelle Dossier"? Wouldn't you know it, the FBI knew from the beginning of was a Russian intelligence spy who they had indentified as a national security risk before! "Steele dossier’s main source was investigated by FBI as 'threat to national security' " www.washingtonexaminer.com |
||
|
@inhis Same with states : France didn't die after the French Revolution. It changed then the king came back, but the French Revolution had produced spouts in the world - the French revolution being a sprout of the US one but not quite the same plant, for the soil wasn't the same... The US will transform, one way or another. History works so. You can do nothing against it. |
||
|
@ptitroque Ptitroque's post above totally misses the point that the American Republic and the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and most importantly, our Declaration of Independence were not written an ordinary sovereign country. Specifically, America's Founding was based on the premise that we were recognizing the Creator God of the Christian Faith as the sole legitimate Sovereign over our nation and from Who we derived our Freedom. From this premise America has been unique among the world's other nations such that today Americans find ourselves battling the enemies of the Christian Faith upon which we were Founded. This anathema of the Christian Faith has been seeking to destroy the presidency of Donald Trump. This is especially notable because President Trump has openly been making reference to our American Christian Heritage the entirety of his term as president. Several Alternative News sources have not been ambivalent about the importance of Trump's reelection in a few weeks. Especially as it will positively impact on the Christian Faith of so many Americans, and the Church's freedom of influence. This last issue, the Church's influence, can not be emphasized enough. For though President Trump has been the very warrior advocate America's Conservative and Christian majority has been praying for throughout the Obama years, those who were fully expecting Hillary Clinton to win four years ago are not giving up on their designs for the destruction of the American Republic. Even now that Progressive Communist Agenda can be seen everywhere across America. Trump's reelection, we've already been warned will surely not be accepted W/O considerable challenges against the "legitimacy" of his election in every level of the Leftist spectrum - political, academic, popular culture and most definitely Mainstream Media. While Ptetroque may be content with having outside ideologies invade and take over his homeland, that is the not the case with this writer or with those who are going to vote for the re election of President Trump. |
||
|
inhis service Of course, you pretend that it's different for the christian USA. Every empire pretends so and you've got the right to believe it. But it's a phantasm. It'll pass, like the previous empires, when it'll have brought to humanity everything it had to bring. |
||
|
Maybe your lack of Christian convictions clouds your judgment and underestimates God's sovereignty? |
||
|
laserbuffalo 28-Sep-20, 17:44 |
|
||
|
<< . It just means people who don’t believe are not able to think clearly and maybe even not smart. >> Thinking "clearly" is helpful IMO. At least to try and understand how some Christian apologetics explain evidence of God. This takes a little brain power, but not so much that you can not connect the dots. There are several people who have been converted to the Christian Faith simply because of the scientific evidence or other life's happenings. How we "react" to life is very important also IMO. In the end it's a matter of "choosing" to believe or choosing "not to believe". |
||
|
Russian Intelligence Were Firstly To Hear About Clinton's Plan to Accuse Trump Of Colluding With Rus When you fill in the blanks, it's all there' Just hours before the first presidential debate Tuesday, National Intelligence Director John Ratcliffe declassified Russian intelligence information, obtained by the U.S. intelligence community in 2016, which accused then-Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton of approving the Trump-Russia collusion hoax before it all began. www.theblaze.com "Surprise: Team Hillary Had Plans To Accuse Trump Of Being Russian Assett" Guess who knew all about this? BREAKING: Russia Believed Clinton Was Planning Anti-Trump Collusion Campaign In 2016, And U.S. Officials Knew It Not only were Russian officials aware of Hillary Clinton’s campaign plan to accuse Donald Trump of being a Russian asset, top U.S. intelligence authorities knew of Russia’s knowledge of Clinton’s plans, Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe disclosed to congressional officials on Tuesday. Before they launched an investigation into whether Trump’s campaign was colluding with Russia, intelligence agencies learned that Russia knew of Clinton’s plans to tarnish Trump with the collusion smear. At one point, former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Director John Brennan personally briefed then-President Barack Obama and other top U.S. national security officials that Russia assessed Hillary Clinton had approved a plan on July 26, 2016, “to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by Russian security services,” according to Brennan’s handwritten notes. m.beforeitsnews.com |
||
|
How The Specter Of Communism Is Ruling Our World / CHT 16; PT II The specter of communism did not disappear with the disintegration of the Communist Party in Eastern Europe Climatology is a young subject with only a few decades of history. Yet the hypotheses surrounding global warming have been prematurely taken as fact. The media has been keeping global warming in the headlines and covering up the inaccuracies in the underlying science. Governments pour funds into researching the global warming hypothesis while marginalizing other findings. The media and politicians label the prediction of catastrophic climate change as “scientifically proven” and spread it worldwide as unassailable doctrine. Thus, thinking on the matter has been largely unified among the general public, and this has planted convoluted notions of right and wrong in people’s minds. If carried to its conclusion, the natural trajectory is the establishment of a global super-government — that is, communism — for the ostensible purpose of saving the earth and humankind from a fabricated or greatly exaggerated crisis. Destroying the old world by any means is a basic strategy of communism. No matter the academic reputation of a scientist, once he or she publicly expresses doubts about the consensus dogma, he or she immediately faces tremendous pressure from peers and academic institutions, forcing withdrawal. Some people have even argued that global warming skeptics should be prosecuted or criminalized. Those who have lived in a communist totalitarian society have had similar experiences when questioning communist party dogma. The late David Bellamy, a well-known British botanist and president of The Wildlife Trusts who wrote dozens of books and papers during his career, publicly stated that he did not believe in the consensus dogma of global warming. The Wildlife Trusts responded with a statement expressing dissatisfaction and ousted him several months later when his term expired. [46] Environmentalists who previously showed him respect began to cast aspersions on his mental capacity. [47] The late William Gray, a renowned professor, was a pioneer of American hurricane research. After he criticized the consensus dogma about human-induced global warming, his research proposals were repeatedly rejected. [48] In Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Don’t Want You to Know, co-author Patrick J. Michaels, former president of the American Association of State Climatologists and a climatologist at the University of Virginia, listed numerous examples of environmentalists suppressing scientific opinion in order to reach their alleged consensus. Because Michaels asserted that changes in the climate would not necessarily lead to disaster — and this stance was inconsistent with the consensus dogma — the governor of Virginia instructed him to stop speaking on global warming as a state climatologist. Michaels ultimately chose to resign. [49] Washington state assistant climatologist Mark Albright was dismissed from his position following an incident involving misleading statements given by the mayor of Seattle, who had asserted that “the average snow pack in the [Cascade Mountains] has declined 50 percent since 1950.” Albright began sending his colleagues data that showed the snow pack in the Cascades had been growing, rather than declining, since the 1970s. The state climatologist at the time demanded that Albright begin submitting his emails for vetting before they were sent, and when Albright refused, he was stripped of his title. [50] In communist countries, crude political interference in science is common. In Western countries, the politics of environmentalism is being used to interfere with academic freedom. Academic research that casts doubt about the consensus dogma is rarely seen in academic journals, a phenomenon that began in the 1990s. In the 1990 documentary The Greenhouse Conspiracy, Michaels said he once asked an editor why one of his papers had been rejected for publication, and was told that his work was subject to a higher evaluation standard than that of others. [51] According to the 1990 IPCC report, the understanding at the time was that the extent of global warming was equivalent to natural changes in climate. Therefore, although Michaels’s point of view was different from that of many others, it could not be regarded as heretical. However, the goal of establishing a false consensus had already been set, and everyone had to get on board. In March 2008, scientists who doubted the consensus dogma on climate issues held a private academic event in New York. Many of these scientists said they had encountered various obstacles when trying to publish their research in academic journals. Meteorologist Joseph D’Aleo, former chairman of the American Meteorological Society’s Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting, said that some of his colleagues dared not attend the meeting out of fear it might affect their employment. He believed that there was “very likely a silent majority of scientists in climatology, meteorology, and allied sciences who do not endorse what is said to be the ‘consensus’ position.” [52] Climatologist Judith Curry, former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, testified in a 2015 US Senate hearing that she had once received an email from a scientist employed at NASA who said, “I was at a small meeting of NASA-affiliated scientists and was told by our top manager that he was told by his NASA boss that we should not try to publish papers contrary to the current global warming claims, because he (the NASA boss) would then have a headache countering the ‘undesirable’ publicity.” Curry further said in her testimony: A climate scientist making a statement about uncertainty or degree of doubt in the climate debate is categorized as a denier or a “merchant of doubt,” whose motives are assumed to be ideological or motivated by funding from the fossil fuel industry. My own experience in publicly discussing concerns about how uncertainty is characterized by the IPCC has resulted in my being labeled as a ‘climate heretic’ that has turned against my colleagues. There is enormous pressure for climate scientists to conform to the so-so-called consensus. This pressure comes not only from politicians, but from federal funding agencies, universities and professional societies, and scientists themselves who are green activists and advocates. Reinforcing this consensus are strong monetary, reputational, and authority interests. [53] In January 2017, Curry chose to retire early from her tenured position, writing that she “no longer [knew] what to say to students and postdocs regarding how to navigate the CRAZINESS in the field of climate science.” In a 2017 interview, Curry said: “Once you understand the scientific uncertainties, the present policy path that we’re on doesn’t make a lot of sense. … We need to open up policy dialogue to a bigger solution space. So I’m just looking to open up the dialogue and to provoke people into thinking.” [54] Roger Pielke Jr., a professor at the University of Colorado, said Curry’s experience shows that “having a tenured position isn’t a guarantee of academic freedom.” [55] Pielke was previously a fellow at his university’s Cooperative Institute for Research in the Environmental Sciences. Although he agreed with most of the IPCC “consensus” conclusions, he was subjected to similar pressures because he pointed out that the data do not support the idea that extreme weather events such as hurricanes, tornadoes, and droughts had increased due to greenhouse gas emissions. He eventually moved to the University of Colorado’s Sports Governance Center. [56] It is no wonder that Joanne Simpson, a member of the National Academy of Engineering and an award-winning NASA atmospheric scientist, did not declare her skepticism of the “consensus” until after retirement. “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly,” she said. “As a scientist I remain skeptical. … The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.” [57] d. Propaganda and Intimidation In the book The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists, Roy Spencer, a climatologist and former NASA satellite expert, listed fifteen propaganda techniques used by environmentalists, including causing panic, appealing to authority, encouraging a herd mentality, resorting to personal attacks, stereotyping, sensationalizing, and falsifying records. [58] In the 2016 article “A Climate of Censorship,” British journalist Brendan O’Neill wrote about the derisive rhetoric faced by people in many countries if they dared to doubt the prevailing theory of climate change. For example, a British diplomat said in a public speech that those who doubt climate change should be treated by the media no differently than terrorists, and they should not be given a platform to speak. The former executive director of a large environmental group warned that the media should think twice before broadcasting the views of climate-change skeptics because "allowing such misinformation to spread would cause harm.” [59] Some have even tried to use legal force to suspend freedom of speech in order to extinguish the voices of opponents of the climate-warming hypothesis. At a summit attended by top policymakers in Australia, including the prime minister, a proposal was made to deprive violators of their citizenship. One idea was to re-examine Australian citizens and reissue citizenship only to those who have verified they are “environment-climate friendly.” [60] In 2015, twenty academics sent a letter to the US president and the attorney general requesting that the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act be used to prosecute “corporations and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change,” adding that these organizations’ “misdeeds” must be “stopped as soon as possible.” [61] Those skeptical of the theory of climate change have been labeled “deniers.” This includes groups and individuals ranging from those who acknowledge climate warming but feel we are able to cope with it, to those who completely deny warming as a scientific phenomenon. The potency of the “denier” label is considerable. Charles Jones, a retired English professor at the University of Edinburgh, said that the term is designed to place skeptics on the same level of moral depravity as Holocaust deniers. According to O’Neill, some people even claim that skeptics of climate change theory are accomplices in a coming eco-Holocaust and may face Nuremberg-style trials in the future. He quoted a green columnist as saying: “I wonder what sentences judges might hand down at future international criminal tribunals on those who will be partially but directly responsible for millions of deaths from starvation, famine, and disease in decades ahead. I put [their climate-change denial] in a similar moral category to Holocaust denial — except that this time the Holocaust is yet to come, and we still have time to avoid it. Those who try to ensure we don’t will one day have to answer for their crimes.” O’Neill, in his article, commented: “It is usually only in authoritarian states that thoughts or words are equated with crimes, where dictators talk about ‘thought crimes’ and their threat to the fabric of society. … It’s a short step from demonising a group of people, and describing their arguments as toxic and dangerous, to demanding more and harsher censorship.” [62] This judgment is correct. Restricting the right to think is one of the ways communism divorces people from a concept of good and evil that is based on universal values. 3. Communist Environmentalism In the past decades, with communist forces in retreat and the political and economic catastrophes of communist regimes exposed, communism has latched onto environmentalism to further its agenda. a. Blaming Capitalism Environmentalism treats capitalism as the enemy, so it shares a common foe with communism. When communism suffered setbacks in the workers’ movements in developed Western countries, it shifted gears and hijacked the environmental cause. Normal activism for environmental protection morphed into activism aimed at vanquishing capitalism. Communist doctrine originally promoted a utopia, a “heaven on earth,” to incite revolt and overthrow the existing social system. Under the cover of environmentalism, communism adopted a similar approach, but the vision it described is the exact opposite: In place of the wonderful workers’ utopia is instead a frightening dystopia, a vision of a “hell on earth.” According to this scenario, in just decades, humanity’s very survival will be at risk due to global warming, landslides, tsunamis, droughts, floods, and heatwaves. The target recruits of this movement are not the poor, but rather the wealthy, who are expected to abandon their current lifestyles. By the original doctrines of communism, after acquiring power, the first step is to strip the affluent of their wealth with the supposed purpose of redistributing it to the poor. In reality, the poor remain poor while all the wealth ends up in the hands of the corrupt officialdom. The second step entails the establishment of a state-controlled economy and the abolition of private property. This destroys the national economy and brings everyone hardship. The same equation plays out at the international level. Wealthy countries are expected to give aid to poorer countries — that is, to redistribute wealth on a global scale. In reality, poor countries remain poor, as the money that was intended for their development usually ends up in the hands of the corrupt officials of those countries. Meanwhile, the government’s responsibility is expanded and market mechanisms are replaced with command economics, using all sorts of heavy-handed environmental policies to obstruct the normal functioning of capitalism, forcing businesses to close or relocate overseas, thus crippling the country’s economy. Through these market-oriented methods, the environmental movement seeks to cripple capitalism. Environmental regulations have become important tools for undermining capitalist economies, and are becoming known for eliminating more jobs than they create. The focus of modern environmentalism is to spread fear of future disasters and to hold the public and governments hostage to this fear. But among those who actively promote this doomsday panic, many live luxurious lifestyles, using plenty of energy and leaving a large carbon footprint. Clearly, they don’t think disaster is imminent. To make use of a crisis mentality, especially using the “common enemy” of global warming to unite different forces to oppose capitalism, it has become imperative for environmentalists to emphasize and exaggerate the nature of the alleged crisis. The simplest way is to stoke mass fear around using the cheapest sources of energy, that is, fossil fuels — coal, oil, natural gas — and also nuclear energy. Environmentalists succeeded in making people fearful of nuclear energy decades ago, and now, they are trying to make people afraid of using fossil fuels by claiming that fossil fuels lead to catastrophic global warming. However, in reality, climate science hasn’t concluded that global warming is caused by human activity, or that global warming will definitely lead to disaster. If natural causes are behind climate change, then all these government policies only serve to impede economic development while often providing only marginal benefits. For example, officials raise the bar of emission standards for cars with the justification that it reduces the carbon footprint. However, this naturally leads to higher manufacturing costs and less profit, followed by greater unemployment and outsourcing industry to developing countries where costs are lower. Moreover, increasing the fuel efficiency of all cars from 35.5 miles per gallon in 2016 models to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025 would at most cut the magnitude of global warming by 0.02 degrees Celsius by 2100. [63] This would do virtually nothing to help reduce global warming. Various restrictions of dubious effectiveness have cost millions of workers their jobs and have dealt a heavy blow to manufacturing industries, research faculties, energy innovations, and international business competitiveness in Western countries. Proponents of environmental protection enthusiastically promote green energy, especially the solar and wind power industries. Unfortunately, the pollution that comes with the generation of green energy is either underestimated or simply hidden. During solar panel production, the deadly poison silicon tetrachloride is created as a byproduct, causing its own environmental problem. A report by The Washington Post quotes Ren Bingyan, a professor at the School of Material Sciences at Hebei University of Technology, as saying: “The land where you dump or bury it [silicon tetrachloride] will be infertile. No grass or trees will grow in the place. … It is like dynamite — it is poisonous, it is polluting. Human beings can never touch it.” [64] The production of solar panels typically also consumes enormous amounts of conventional energy, including coal and petroleum. According to the Paris climate agreement, by 2025, developed countries must collectively mobilize $100 billion each year to help developing countries reduce emissions and “adapt to climate change.” If the United States hadn’t withdrawn from the agreement, it would have been required to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 2025 to between 26 and 28 percent below its 2005 levels. This would have meant that every year, the United States would cut 1.6 billion tons of emissions. As for China, the world’s biggest polluter, the accord allows it to continue to increase its carbon emissions until 2030. [65] In a statement formally announcing the withdrawal from the Accord, President Donald Trump said compliance would have cost 2.7 million American jobs by 2025, citing a study by the National Economic Research Associates. The president said the study also predicted that compliance would cut production in the following US sectors by 2040: paper, which would be down by 12 percent; cement, by 23 percent; iron and steel, by 38 percent; coal, by 86 percent; and natural gas, by 31 percent. “The cost to the economy at this time would be close to $3 trillion in lost GDP and 6.5 million industrial jobs, while households would have $7,000 less income and, in many cases, much worse than that,” Trump said. “In fact, 14 days of carbon emissions from China alone would wipe out the gains from … America’s expected reductions in the year 2030 — after we have had to spend billions and billions of dollars, lost jobs, closed factories, and suffered much higher energy costs for our businesses and for our homes. [66] With the rise of the environmental movement, communist countries caught a break in their struggle against the West. Unreasonable regulations and agreements choke industries, economies, and technological development in Western capitalist countries. This has hampered America in its role as the leading superpower and bastion of freedom against communism. We do not deny that the environment needs protecting. However, the goal of environmental protection should be balanced with the needs of humankind. Environmental protection for its own sake is excessive and forsakes humanity while being co-opted by communism. Today’s environmentalism doesn’t care about balance and has become an extremist ideology. Doubtlessly, many environmentalists harbor good intentions. But in their quest to mobilize and concentrate the resources of the state for the sake of their cause, they are aligning themselves with communism. [To be continued with "b. The Religionization of Environmentalism" m.theepochtimes.com |
||
|
China #1 THREAT To Democracy youtu.be |
||
|
General Patton's Lessons On The IMPORTANCE Of Prayer In Seeking Victory in Battle Today, Patriots, we would do well to consider what General Patron and the chaplain discussed, and what happened in the Third Army's battles against Nazi Germany after! God still listens and answers prayers. We would do well to begin praying now got help against the dark forces of evil which are trying to destroy America! Political Theology / 12-24-2020 youtu.be |
||
|
pawntificator 11-Jan-21, 04:21 |
Sorry, been busy for 4 months. All months actually. |
||
|
Pawntifex BARDS FM videos haven't been censored as yet from YouTube - but this can change quickly in today's politically corect (COUGH!) climate. |
||
|
pawntificator 12-Jan-21, 22:40 |
|
||
|
Speaking Of Yanking Chains - Since You're So "Busy" . . . Here it is; www.youtube.com Has it been deleted? What would you like to tell me and the rest of the Club about it, incidentally? Does it even matter anymore? |
||
|
Why Mike Lindell Is Target Of Biggest Cancel Culture Wave "FlashPoint: Absolute Truth, You NEED To Hear This! With Mike Lindell, Doug Weed, and Mario Murillo" youtu.be "Absolute Proof" Please share with everyone you know to save our country! "Mike Lindell, Mary Fanning, and Brannon House the Docu-Movie" Exposing Election Fraud and the Theft of America michaeljlindell.com [ You know that this is a good one because YouTube has already taken down this documentary! ] |
||
|
American Christian Faith and Heritage Under Attack "Four states advance laws that would ban transgender kids from sports" February 12, 2021 A ban on transgender girls competing in female high school sports is one step closer in North Dakota, Mississippi, Utah and Tennessee — as other states weigh similar measures. The Republican-majority state Senate in Mississippi overwhelmingly passed Bill 2536 Thursday night with little discussion, meaning that the “Mississippi Fairness Act” will now head to the state House of Representatives before being sent to the executive branch — all of which are controlled by Republicans. A summary of the measure said its purpose is to require the state’s schools and universities “To Designate Its Athletic Teams Or Sports According To Biological Sex.” "I’ve had numerous coaches across the state call me and believe that they feel there’s a need for a policy in Mississippi because they are beginning to have some concerns of having to deal with this,” said the bill’s sponsor, Republican Sen. Angela Hill. nypost.com "5 States Consider Ban On Transgender Athletes Competing" www.youtube.com "Mississippi Bans WOKE Transgender Athletes Wanting to Compete" www.youtube.com "14 States Considering Transgender Athlete Bills" Bills restricting transgender students’ involvement in school-sponsored athletics are up for consideration in 14 states, according to the Human Rights Campaign. Legislatures adjourned amid the coronavirus pandemic, so actions have not been taken on pending bills, Axios reported. However, special sessions are likely to resume in the coming weeks and it’s possible the transgender bills may receive attention. dailycaller.com |
