Texas MassResistance: Parents Stand Up to Antifa Assaults and Protest Drag Queens for Kids

 

Parents stand up to Antifa assaults - while protesting “Drag” and transgenderism for children.

Heavy police presence – but no arrests of Antifa perpetrators.

Violent leftist group promotes child sexual deviancy.

Texas MassResistance earlier revealed that Drag performer for children had criminal record.

October 2, 2022

 Texas MassResistance leader Tracy Shannon talks to TV reporter during protest. She didn't hold back about "Drag" and Antifa.

We’re all learning how the Left’s storm troopers are not only violent but degenerate. They come out in force to defend those who push sexual deviancy on children – and attack anyone who disagrees.

But in Texas, pro-family activists - including MassResistance – are boldly standing up to it!

As we recently reported, Texas MassResistance leader Tracy Shannon and MassResistance activist Kevin Whitt exposed how a local leftist church in Katy, Texas, was bringing in a Drag Queen with a criminal record to perform at an upcoming event with children. This was widely reported on conservative news sites, and several pro-family groups announced they would be showing up there to protest as the Sept. 23 event was taking place.

The church, First Christian Church of Katy, had quickly dropped that particular Drag Queen after Tracy exposed his past and published his degenerate social media posts. But the church continued to advertise the event with a different Drag Queen.

Raising money to help teenagers cross-dress without parents' knowledge!

Besides pushing “Drag” culture on children, the purpose of the church’s “Drag Bingo” event was to raise money for "Transparent Closet," the church's in-house organization that helps teenagers to cross-dress without their parent's knowledge. For example, the group gives dresses and make-up to boys, and gives girls strappings to “bind” their breasts tight to appear masculine – a very unhealthy practice promoted by the LGBT movement.

One pro-family man managed to get an admission ticket to the church's Drag show. While inside, he also was given a tour of the "Transparent Closet" by a church member! But when they saw that he was videoing, they had a police officer remove him. Someone later posted his video on Twitter. Right after he left the church, Tracy Shannon interviewed him.

Pro-family activist talks to Tracy after getting ejected from the church 'Drag' event.

He told Tracy that the Drag show was just as bad as people imagined it would be:

It was a drag show. And there were kids and other adults giving the drag queen money during the performance. There were suggestive things said, all of that. There were adults, younger children, and teenaged kids.

He then described what he saw in the "Transparent Closet" area:

The closet is set up in a way that is designed to keep parents uninformed. Chest binders, underwear, and bras can be found.

They told me that they're trying to get more binders and things like that. They showed me jewelry, purses, makeup, bracelets, earrings, underwear, and scarves.

They said they give Home Goods bags to the kids to take it all home secretly, "because families aren't supporting."

 This clip from pro-family activist's video shows a rack of dresses for boys in the church's "Transparent Closet" area.

He also mentioned that these repulsive buttons were being given out at the church event.

Pro-family people gather to protest

On Saturday, Sept. 23, 0ver 200 people from several area pro-family groups – including Texas MassResistance – lined up across the street from the church to protest the event.

Many held signs. Some prayed and sang. A Catholic group prayed the Rosary. A contingent of “Proud Boys” (who are much maligned in the media) showed up in support. The peaceful protesters came because they were upset that this was targeting children in their city.

 The pro-family protest stretched for blocks.

 People weren't afraid to speak out!

 It was a diverse crowd! When they found out that Antifa was coming, they had messages for them!

 Tracy Shannon had a T-shirt for the event along with her sign.

Antifa hoodlums come to support “Drag” and terrorize pro-family people

A group of several dozen Antifa thugs clearly had been organized to disrupt the pro-family protest. They lined up on the sidewalk in front of the church, facing the pro-family people across the street.

Many of them were masked and dressed entirely in black or wearing other bizarre clothes. They brought signs promoting homosexual and transgender behaviors (and child grooming), and, as usual, labeling those who disagree with them as “fascists.” (This is ironic, of course, because they are acting exactly as the true fascists of the 1930s.)

 The Antifa crowd and their childish signs. Note the man on the truck wearing a kilt (or skirt?) and holding a rifle. (No one was intimidated by that.)

 In front of the church.

 More loser leftists with dumb signs: "Demand trans rights," "Pride not prejudice."

 Next to the church parking lot. Afraid to show their faces.

Word of Antifa’s plans had apparently become known to the police, who showed up in riot gear to attempt to act as a barrier between Antifa and the pro-family people.

 There appeared to be both local cops (above) and state police (below) on the scene.

The overwhelming opinion of the local people in Katy, TX was clearly against the Drag Queen event with children. Nearly all of the counter-protesters (supporting the event) seemed to be part of the Antifa group, and from outside of the community. All of the cars that passed by that honked or gestured supported the pro-family side. (A lot of thumbs-up!) The Antifa group appeared to be discouraged by that response, Tracy told us.

Antifa thugs attack pro-family people with Bear Mace

The Antifa thugs assaulted the pro-family people with Bear Mace – a powerful 20-foot spray meant to subdue aggressive, charging bears. Here’s what Tracy Shannon told us:

Antifa sprayed everyone with Bear Mace because they are idiots. They were intending to spray the Proud Boys but it was windy. The Mace blew down the street and affected most of the crowd.

There was also a drive-by by Macing of the Catholics who were praying Rosary. My son was Maced. The Mace got in all our throats. One woman had a panic attack, another had to administer an EpiPen because of allergic reaction to the Mace.

 The group of Catholics reacts after being sprayed with Bear Mace.

The police saw what was happening but made no arrest of the thugs. They did not seem to want to get involved beyond keeping people apart. It was outrageous, and very frustrating.

Were there actual Nazis among pro-family groups?

There were some strange people on the pro-family side that the Antifa people insisted were “Nazis.” But this was likely a false-flag stunt similar to what we’ve seen the Left do many times before. As Tracy told us:

They kept pointing out that “Nazis” were on our side. So, I yelled at them that “we didn't invite Nazis, but you invited drag queens for children.” Not sure if the weird men standing here were real Nazis or not, but they have shown up before, but only when Antifa is there. So they are either plants (most likely) or they are more interested in Antifa than protecting children.

Final thoughts

Although the church event itself could not be stopped, the fact that over 200 pro-family people came and stood up to the intimidation tactics of Antifa is significant. People working to sexualize children should never get a free ride. And prominent conservative media across the country reported and commented on this action.

Besides being violent, Antifa is more degenerate than many people realize. Like the Nazis of the 1930s and the Leninists before that, they recruit dysfunctional people from the dregs of society and form them into a nationwide terror group. They are clearly well funded and well organized. In this case, much of their funding (as we know) comes from US corporations that give hundreds of millions through a variety of disgusting leftist “social justice” front groups.

But good people must continue to stand up – and we will eventually bring back decency and a healthy society!

   

Please help us continue to do our uncompromising work!

Our successes depend on people like you.

Donate to MassResistance

Your support will make the difference!

No Such Thing as Christian Anti-Semitism

Dr. Michael Brown is a good friend of mine. He has been a long-time supporter of MassResistance, the pro-family organization I worked for for a number of a years. I have enjoyed joining his radio program from time-to-time as well. I really appreciate his outreach to Christians on all matters political, and I respect his support for the state of Israel as well as his Christian missionary outreach to Jews in the United States and around the world.

I must take exception, however, to the title of his latest article, in which he denounces “Christian Anti-Semitism.” With all due respect, there is no such thing. That’s like talking about Satanists for Christ, or Jews for Hitler. It makes no sense. There is religious anti-Semitism, certainly, but there is nothing Christian about Christians hating Jews or (justifiably) hating Israel. To his credit, Dr. Brown in his article was clearly denouncing the so-called “progressive” Christians of the so-called Uniting Presbyterian Church in Southern Africa. Still, the joining of “Christian” and “Anti-Semitism” is wrong.

This discussion is timely, for sure. Anti-Semitism is a catch-all smear used all too often against conservatives, when the Democratic Party has a long history of anti-Semitism (one that has barely abated, I might add). Furthermore, even some so-called nationalists and populists are embracing a total hatred of Israel and of Jews, as though support for Israel is anti-America First. It’s about time that we confronted this matter.

Again, I take exception with the title and the notion “Christian Anti-Semitism,” not with Brown’s criticism of the regressive church in South Africa that he was calling out. I must add that an estimable missionary movement, One For Israel Ministries, also talks about Christian Anti-Semitism, and I think that their use of that moniker is wrong, too.

For starters, what does the Bible say about Christians and their calling in relationship to the Jews? Paul the Apostle writes to the Romans: “For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh.” (Romans 9:3) He then writes: “Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.” (Romans 10:1)

Wanting Jewish people to be saved does not quite square with “The Jews should get the hell out of Palestine” or “Jews are going to hell, and I don’t care” or “Jews control everything, and we must stop them.” You cannot be a Christian and hate Jews. It makes no sense, just as someone who lives under the grace of God would have no compunction to go out and live in sin (cf. Romans 6:11-14).

Of course, the common retort from some critics is “The Jews killed Christ.”

Was it just “the Jews”? True, the Israelite religious leaders during Jesus’ earthly ministry plotted to destroy Him, and they corrupted the legal process to rush through an immediate execution of our Lord and Savior. There are numerous passages testifying to this throughout the Gospels. But let’s not forget that it was Roman leaders and soldiers along with a crowd of Jews and Gentiles which rejected Jesus before He was crucified. At this point, it’s necessary for us to embrace a humbling spiritual truth. If everyone of us had been in that crowd that day, standing before Pilate and the beaten, bleeding Christ, we all would have shouted “Away with this man! Crucify Him!” And why? Isaiah declares it so: “He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.” (Isaiah 53:3)

Biblical Hebrew uses a number of words for “man”: adam, ish, enosh, gibbor, etc. In the Messianic verse above, “ish” is used in the passage “rejected of men.” There is no difference there among the different groups of men in the world. The verse does not discriminate between Jew and Gentile. Abandon this notion “Well, if I had been there, I would have called for His release!” No, you would not.

Furthermore, there were many Jews who believed on Jesus, before, during, and after His Crucifixtion! (John 11:45, John 12:11; Acts 17:12, 21:20). No, it was not “The Jews” who killed Christ.

Some scholars distort Scriptures show that we should fear and oppose Jews. Here’s one example: “Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.” (John 20:19).

When you read the Bible, don’t discard your reason. The disciples in the upper room were Jews themselves! Were they afraid of themselves, too? The context alone bears out that the disciples were afraid of the Jewish leaders, since they were the ones trying to suppress the Gospel.

Even in the Catholic Church, if one follows the old-school Latin rite of the traditional Good Friday liturgy, there is a recitation in which the congregants pray for the conversion of the Jews: “Oremus et pro perfidies Judaeis,” i.e. “Let us pray for the unbelieving Jews.” That is not anti-Semitism. Why would anyone pray for anyone else to believe if they have a hatred towards them?!

Consider once again that prayer in the traditional Latin Mass: “Let us pray for the Jews who don’t believe,” which implies that there are Jews who DO believe! Of course there were, and there are (Michael Brown, among hundreds of thousands, if not millions around the world)!  Christianity would not exist but for those believing Jews, starting with the apostles and their adherents, who spread the Good News.

The Bible does not support anti-Semitism. True Christian faith is incommensurate with anti-Semitism, as well. Christian faith, revelation of God’s Word, Christ and Him Crucified does not teach let alone justify anti-Semitism. In fact, it outright rejects it (cf. Romans 11:18-21). Religious anti-Semitism, yes, but let’s stop calling it “Christian Anti-Semitism.”

No Such Thing as Palestine: What PLO Activism in the USA is Really All About

 

The Goal of Palestinianism What the supposed quest for Palestinian statehood and social justice is really about. By Richard L. Cravatts Originally published at Frontpagemag.com A recent survey conducted by Alums for Campus Fairness, “A Growing Threat: Antisemitism on College Campuses,” asked some 500 Jewish-affiliated college students and recent alumni what their perceptions were regarding campus anti-Semitism. The findings of the survey were troubling, given that: “Nearly 100% of respondents said antisemitism is/was a problem on their campus,” “95% of respondents identified antisemitism as a problem on U.S. college campuses, with three out of four describing it as a ‘very serious problem,’” almost “half of current students say antisemitism is getting worse on their campus,” and “69% of students and grads say they have avoided certain places, events, or situations at school because they are Jewish.” Anyone familiar with current state of affairs on university campuses knows that the root of much of this animus towards Jewish students is the ongoing university campaign against Israel and Zionism, and that Jewish students, whether they even support the Jewish state or not, regularly find themselves the target of derision, bigotry, and condemnation simply because they are Jewish. In fact, research has demonstrated quite clearly that agitation against Israel—including the toxic Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) campaign—by such corrosive student activists as Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) increase both the frequency and intensity of anti-Semitic speech and expression. A 2019 report by The AMCHA Initiative, a campus anti-Semitism watchdog organization, for example, revealed that “BDS’s mandate to boycott or suppress programs, collaborations, events, or expression that promote ‘the normalization of Israel in the global academy,’ as well as the academic BDS-compliant ‘common sense’ mandate to criticize, protest and boycott individuals who are deemed complicit with or supportive of Israel’s alleged crimes, appear to greatly encourage antisemitic behavior.” An earlier AMCHA report had found similar connections between anti-Israel activism and the presence of anti-Semitism on those campuses with SJP chapters. That report concluded, shockingly, that the “presence of one or more anti-Zionist student groups is very strongly correlated with the overall number of antisemitic incidents. 99% of the schools with one or more active anti-Zionist student group had one or more incidents of antisemitic activity, whereas only 16% of schools with no active anti-Zionist student group had incidents of antisemitic activity.” Campuses with SJP or other anti-Zionist student groups, the report found, were “very strongly associated with the occurrence of antisemitic expression. 91% of the schools with one or more active anti-Zionist group showed evidence of antisemitic expression, whereas only 16% of schools with no active anti-Zionist student group showed evidence of antisemitic expression.” SJP and other student groups, along with their faculty sponsors, are the foot soldiers in the worldwide campaign of Palestinianism, but the ideology which animates the Palestinian cause is evident not only in the ivy walls of academia, but also in the UN, NGOs, the State Department, the Arab street, and in parliaments and congresses where the chattering classes purport to be committed to Arab self-determination and seem to have no issue with sacrificing, if necessary, the Middle East’s sole democracy as part of that effort. Central to this propaganda campaign to enshrine Palestinianism—in which the suffering of the Palestinian has finally trumped the historic suffering and dispossession of the Jews—is the wholesale, deliberate appropriation of the language and symbols of the Jews by the foes who wish to eradicate, not only the Jewish past, but the very existence of the Jewish state. Thus, the actual genocide of European Jewry during the Holocaust is either minimized or denied by the Arab world at the same time that Israel is denounced for committing a new “holocaust” against the Palestinians through ethnic cleansing, military barbarism, and war crimes. Palestinians regularly refer to themselves as being dispersed in a Diaspora, what they call their own “Nakba,” a catastrophe, just as Jews had traditionally spoken of their own scattering from their homeland after the destruction of the Second Temple. While Arab aggression and homicidal impulses against Jews have been unrelenting—before and since the creation of Israel—Palestinianism has been successful in casting the Arab Palestinians as the perennial victim of Jewish supremacism, even though the irredentist aims of the Islamists to establish a Muslim-only state in historic Palestine is the very form of self-determination that is repeatedly decried on the part of Israel for being racist, inhumane, internationally criminal, and morally unacceptable. The West’s wide embrace of Palestinianism has been led, for the most part, by the intellectual elites, whose own biases against Israel and the United States serve to animate, and widely promote, the campaign to vilify, defame, and delegitimize Israel. While the ideological antics of anti-Israel student groups are the most visible aspects of the hate-Israel agenda, this acting out and shrill rhetoric from students would be inconsequential were it not for the full intellectual and moral support this movement enjoys from faculty members―those with the prestige and academic muscle to lend credibility and influence to the war of ideas against the Jewish state. The liberal slant of university faculties has made it inevitable that many college professors question the integrity of Zionism, if not forthrightly denounce the very existence of Israel as a moral stain on the world that oppresses Arabs and tars the United States as an accomplice in this perceived unjustified colonial, militaristic oppression. The self-righteous professors who perpetually denounce Israel, though, may or may not have a great moral commitment to the Palestinians at all. In fact, that is often incidental to their primary objective: not to actually assist the Palestinian self-determination with constructive, tactical advice and support—which has always been sorely, and visibly, lacking—but to weaken support for Israel with the ultimate intention, shared by Israel’s jihadist foes, of eventually eliminating it altogether. The phony rectitude which they use to insulate themselves from critique comforts those who would otherwise see the fundamental moral cruelty of their assaults of Israel. And they are also craven in their self-righteousness for taking such a strident stance against Israel, a point of view and a philosophical approach that requires no courage in the Jew-hating West. Of course, virtue-signaling one’s commitment to the oppressed is rampant among the campus Leftists, many of whom feel that, because they seek social justice for the Palestinians and are attempting to strike down what they define as the new Israeli version of apartheid, anything they say or do to delegitimize Israel is acceptable, even necessary. Thus, they hector Israel to mend its political ways not only to end Palestinian suffering, but also, they allege, for the good of both Israelis and Diaspora Jews. These fatuous professors (and their complicit students), who never have had to face any physical threat more serious than being bumped while waiting in line for a latte at Starbucks, are very willing to scold Israel when it defends itself from unceasing rocket attacks from Gaza meant to murder Israeli civilians. These same professors, many of the vilest critics of whom are from departments of humanities, literature, anthropology, history, and sociology, are, without any expertise in military affairs, eager to advise Israeli officials on the rules of war and denounce the lack of “proportionality” in Israel’s attempts to defend its population from jihadist murderers. And so eager are they to publicly assert their righteousness as defenders of the Palestinian cause, they embrace and “eroticize” terroristic violence and willingly align themselves with Israel’s deadly foes who seek its annihilation, catering, as essayist David Solway lyrically put it, “to the ammoniac hatred of the current brood of crypto-antisemites [sic] posing as anti-Zionists.” This cultural condescension, the disingenuous lie from the Left that all cultures are equal, but some are more or less equal, to paraphrase Orwell, leads liberals into the moral trap where they denounce Israel’s military self-defense as being barbaric, criminal, and Nazi-like (because Israel is a powerful, democratic nation) and regularly excuse or apologize for genocidal Arab terrorism as an acceptable and inevitable result of a weak people suffering under Western oppression. Violence on the part of the oppressed is accepted by liberals because it is deemed to be the fault of the strong nations whose subjugation of those defenseless people is the very cause of their violent resistance. In fact, when Israel-loathing Leftist professors, such as Columbia University’s toxic Joseph Massad, apologize for Palestinian terror, he justifies it by characterizing the very existence of Israel as being morally defective, based, in his view, on its inherent racist and imperialist nature. For him, nations that are racist and imperialistic cannot even justify their own self-defense, while the victims of such regimes are free to “resist,” based on the Left’s notion of universal human rights―but especially for the weak. “What the Palestinians ultimately insist on is that Israel must be taught that it does not have the right to defend its racial supremacy,” Massad has written, “and that the Palestinians have the right to defend their universal humanity against Israel's racist oppression.” As part of academia’s fervent desire to make campuses socially ideal settings where racial and cultural strife ceases to exist, Palestinianism gains traction as part of the campaign to realize “social justice” for marginalized victim groups—the long-aggrieved Arab Palestinians among them, now the Third World’s favorite victim. For the Left, according to David Horowitz, a former radical leftist turned conservative, social justice is “the concept of a world divided into oppressors and oppressed.”  Those seeking social justice, therefore, do so with the intention of leveling the economic, cultural, and political playing fields; they seek to reconstruct society in a way that disadvantages the powerful and the elites, and overthrows them if necessary—in order that the dispossessed and weak can acquire equal standing. In other words, the Left yearns for a utopian society which does not yet exist and is willing to reconstruct and overturn the existing status quo—often at a terrible human cost—in the pursuit of seeking so-called “justice” for those who, in their view, have been passed over or abused by history. According to Horowitz, this “radicalism is a cause whose utopian agendas result in an ethic where the ends outweigh and ultimately justify the means,” a view which has meant that Western leftists have come to share sympathy for the tactics and ideology of jihadists who seek to overturn Western ideals in their pursuit of an Islamic caliphate, what Horowitz calls an “unholy alliance” of the Left and Islamists in their pursuit of social justice. In this dangerous alliance, Israel is continually slandered as a racist state, an aggressive, militaristic regime that inflicts disproportionate suffering on the hapless Palestinians, lubricating the argument that this inequality is inherently and inexorably wrong, that it must be corrected and made just. Thus, when such radical student groups as Students for Justice in Palestine have as their core mission, as their name implies, bringing their own vision of justice to the Middle East, it is justice only for the oppressed, the Palestinians, and not for the oppressor, Israel, whose position of power was made possible only because of a “hierarchy of class and race [which] exists globally.” For the Left, social justice is solely for the disenfranchised, the ‘victims’ of unjust Western societies, those whose suffering is ostensibly caused by and is the fault of imperialistic, capitalistic, militant, hegemonic nations—America and Israel foremost among them. And on campuses, where liberal professors have nearly made sacred the politics of race and class and have identified specific sets of favored victim groups for whom justice will be sought, the cult of “victimhood” has even led to compulsory instruction on the mechanics of achieving social justice for the weak in society. This view of the Jew, or of Israel, the Jewish state, as a political destabilizer, is, of course, also central to the ideology of Palestinianism and the notion that the victims of Jewish power are the dispossessed and weak for whom liberal academics purportedly seek justice. Any tactics, including terror and violence, are considered appropriate and excusable in the victims’ cause of throwing off the yoke of oppression, so the Palestinian, clearly made to suffer daily humiliation and endlessly deprived of a homeland and the right to self-determination, has become the perfect example of the contemporary victim archetype, the Third-World “other,” an ever-present, homeless, dispossessed tragic refuge whose plight could be traced directly to supposed colonialism on the part of the “settler” state of Israel. This rationalization, that violence is an acceptable, if not welcomed, component of Palestinianism—that is, that the inherent “violence” of imperialism, colonialism, or capitalism will be met by the same violence as the oppressed attempt to throw off their oppressors—is exactly the style of self-defeating rationality that in this age has proven to be an intractable part of the war on terror. America-hating and Israel-hating academics have not infrequently wished for harm to come to these countries at the hands of the victim groups to whom they readily give their sympathies. They frequently, and mistakenly, ascribe to poverty and helplessness the inclination to lead to terrorism on the part of otherwise weak and oppressed individuals. And, like leftist apologists for revolutionary violence in earlier examples of resistance, they see an opportunity for the tables to be turned on the oppressors and an equal distribution of suffering to be brought about in the resulting power shift. The nearly total rejection by the Left of any recognition of goodness on the part of Western countries, cultivating and promoting Palestinianism, is, according to commentator Melanie Phillips, symptomatic of academics' belief in their own moral superiority, a feature which, at least in their own minds, gives them a more genuine and principled worldview. “In the grip of a group-think that causes them to genuflect to victim-culture and the deconstruction of western morality and the concept of truth,” Phillips wrote, “a dismaying number of our supposedly finest minds have been transformed from people who spread enlightenment to those who cast darkness before them.” Richard L. Cravatts, Ph.D., a Freedom Center Journalism Fellow in Academic Free Speech and President Emeritus of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East, is the author of Dispatches From the Campus War Against Israel and Jews.