Friday, July 22, 2022

Barbara Ferrer, Health Hypocrite

Ferrer with no mask

Barbara Ferrer is a health hypocrite.

She is the Los Angeles County health director because she was appointed to the job, not because she had any worthwhile qualifications for the position.

She is an unaccountable, unelected bureaucrat, and she does not look like the picture of health, either.

Yet she holds this outrageous sway to tell everyone to mask up in Los Angeles County. This is outrageous, and it needs to stop.

And her guidance for following through on another mask mandate? A corrupted study from her daughter.

RedState reports:

A “study” finding that COVID mitigation efforts in schools, including forced masking, were highly effective in stopping disease spread — and cited by the CDC and most states as the scientific basis for school mask mandates — was authored by LA County bureaucrats, including the daughter of the county’s Public Health Director Barbara Ferrer.

When does the hurting stop? When will Los Angeles County residents stop complying with this nonsense and just ignore the county health department?

Hey, even Barbara Ferrer doesn't follow her own guidelines:


And there here she is pretending to be friendly, condescending to the residents of Los Angeles county once again:
Thankfully, businesses throughout the county have announced that they are rejecting this policy, and they are telling the county leaders that masking should remain optional. RedState reports:

The founding CEO of the Los Angeles County Business Federation, Tracy Hernandez, said:

“This is not a debate about choosing between lives and livelihoods … This is a discussion about educating and empowering Angelenos to make smart choices about protecting their health, our workers and the region’s collective ability to weather this latest wave of infections. We can do better than a heavy-handed mandate at this stage of pandemic recovery and endemic recalibration.

It's time to stand up to Barbara Ferrer and her anti-healthcare bullying. She does not tell us what to do. She works for us; we do not work for her.


The Racist LA Times Strikes Again: "Should Black People Get to Own Guns?"

Black guns matter -- all guns matter
because All Lives Matter

The LA Times is a racist newspaper.

They denigrated a black man, calling him the blackface of white supremacy. You can also see their hate against him here, and the LA Times promotes racist professor Melina Abdullah, who called Elder as much and more.

They have reporters on their staff who support open anti-Semites who think "The Jews should get the hell out of Palestine."

They recently published a massive editorial plus a letter from the owner of the newspaper, in which they acknowledge that the LA Times is racist.

And now, they publish an article questioning whether black people should be able to own guns:

This kind of assertion sounds like something that white supremacists would chant at a Klan rally. After all, the Ku Klux Klan was committed to disarming black people (as well as white Republicans, who believed that black people were just as much American citizens as everyone else born in the United States). 

Here's the entire article (reprinted in bold print), written by racist SJW Erika Smith, with my comments:

Racist Erika Smith
(Why do black people hate other black people so much?)

Nathan W. Jones leads the Bay Area chapter of the Black Gun Owners Assn. But until a few years ago, he wasn’t even into guns.

Then the COVID-19 pandemic hit. And George Floyd was killed by Minneapolis police, sending racial justice protesters into the streets. And white supremacists trashed the U.S. Capitol in the Jan. 6 insurrection.

The lies are already pouring in. There were people of all backgrounds at the U.S. Capitol on January 6th. Wow, the racism just oozes out of this report already.

Suddenly, it seemed as if America was on the brink. And with the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe vs. Wade on Friday, emboldening a militant array of white Christian nationalists, we clearly still are.

"White Christian nationalists ..." really?

“I had visions of mobs dragging people through the streets, and something just kind of switched,” Jones told me. “We can’t rely on anybody else to come and save us. It has to be us.”

So, on Thursday, while many were apoplectic over the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the rights of gun owners to carry a loaded weapon in public — throwing gun control laws in California and New York into limbo at a time when shootings are increasing — Jones was thoughtful.

On the one hand, he wants it to be easy for law-abiding citizens to be able to defend themselves “if and when the time arises.” But on the other hand, he’s a 50-year-old realist who knows that fear and hatred of Black people run deep in the United States, especially when we’re armed.

Has anyone shown him the statistics, in which black people kill other black people in the highest numbers? Does anyone bother to check facts or read data anymore?

“There’s no overt racism when we go to the gun range, but we know how people are looking at us,” Jones said of the dozens of Black members who meet up to go shooting. “We know the things that people think.”

It sounds to me that this person is just obsessed with himself. Most people don't have time to care about other people, they are so busy thinking about themselves and their families. 

California Democrats are scrambling to craft and enact new legislation this week that would somehow salvage the requirement — assuming local law enforcement continues to enforce it — that residents get a permit before carrying a concealed weapon. Current law forces gun owners to show “good cause” for needing such a permit, and that is now unconstitutional.

Forcing citizens to show good cause to obtain a CCW was always unconstitutional. It's strange how this racist writer, Erika D. Smith, doesn't point out that weapons permits (limits) were initially implemented in order to prevent black people from carrying firearms in the first place.

“Our state will continue to lead in the fight to keep our people safe,” Gov. Gavin Newsom insisted on Thursday. Indeed, of all states, we have one of the lowest rates of dying by a bullet.

No, California is not a safe state. The rampant crime rates throughout the larger urban areas, combined with the declining enforcement and incarceration rates around the state, plus the growing proliferation of gan activity, have all but assured that the criminals have the rights, and the victims have to pay for it.

Gun crimes are up, murders are up. California is not a safe state for many residents. The gaslighting from Governor Hairgel is just astonishing. Of course, voters had their chance to recall this fool last year, and they threw it away. Of course Governor Newsom is arrogant.

But the governor and lawmakers could fail in their efforts, and the Supreme Court’s ruling could stand. And then, California could be forced to confront a reality that has long made many self-proclaimed liberals uncomfortable: Black people — potentially a lot of us — legally carrying guns in public.

Why is it that people find allowing black people to carry guns in public so scary? Notice also how ridiculous this question is, in that the NYPRA v. Bruen decision clearly extended to the right keep and bear arms to outside of the home, but that does not necessarily mean that people can carry a firearm openly.

Lest you think I’m being facetious, recall how California got started on its journey to having the toughest gun control laws in the country.

It was in 1967 that members of the Black Panther Party for Self Defense staged a protest at the state Capitol. Armed with the handguns and shotguns they normally used to protect Black neighborhoods in Oakland by “policing the police,” they announced that the time had come for “Black people to arm themselves against this terror before it is too late.” And then they went inside.

“We have a constitutional right to bear arms,” they shouted as they wandered the halls of the Capitol.

 Yes, indeed, American citizens do have a right to keep and bear arms. I also share the belief that citizens should be able to carry firearms in government buildings, not just in general public spaces. After all, the government is supposed to be of the people, for the people, by the people, is it not?

Lawmakers were so freaked out that they quickly passed the very bill the Black Panthers had been protesting — the Mulford Act, which banned the open carry of loaded weapons without a permit. Gov. Ronald Reagan signed it posthaste.

Shame on Gov. Reagan. Many conservatives today are moving away from Ronald Reagan as the biggest standard of conservatism now, and this action was one of them. Most people also forget that in 1968, Republicans captured marjorities in both chambers of the California State Legislature, and even then they were passing gun control measures. Sadly, California has a more liberal streak than most California conservatives are willing to recognize. Even the Republicans were pretty bad, and this is going back to when Republicans had a considerable toehold in state government and federal representation.

Over the next few years, the Mulford Act, which the National Rifle Assn. supported, inspired a slew of gun control laws in other states and Congress.

The National Rifle Association had been co-opted by liberal elements at this time. Conservatives would retake the NRA in the late 1970s.

Of course, these days, the NRA is very much against gun control, although its stance on Black people doesn’t seem to have changed very much.

Where's the proof for this? Nowhere, because the writer of this article is racist, simple as that, in part because she sees racism in everyone else, and thus cannot accept that she is a racist herself. 

Still, over the last few years as Americans have stocked up on guns at record rates, it is Black people — especially women — who have been buying them the most. Between 2019 and 2020 alone, there was a 58% spike, according to the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

Can you blame them? The pro-criminal, pro-defund the police policies that white and black liberals, leftists, and regressive progressives favor the most are hurting black communities the most! The George Soros district attorneys getting elected in urban areas all over the country are letting criminals commit all sorts of crimes with impunity, only to release them back onto the streets a second time, and they recidivate the most in black areas!

Black people are some of the most outspoken in support of pro-police and public safety measures. They want to be safe in their communities, and racist blacks like Erika Smith.

Emmanuel Choice, who runs a Black gun club in Los Angeles, has watched this trend play out in Southern California. Black people are not only buying guns in big numbers, but also eager to get the training to follow the law and handle them safely.

Good for them. Then they need to start voting Republican so that they can keep those rights. Let's hope they learn the history lesson quickly that Democrats are committed to keeping black people enslaved, down and out, unable to protect themselves.

“This is not a country where you want folks just randomly walking around with firearms,” said Choice, who thinks the Supreme Court’s ruling on Thursday was shortsighted and reckless. “The one thing I will say about California and their concealed carry requirements is you got to get a lot of education.”

Why shouldn't we allow people to walk around with firearms? That is not an argument. That is paranoia. I visited Arizona twice one year, and I got used to the constitutional carry provision in the state. Yes, people walk around with guns, and guess what? People are safe!

Jones said he also has seen a huge uptick in interest in his Bay Area club over the last six months, often by Black people looking for camaraderie and an alternative to the NRA.

Most who join say they bought a gun for self-defense, Choice and Jones agree. Many reach out after getting — forgive the phrase — triggered by high-profile racist incidents, including last month’s massacre of Black people at a supermarket in Buffalo, N.Y.

"Forgive the phrase ..." This is professional journalism now? For the Los Angeles Times, perhaps ...

But even before that, during the height of the racial justice protests in 2020, Black people armed themselves and formed groups for self-defense and community protection in Minneapolis, Atlanta and Detroit, among other cities.

Since when is burning down buildings, destroying black businesses, or anyone's businesses for that matter, an example of racial justice? Would someone please explain?

“Black folks are choosing more frequently and in greater numbers to be prepared,” Choice said. “There’s a concern that I haven’t seen before. And there’s a willingness to, you know, step up.”

But this isn’t 1967.

That meme that has been floating around social media for a few weeks — the one that half-jokingly suggests that Republican politicians could be prompted to support gun control if more Black people were to start packing heat?

Thing is, Black people are already packing more heat, both legally and, unfortunately, illegally. But gun control laws are still getting weaker — the rare exception being the bipartisan bill President Biden just signed.

That bipartisan bill is trash, and everyone who voted for it is trash. Shame on them!

And the other, truly weird thing is that race is now actually being used as an argument in support of loosening gun laws.

It should be used. It was racism that put in place gun control measures in the first place. I wonder how many of these black liberals realize that they are mouthing the same talking points as the racist Democrats of the late 1800s and early 1900s? They are useful idiots for a hateful cause to take away people's rights. Shame on them!

Justice Clarence Thomas, in his opinion for the Supreme Court’s 6-3 conservative majority in the New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. vs. Bruen case, waxed philosophical about how the right to bear arms was crucial for the self-protection of Black people in the South during Reconstruction.

And how in 1868, Congress “reaffirmed that freedmen were entitled to the ‘full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings concerning personal liberty [and] personal security ... including the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.’”

For some reason, Erika Smith has a problem with a black man on the highest court in the land reaffirming the natural rights of all men, including black men. Why does Erika Smith have a problem with her own community?

Meanwhile, a coalition of progressive organizations, including the Black Attorneys of Legal Aid, the Bronx Defenders and Brooklyn Defender Services, filed an amicus brief in the case, urging the Supreme Court to rule exactly as it did.

Exactly. But again, Erika Smith has a problem with black people owning guns, and therefore she thinks that those black organizations are racist, too, no doubt.

Their argument? That gun control laws in New York, like California, disproportionately harm Black and Latino people who carry guns for self-defense. They complained of clients who have been “stopped, questioned, and frisked,” and deprived of their livelihoods because they “exercised a constitutional right.”

“We represent hundreds of indigent people whom New York criminally charges for exercising their right to keep and bear arms,” they wrote. “For our clients, New York’s licensing requirement renders the Second Amendment a legal fiction.”

::

How all of this will play out remains to be seen.

It will play out with lower crime rates, that's what!

Choice, the leader of the L.A. gun club, is doubtful that more Black people in Los Angeles will start carrying guns in public, even if doing so without a permit becomes common practice in California. It would just attract too much attention.

“I don’t think I’m going to be going to Roscoe’s to sit there with a sidearm,” he said.

Besides, he added, most Black people just want to come home safe every night and so will avoid taking risks that could result in injury or death.

“No. 1 is the police. I don’t want to interact with them ever. And they never give you a break when they pull you over, so you’re always under suspicion,” Choice explained. “So, if you have something under your seat, and you want to argue with them about the new ruling from.... Please! Are you kidding me?”

But to Jones, this is part of the problem.

As a business owner in Oakland, his gun club — like Choice’s club — is full of fellow Black professionals. Doctors, even cops. Law-abiding citizens with wives and husbands and children, and deep ties to their communities.

“Still, we know that all eyes are on us,” Jones said. “And so we also know that we cannot be the group that has an accidental discharge. We cannot be the group that is handling our firearms in an unsafe manner. We have to be more in control and knowing what we’re doing more than anybody else, because all eyes are on us waiting for us to make a mistake.”

Jones sees it as part of the mission of the Black Gun Owners Assn. to challenge preconceived notions many Americans have about who should and should not be able to carry a gun. But he laments that this is the reality, even in liberal California.

Liberal California is run by racist Democrats right now. That is why there is so much suspicion about black people owning guns and protecting themselves.

“It’s, ‘We’re all for equal rights and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,’ but they are still uneasy when it comes to the idea of Black folks being legally armed,” he said.

Not me. I have no problem with anyone exercising their right to keep and bear arms.

If the Supreme Court’s ruling sticks, Jones believes more Black people could start carrying their weapons in public — particularly if the white supremacists and Christian nationalists in our midst start doing the same.

In our polarized political environment, that’s a dangerous scenario that seems increasingly likely. Just as likely as some Black people wrongly getting shot by police while legally carrying a firearm. When society is armed to the teeth, bad things are bound to happen.

Jones feels he has little choice but to be a gun owner, though.

“What we need to do,” he said, “is redefine the notion of Black people with guns and what that means.”

Final Reflection

Erika Smith is a racist. She does not believe that black people should be able to keep and bear arms. But it gets worse: the LA Times editorial board allowed this trashy article, with its hateful title, to be printed in the first place. What were they thinking? The fact is that the LA Times is a racist newspaper, simple as that.

BREAKING: Pastor Art Pawlowski Contempt Charges DROPPED (via Rebel News)

 

Pastor Artur just scored his biggest and most complete victory yet! 

The Alberta Court of Appeals ruled that the injunction against him, his arrest, his jail time, the censorship order and fines against him were illegal. 

This is HUGE news. The injunction used to put Pastor Artur Pawlowski in prison for months was deemed so vague and useless, that it should never have been used in the first place. The judge threw it out! 

Ezra Levant is LIVE right now to share the details of this monumental decision and break down the ruling. 

Tune in right here

LIVE REACTION: Pastor Artur Pawlowksi’s contempt conviction set

aside on appeal

This is a total condemnation of Jason Kenney’s persecution of Pastor Artur, the Liberal judge Adam Germain, and frankly, Judge Rooke, who wrote the illegal injunction. A repudiation of all of them — and the Health Minister and Justice Minister who obsessively pursued Pastor Artur and his brother Dawid. There must be a resignation over this — but of course there won’t be. 

Pastor Artur has been vindicated. This really is the best result we could have asked for. 

Two years of tireless legal battles got us here, and much of the credit goes to our viewers and donors who shared Pastor Artur’s story and pitched in at SaveArtur.com to help pay for his legal battles. (We still have substantial legal bills to cover, so please click here to donate.) 

There’s so much more to come, including our exclusive interviews with Pastor Artur and his incredible lawyer Sarah Miller. 

Stay tuned for more, and please join Ezra on the livestream right here

Yours truly, 

Rebel News

P.S. This incredible legal victory could not have been possible without our viewers who pitched in at SaveArtur.com to help cover his legal fees. Pastor Artur beat the odds because of your help. If you haven't had a chance to donate, please do so by clicking here.

Letter to the Editor for "The Supreme Court is Not Supreme"


In 2015, I wrote an extensive article for Townhall.com decrying the abortive, egregiously wrong decision Obergefell v. Hodges.

I received two responses, one which was very positive and thank me for giving hope in the face of this judicial travesty.

Thank you so much for this article! I have been downright depressed over this decision. Your column gives me hope.

--Arthur Webb

And another, a long-winded answer from a very emotional writer determined to justify something which neither natural law nor constitutional law could support.

Here's the extensive response from Mr. David Frazier:

Hey Arthur:

You acknowledge the role of judicial review, but then you say, "The Supreme Court is not the final authority. We the People are." To be sure, if the people wish to pass a constitutional amendment and repeal the 14th Amendment we certainly have the right and the power to attempt to do so. However, I don't see that happening. In order to be "a full member of society", the individual must be afforded all of the rights, benefits, and opportunities that are extended to all other individual members of society at large. As you know, the marriage bond extends beyond the physical relationship. It's a life-time partnership united by chemistry, i.e., love, mutual respect, and self-sacrifice towards that partner and shared goals. Accordingly, every Western culture has always extended special privileges to marital spouses--hospital visitation privileges, inheritance rights, Social Security benefits, insurance benefits, tax credits, owning homesteads and other assets as joint tenants with right of survivorship, enhanced opportunity to qualify for the adoption of minors, etc. In my own state of Mississippi, same-sex couples are specifically prohibited by statute from being eligible to adopt minor children. This is not just an equality issue. Rather, it goes to the "liberty" right of the individual to live his life "as God intended" as a fully functioning member of society.

 The fundamental error in this line of thought is that marriage is not a right. It's a sacrament, a covenant, an institution. People do not have a "right" to marry, because marriage is the life-long union of one man and one woman, i.e. the sacrament involves two people, and those two people need to consent to the covenant.

Furthermore, marriage requires witnesses and the consent of those witnesses. Most people tend to skip over the declaration for the officiating minister during the wedding ceremony, but those words matter: "Should anyone present know of any reason that this couple should not be joined in holy matrimony, speak now or forever hold your peace."

A right cannot be refused someone simply because someone objects, but marriage can face objections. Marriage is a sacrament, a covenant, not a right. 

Furthermore, the fact that David Frazier writes about "privileges" proves my point: marriage is not a right.

Last of all, marriage is not about liberty. Justice Scalia made this point rather wittingly when he wrote: "Ask any hippie."

You state that homosexuality is "unnatural". I have known several members of the LGBT community very well over my 61 years. I have a first cousin who has been with his partner for 35 years. Having known my cousin grow up over the years from a small child into adulthood, I can tell you that "being homosexual" is completely "natural" for him. As a dedicated theist, I assume that you believe that God is a perfect, loving god, responsible for the oversight of all of His creation. However, it also is undisputed in the scientific community that the "cause" of homosexuality in its "pure-congenital" form is a matter of nature. Therefore, the ethical question must be addressed--"Would a truly loving and all knowing god create in the womb a whole segment of human beings destined to be perceived as unnatural deviants, and therefore to be treated as social outcasts?" Even if you throw evolution into the mix and believe that for whatever reason, "pure-congenital" homosexuality is a biological mutation which occurs randomly in the womb, it nevertheless is a natural occurrence. Therefore, to continue to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry would be tantamount to the State denying people with "other" genetic mutations the right to wed or procreate when there is an absence of a compelling state interest. Clearly, that would be illegal and unconstitutional.

This paragraph is built on a throne of lies.

No, people are not born gay. The growing body of research confirms this. A recent study, summarized by Nature.com, reveals that following a longitudinal study of 500,000 people, they found no evidence of a gay gene.

As an attorney, sometimes one of the most difficult points to get across to nonlawyers is that there is a distinction between what is the proper or legal pursuant to the rule of law, and what is politically correct or popular. With the passage of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution the Equal Protection Clause exemplifies my point. When someone is a member of a protected group, or of a suspect classification which has been historically discriminated against, or if a fundamental constitutional right is involved where it is claimed that the right (like marriage) is being denied, then the government must demonstrate a "compelling state interest" that the needs of the state outweigh the needs/rights of the individual if the law, regulation, policy, practice, custom, or procedure is going to pass constitutional scrutiny. This is a very high standard, which the government, in only the most extreme cases is able to meet. Even if a fundamental right is not involved, the state's purpose in promoting denial of equal protection must be "rational."

The Fourteenth Amendment was not written to allow sexual deviants to marry whomever they wanted to. The Fourteenth Amendment merely asserted that the Bill of Rights extends to all citizens, and that the states were bound to the Bill of Rights, too, as well as the federal government. As a non-lawyer, I am surprised that I understand this issue better than the lawyer who wrote this letter to me.'

As for "compelling state interest," yes indeed the state has a compelling interest to retain the natural definition of marriage as such. Children need their mother and father. Stable societies need strong families in order to survive, and they cannot survive if the family is disintegrated or destroyed. Besides, marriage is a proclaimed public covenant, which requires a record of recognition before the state. Yes, the state has a compelling interest in marriage.

With all the talk about "equal protection," marriage is available to every individual, provided that they find a partner of the opposite sex who wishes to marry that individual. There is no violation of equal protection.

The "Equal Protection Clause" of the 14th Amendment provides that no state shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Following Reconstruction, the Jim Crow South, in an effort to comply with the EPC, implemented with success, the policy of "separate but equal" in order to preserve racial segregation and the appartied system of the day. In a strict application of the "original meaning" of the EPC, the U.S. Supreme Court held in the 1896 case of Plessy v. Ferguson that the EPC permits state-sponsored segregation. It was not until 1954 in the landmark case of Brown v. Bd. of Education that the Court reversed itself in a decision which many conservatives at the time considered to be a gross example of an activist liberal Warren Court. Today, Americans of all races look at Brown with a combination of shame and pride, wondering how one group of Americans could treat their fellow citizens so shamefully, but proud of an independent judiciary that is empowered to declare and set aside institutional wrongs. In fact, ever since Brown, the federal courts have taken on the mantle of protector and defender of fundamental constitutional rights for all individuals, often to protect individuals from the abuses of "state legislatures when the latter exercise their police powers" to the detriment of the fundamental rights of the minority. Why should fundamental rights like equal protection or right to privacy, be ultimately left to the whims, passions, and prejudices of state/local politicians whose concerns rarely, if ever, involve protecting the rights of the minority, when those rights may be in conflict with the agenda our beliefs of the majority who voted them into office? The judiciary is aware of human nature/frailty, political reality, and its duty to protect everyone under the law, especially from the tyranny of the majority.

Marriage is not a fundamental right, as asserted above. People are born black, but they are not born gay. Once again, this lawyer argues in circles.

We conservatives denounce the notion of "a living Constitution", and well we should! If used in a general way, it becomes totally subjective. We saw this demonstrated Wednesday in Justice Robert's majority decision in the Burwell decision. On the other hand, Justice Scalia routinely applies a "textual" approach to the interpretation of the Constitution and laws--the clear language of the text as it makes sense under the facts. His application of the "textualist" approach to interpretation is clearly demonstrated in his dissent by his stated logic regarding the government's extension of the federal tax credits under the ACA in the Burwell case. However, due to his strong and compelling sectarian convictions, Scalia abandoned the "textual" approach in the Obergafell case, and resorted to name-calling, casting aspersions, and general disrespecting of his colleagues. This attitude lends nothing to the promote the doctrine of "judicial ", or to the rule of law--not to mention to the notion of being "Christian".

There was no abandonment of Justice Scalia's originalist arguments when he dissented in Obergefell. Did he bother to read the opinion?

What members of the Christian community must remember is that our Founding Fathers created a secular democratic republic. To be sure, religion affects culture, and culture affects the law. To this end, America has always been influenced by its Judeo-Christian roots. For the most part, that has been a good thing. However, when the State seeks to impose sectarian beliefs over the electorate, without demonstrating a compelling state interest or need; or when a law, rule, or regulation denies to everyone the natural and fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, it's no contest.

The Obergafell [sic] Court decision is simply a judicial affirmation that the judiciary realizes that the American people have reached the point where we neither need, nor do we desire to have a State Lord Protector overseeing the personal lives of the nation's citizens. After all, ours is a secular democratic republic. Let's keep it that way!

The laws of nature and nature's God are clearly recognized in the Declaration of Independence AND the United States Constitution.

The Constitution speaks of "the blessings of liberty," which implies a divine origin. Article I, Section 8, Clause 10 recognizes the power of Congress to make laws commensurate with "the law of nations," which means "the laws of nature and nature's God as applied to nations," per James Wilson, who was one of only six individuals to sign the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution.

The signatory at the end of the Constitution references "The Year of Our Lord." Yes, there is a recognition of a divine authority in the United States Constitution, and it is wrong for anyone to think otherwise.

The Constitution references freedom of religion in the Bill of Rights, too.

David Frazier                                               

Classical Conservative Perspectives 

Saltwaterpappy.tumblr.com


Texas MassResistance Stops DEI Nonsense in Temple, Texas City Council

Texas MassResistance forces city to stall radical “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” indoctrination agenda for municipal employees.

A victory! Momentum is there for a full stop to it.

Conservative town would be force-fed programs from far-left pro-LGBT group – being pushed by Mayor and City Council.

July 21, 2022
ALT TEXT The front page of the local newspaper after citizens realized what was happening, took action, and forced the city to back down. (Note the paper's daily Bible verse at lower left reflects the town's Christian sentiments.)

Dozens of residents in Temple, Texas have forced the city to table its plans to impose a radical, pro-LGBT “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” (DEI) indoctrination program on all municipal employees. The city backed down following strong organized pushback by citizens. There is now momentum to derail the DEI program permanently over the next several months.

Temple is located about 40 miles north of Austin in a region with a largely conservative, Christian population.

The residents’ effort was organized by Concerned Christian Citizens (CCC), a local Texas MassResistance affiliate. CCC’s MassResistance activism in that area goes back several years. In 2017 they put on a conference on the LGBT agenda in nearby Killeen. In 2018 they organized over 50 parents in Temple to confront the Library Board over its promotion of homosexual materials for children.

Make no mistake: City DEI efforts like this are going on across America!

ALT TEXT Photo at right is from the Concerned Christian Citizens' 2017 pro-family conference.

The problems started with a tragic traffic stop in 2019

The apparent necessity for a DEI crusade in Temple originated from a tragic traffic stop on Dec. 2, 2019, where a Hispanic police officer accidentally shot and killed a black motorist. According to news reports, the officer attempted to pull over the man for speeding. A brief chase ensued. At an intersection the officer was able to block the car. The officer approached the car with his gun drawn. The man did not resist, but the officer accidentally pulled the trigger while reaching for the man’s car keys.

Several months of vocal outrage ensued against the city from the local black community. That really rattled the local politicians, especially when the George Floyd riots began across America in the spring of 2020.

A Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Commission is created

In mid-2020, the Mayor and City Council decided to pacify the situation by creating the Temple Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Commission, authorized in December, 2020. Its “official” purpose was to advise the city “on policies, programs, practices, and other matters to build greater equality within the Temple community by promoting equity and eliminating discrimination.”

At first it seemed fairly innocuous to conservatives. But this is a common tactic around the country: get a foot in the door, then proceed to impose big changes in the community.

Membership in the appointed nine-member DEI Commission was purposefully based on race, sex, and “sexual orientation” (all are black, female, or “LGBT”). Most of the members are clearly leftists. Many residents have complained that normal white males, who make up a large part of the community, were excluded.

ALT TEXT The Temple DEI Commission.

The first monthly meeting was on June 6, 2021. For a year, not much was heard from the Commission. Videos of the meetings were not easily available, and few people attended in person.

Facebook announces $800 million facility to be built in Temple – in exchange for what?

In March 2022 the parent company of Facebook announced that it would be building an $800 million data processing facility in Temple. Facebook would bring in hundreds of their employees to work there.

It’s widely believed that in negotiating for this over the previous several months, the Mayor and City Council promised Facebook that the city would work to change the culture of Temple – to create and enforce government policies and city ordinances that correspond with Facebook’s leftist San Francisco sensibilities.

It also became obvious that the Mayor and City Council intended to use the DEI Commission as a front to implement the “woke” agenda that they would create.

Bizarre outside group chosen to create radical city DEI agenda

In May 2022, several residents discovered that the DEI Commission was imminently preparing to drop a bomb, so to speak, on the city during its upcoming June 7 meeting.

It was revealed that The Nova Collective, a radical pro-LGBT organization based in Chicago, had been covertly chosen by the city to implement a comprehensive DEI plan in the city. This immediately shocked many citizens. This group is an extreme left-wing organization that promotes itself as “transforming organizations through a lens of equity.” Nova’s Facebook page has, among other things, videos promoting “Drag” crossdressing and transgenderism.

ALT TEXT This post from Nova's social media shows what they mean by "inclusion."

The City Council was using the DEI Commission as a front group for this. At its June 7 meeting the DEI Commission was going to hear a presentation about Nova from city employees, then vote to “recommend” that the city move forward with that group. From there, the City Council would vote at their meeting on July 7 to officially fund Nova and get the DEI program started.

People had a lot of questions. Why is this happening? How was this group selected? Who selected it? How much will it cost? What exactly are they going to force Temple to do?

CCC fires up local residents

Immediately upon hearing all this, Concerned Christian Citizens notified Christians across the city and quickly educated them about what was about to happen. Emails, flyers, and much more went out. Letters to the editor were published in the local newspaper.

ALT TEXT One of CCC's flyers passed out in the community. The photo is from a video on Nova's social media promoting the benefits of "Drag."

Citizens storm the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion meeting!

On June 7, Concerned Christian Citizens brought over two dozen strong-willed local residents to the DEI meeting. (Nobody came to speak in favor of contracting with Nova.)

The “citizen comment” portion was at the beginning. They didn’t hold back! Here’s some of what the Commission heard:

  • People described in detail how Critical Race Theory, a veiled foundation of DEI, is not a unifying program at all, but a classic Marxist method of dividing society into “oppressed” and “oppressors.”
  • One long-time public employee said that this was being used to discriminate against (and keep the city from hiring) people with certain religious convictions and political beliefs.
  • The dysfunctional use of the word “equity” was discussed, and how critical thinking is being discouraged in these programs.
  • A 25-year veteran teacher said that this will isolate the children in her class, and that the use of homosexual books will lead to the promotion of pedophilia.
  • A long-time pastor in Temple said that Nova’s perverse agenda will affect the entire community in a destructive way.

And more … the DEI commission got an earful that they weren’t expecting!

How the Nova group was brought in

After the public comment ended, the introduction of Nova was next on the agenda. Erin Smith, the Assistant City Manager, informed the Commission how all this had come about.

First, she said, the City Council, Mayor, and other city officials were given some “DEI 101 training” by an outside leftist firm, The MacMillan Group, for which the city paid an undisclosed amount. This apparently was to make sure that the city’s top officials were suitably indoctrinated to move forward with the next steps.

Next was the explanation of how Nova was selected. Stacy Hawkins, the city’s “director of performance excellence” started by identifying sixteen DEI consulting firms. She interviewed them and selected seven. Hawkins and Smith then jointly interviewed the seven firms, and selected Nova. They then gave a presentation on Nova to the City Council, which obviously agreed with their choice. Note that the DEI Commission was completely left out of this selection.

City’s presentation about Nova

Next was a presentation to the DEI Commission about Nova. Smith began with this rather alarming introduction:

They are a company that is devoted to transforming organizational values no matter where they are on the DEI journey. They work with and cultivate DEI leaders to build equity and achieve meaningful lasting change.

She said Nova has been used by Facebook, CenturyLink, Goodwill, Walgreens, Comcast, and many other major firms, as well as government agencies such as Los Angeles County, the city of Denver, and the Air National Guard.

ALT TEXT Introduction to Nova presentation.

Regarding the process Nova will use, it had already been worked out between Nova and the city. Erin showed the slide below, with the ominous title “Organization-wide and Leadership-level alignment.”

ALT TEXT

Smith discussed the steps in more detail. When understood in the larger context, this was also disturbing:

  1. The survey of all city employees is a tool to uncover their so-called “biases” and will be used to design woke “solutions.”
  2. The policy and process audit will include all the city’s current policies, procedures, hiring practices, etc. to measure how “diverse and inclusive” they are. The results will be used to “imbed DEI” into all of the city’s “organizational values.”
  3.  The “interviews” with top city officials and the Temple DEI Commission members will be one-on-one interviews with Nova staff. The goal is to make sure that all of them ”buy-in and support” the city’s new DEI ideology – i.e., no critical thinking is allowed.
  4. The executive leadership team alignment session appears to be a Maoist process where Nova directs the city officials to plan the ideological overhaul of Temple’s government operations.
  5. The “citizen survey” is similar to the employee survey – to uncover so-called “biases” in the community – and will lead to changes in the city’s laws and ordinances to be more in line with DEI ideology and dogma.

All of this also leads to a “Strategic Roadmap” for the city, that codifies and extends the DEI reach even further. It covers diversity training for employees and others. It will address issues of “tension” – which means how to deal with anyone who resists the DEI program. It even includes discriminating among vendors the city hires depending on their DEI commitments!

ALT TEXT

Questions from the Commission members

Next came questions from the Commission members about Nova and Erin Smith’s presentation. Two people from Nova were also there via Zoom to answer questions.

ALT TEXT The two Nova representatives answered questions via Zoom at the DEI Commission meeting.

Several questions came from one of the Commission members, a conservative woman, who asked some tough, direct questions of Smith and the two Nova staffers. A few of the liberal Commission members tried to defend the process, without much success. Here’s a synopsis of what was brought out:

  • Cost. There is no money currently budgeted for this. But it will cost the city approximately $112,000 annually over the next several years.
  • Cross-dressing and DEI. There was a big question about Nova’s Internet post that says: “Drag provides a vehicle for self-exploration that empowers us to explore different aspects of ourselves.” Nova could not explain how “drag” has anything to do with DEI.
  • What is DEI, anyway? It was acknowledged that neither the Commission nor the city could define exactly what DEI is, yet they are about to hire a firm to implement it! Maybe the city should define it first, it was suggested.
  • Disagreement equals “lack of education.” One of the Nova staffers said that the reason that people don’t accept the DEI agenda is that “the fear associated with it is due to lack of education” – and Nova provides the “education.” In other words, there is no room for any legitimate disagreement, which they term as “fear.” They also said that they consider disagreement as “resistance” that must be dealt with.
  • Not a good fit for Temple. Nova seems to think they’re already hired. But there is a big concern that the vulgar “Drag” component and the LGBT posts on Nova’s website and social media go against the morals of people in the community and are not a good fit for Temple. The core of Nova seems to challenge individuals’ identities. Maybe the city needs to do more research with different agencies.

The Commission votes to TABLE the plan

The DEI Commission was clearly affected by the residents’ outraged testimony and the unsettling responses to the tough questions after the presentation.

As the Commission was preparing to vote, several members said they weren’t comfortable with this plan. They said that at least they needed much more information.

So rather than directly antagonize the city by rejecting it, they voted to table it. In fact, the process of “getting more information” could be indefinite – even though the city wants to begin immediately.

This is a big victory! All that remains is for the residents to stop the City Council from bypassing the DEI Commission. And that process ramped up at the July 7 City Council meeting!

The City Council gets an earful despite the Mayor’s attempt to defend the project

Temple City Council meetings generally begin with a period for public comments from local citizens. But the July 7 Temple City Council meeting began with the Mayor, Tim Davis, making some statements in a dishonest attempt to mollify people about their concerns about the DEI plan.

Davis said that there would be no requirements for the citizens or the city to accept “the myriad of things that come with DEI.” He said that Nova would “possibly” survey the city of Temple employees “to get an understanding of where they stand regarding the DEI concepts.” From there the city would “possibly” put together a training program “so that city of Temple employees will be able to deliver the City of Temple’s services to any minority community.”

That is certainly different than what the two city employees – the assistant city manager and director of performance excellence – told the DEI commission.

Then came the public comments section. The residents weren’t buying any of Davis’s rhetoric, and for the next 25 minutes, one after another blasted the Mayor and City Council for this ridiculous and destructive proposal.

No action was taken at that meeting. And from what we’ve heard since then, the Mayor and City Council were a bit shell-shocked by the intense reaction from the community. There’s a strong feeling that they may find a way to back off from it.

Final thoughts

More and more local residents are realizing that there is no need for a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion program in Temple, Texas – or anywhere else. These are, in fact, Marxist concepts that were designed to cause division and antagonism between classes and races. They make conditions worse, not better.

But even in conservative Christian areas, this hideous agenda is brought in by corrupt politicians who do not care about the actual welfare of the people they were elected to serve, but seek to appear “sophisticated” to curry favor with unhinged leftists.

The pushback in Temple needs to be replicated across America.

Facebook Twitter Email Print

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!

Thursday, July 21, 2022

Pro-LGBT Antifa Groomer Pervert Kelly Stuart, aka Karen Gone Wild

 In Los Angeles County, the Antifa hate groups are losing power and legitimacy.

They are so desperate to shut down anyone who speaks the truth, that they go out of their way to shame, defame, and blame anyone else who speaks the truth.

There is one of many Antifa soyboys, frauds, losers, and 

One of the most desperate is Kelly Stuart of El Segundo, aka Karen Stuart, aka Antifa Karen:

Kelly "Karen" Stuart

She loves stalking innocent people, whether in El Segundo, where she lives, or in Torrance, or even in Santa Monica.

She has a problem with people who do not look like her. She seems to have a problem with black people and Jewish people, too.

Check out her latest deranged rant right here, when I was attending the Patriot Pride parade in Santa Monica:

              

 She was clearly not having a good day that day:


Is anyone really surprised, however?

She harasses women and children repeatedly, and she has declared war on fathers. Her hatred of Asian-Americans like Tony Moon, aka Roof Korean shows what an unrestrained bigot she is.

But the worst part is that she is obsessed with children's sexuality. That makes her a pervert, a predator, and a groomer.

She is all in on LGBT perversion and indoctrination in the public schools. Anyone who promotes such garbage in the classroom or in the public square--and especially on children--is a pervert, a predator, and a groomer.

And it only gets creepier.

She told me that she was going to follow me around everywhere. Wow! She really has issues.

For some reason, she had a hard time keeping her focus ... 


Perhaps she was hoping she could click her ruby slippers (or her mud-caked boots) and repeat: "There's no place like home."

She then announced to the crowd people in Santa Monica that she had millions of pictures of me. She is obsessed with me when she is not obsessed with children and harming them.

Of course, she did everything she could to rouse a crowd up against me, and it failed:


          

I was really impressed with how mature the rest of the people in the park were. They were calm and cool and collected, while Karen Stuart was so busy screaming about getting doxxed, when most people I am pretty sure would not want to be around her for more than five seconds.

She loves screaming about pedophilia, too, because she supports pushing such shameful themes into the public sphere. Anyone who thinks that it is OK to push LGBT anything in the classroom is in league and enabling the abuse of children, and there is no other way to put it. 

Then she started ranting about how she has two kids. I feel sorry for those children. Karen Stuart should not be around children--or adults, or polite society in general.

And why?

Kelly Stuart is OK with students being abused by perverted teachers in the classroom. Of course, because she cannot deny this, she insists on projecting onto everyone else that they are predators, perverts, pedophiles, etc. Antifa is a hate group that targets kids, that wants to pollute children's minds and harm their bodies. And that pretty much sums up Kelly "Karen" Stuart.

She is a menace to children and adults alike, and thankfully more patriots are standing up to her disgusting, vile, grooming hatred.

In fact, I am happy to share that more people have shared my efforts to expose Antifa Groomers like Kelly Stuart, or should I write "Aunt Tifa":
@theromandrake9 Arthur doesn’t have time for AUNT TIFA doxers who post pictures on the internet of Trump supporters. About20 of them came all to take our pictures in Santa Monica this weekend. #makeamericagreatagain #truml2024 ♬ original sound - Roman Drake

Oh, and it gets better.

Apparently, my effective confrontation with this and other Antifa Groomers went viral elsewhere:


 

The way to stand up to perverse hate like Antifa Groomers is to:

1. Confront them

2. Tell the truth about them

3. Expose them

What really disturbs me is that this creepy old lady was determined to follow me around. Did she really think that she was going to make a difference letting people find out what a pervert she is?


Yikes! Not a good look, Granny Karen, er Kelly, er Groomer!



Dear LGBT Allies: You Actually Hate Gay People. Why?

For a long time, I have commented that homosexuality and transgenderism are harmful behaviors and destructive ideologies which prop them up and foist them onto others.

Now is the time to confront the men and women who insist on calling themselves allies of the so-called LGBT community.

And for the the record, even openly gay activist Douglas Murray has admitted that there is no such thing as the "LGBT Community":

             
 
So, I need to ask all of you so-called LGBT Allies, why do you hate people who struggle with homosexuality and transgenderism?

Why do you want to normalize behaviors that are not normal, that are borne out of trauma, neglect, abuse, and molestation?

Tell me: if you saw someone on the street who was homeless because of drug addiction, would you give that person more drugs? Would you give that person more potent controlled substances?

If you saw someone on the street, homeless because of mental illness or because they ended up down on their luck, or they were fleeing domestic abuse, would you simply give them a jacket and hope that their life would go well on the street? Of course not! You would want to help these individuals get off the street and get back on their feet!

So, the next question comes up: why are you enabling people who have sexual desire for the same sex, or who think that they should be a sex different from the one they were born with?

Check out these testimonies from homosexuals at a gay bar:


Born Gay Hoax from highblur on Vimeo.

Every single man in the video above acknowledges that they were not "born that way." Why would you enable them to stay in bondage to a lie?

I cannot tell you how many stories I have heard from people who are actively homosexual or who used to be, that they suffered unparalleled abuse as children. Why would you want to normalize trauma? Why would you want to make it easier for people who harmed others to get away with their abuse, by celebrating the consequences of those crimes?

In short, why do you hate gay people? Why do you hate people in bondage to same-sex temptations and sex dysphoria? Why are you so hateful?