lifesitenews--2020-12-11--Democrat Rep. Tulsi Gabbard wants to ban men from competing in women’s sports

WASHINGTON , D.C. , December 11 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — Rep. Tulsi Gabbard ( D-HI ) has introduced a bill to Congress that would ban men pretending to be women from competing in women ’ s sports , even if the state recognizes their so-called “ transgender ” status .
Along with her colleague Rep. Markwayne Mullin ( R-OK ) , Gabbard drafted the “ Protect Women ’ s Sports Act of 2020 ” to stop men from participating in women ’ s sports and to strengthen Title IX .
A press release stated : Since its creation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ various challenges , often resulting in nuanced or situational solutions to the circumstances .
This has included considering the fairness of an individual of one sex to play on a team designated for another sex when no such team is available to the individual , such as women ’ s field hockey or men ’ s football .
This bill protects the sex-based intention of Title IX protections by reaffirming the biological sex-based distinctions between men and women in athletics .
Following the release of the statement , Gabbard has been branded a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suggesting that there is a biological distinction between men and women , and that women ’ s sports be protected by this legislation : Gabbard doubled down , saying , “ Our legislation protects Title IX ’ s original intent , which was based on the general biological distinction between men and women athletes based on sex .
It is critical that the legacy of Title IX continues to ensure women and girls in sports have the opportunity to compete and excel on a level playing field.
” “ Title IX is being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Title IX , creating uncertainty , undue hardship and lost opportunities for female athletes , ” Gabbard continued .
Mullin echoed Gabbard ’ s words , saying , “ Title IX was designed to give women and girls an equal chance to succeed , including in sports.
” “ Allowing biological males to compete in women ’ s sports diminishes that equality and takes away from the original intent of Title IX , ” he said , adding that as “ the father of three girls involved in athletics , I want them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ level playing field.
” The bill will likely face some stiff opposition if Joe Biden ascends to the presidency .
The former vice president has thrown his full support behind a wide array of transgender-favorable proposals , including the proposal to reverse the Trump administration ’ s guidance to public schools on denying members of each gender from joining sports teams of the opposite sex .
“ On his first day in office , Biden will reinstate the Obama-Biden guidance revoked by the Trump-Pence Administration , which will restore transgender students ’ access @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Biden has also said that he will “ immediately reverse the discriminatory actions of the Trump-Pence Administration ” against people suffering from gender dysphoria “ during his first 100 days as President ” through a proposal known as the “ Equality Act.
” The passing of the act is to be made a “ top legislative priority.
” Gabbard , who supports the Supreme Court ’ s 1973 pro-abortion ruling Roe v. Wade , also recently introduced a pro-life “ born-alive ” bill in the House , which aims to protect babies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The bill is set up to amend Title 18 of the United States Code “ to ensure a health care practitioner exercises the proper degree of care in the case of a child who survives an abortion or attempted abortion .
”

‘Our legislation protects Title IX’s original intent, which was based on the general biological distinction between men and women athletes based on sex,’ Gabbard said.
WASHINGTON, D.C., December 11, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) has introduced a bill to Congress that would ban men pretending to be women from competing in women’s sports, even if the state recognizes their so-called “transgender” status.
Along with her colleague Rep. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK), Gabbard drafted the “Protect Women’s Sports Act of 2020” to stop men from participating in women’s sports and to strengthen Title IX. A press release stated:
Since its creation, Title IX has been confronted by various challenges, often resulting in nuanced or situational solutions to the circumstances. This has included considering the fairness of an individual of one sex to play on a team designated for another sex when no such team is available to the individual, such as women’s field hockey or men’s football. This bill protects the sex-based intention of Title IX protections by reaffirming the biological sex-based distinctions between men and women in athletics.
Following the release of the statement, Gabbard has been branded a transphobe and even “scum” for suggesting that there is a biological distinction between men and women, and that women’s sports be protected by this legislation:
Gabbard doubled down, saying, “Our legislation protects Title IX’s original intent, which was based on the general biological distinction between men and women athletes based on sex. It is critical that the legacy of Title IX continues to ensure women and girls in sports have the opportunity to compete and excel on a level playing field.”
“Title IX is being weakened by some states who are misinterpreting Title IX, creating uncertainty, undue hardship and lost opportunities for female athletes,” Gabbard continued.
Mullin echoed Gabbard’s words, saying, “Title IX was designed to give women and girls an equal chance to succeed, including in sports.”
“Allowing biological males to compete in women’s sports diminishes that equality and takes away from the original intent of Title IX,” he said, adding that as “the father of three girls involved in athletics, I want them to be able to compete on a level playing field.”
The bill will likely face some stiff opposition if Joe Biden ascends to the presidency. The former vice president has thrown his full support behind a wide array of transgender-favorable proposals, including the proposal to reverse the Trump administration’s guidance to public schools on denying members of each gender from joining sports teams of the opposite sex.
“On his first day in office, Biden will reinstate the Obama-Biden guidance revoked by the Trump-Pence Administration, which will restore transgender students’ access to sports,” ABC News reported.
— Article continues below Petition — PETITION: Biological males don't belong in girls' sports - #IStandWithSelina Show Petition Text 415482 have signed the petition. Let's get to 450000 ! Thank you for signing this petition! Add your signature: Show Petition Text Country... State... Sign this Petition UPDATE (1/29/21) - On day one of the new administration, Biden signed an Executive Order dismantling girls sports, and allowing biological boys back into girls locker-rooms. The order declares: "Children should be able to learn without worrying about whether they will be denied access to the rest room, the locker room, or school sports. . . . All persons should receive equal treatment under the law, no matter their gender identity or sexual orientation." This affront to reason effectively signals an end to girls' and women's sports, and diminishes their effort to compete on a level playing field. Though this petition has already been delivered once, we will deliver new signatures to the US Dept of Education when restrictions permit, in honor of Selina Soule, who filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) in 2019. UPDATE (5/29/20) - US Dep’t of Education: Letting males compete in girls’ sports violates female athletes’ civil rights https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/us-dept-of-education-letting-trans-boys-compete-in-girls-sports-violates-female-athletes-civil-rights UPDATE (2/13/20) - Selina Soule and two other Connecticut high school girl track athletes, Alanna Smith and Chelsea Mitchell, have sued the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference (CIAC) to stop boys who claim to be girls from competing in their sport. Soule is the same high school girl who, last year, filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR). That complaint is still ongoing, as the OCR has not yet handed down its guidance ruling. This also explains why this petition is still ongoing. Please SIGN and SHARE. But, with another track season soon coming to an end, the girls' attorneys have asked the Court for an injunction that would stop the CIAC from implementing its current policy while the lawsuit proceeds. Soule, Smith, and Mitchell will soon run in regional and state meets, competing for state championships. This year, they would like to have the opportunity to win, fair and square. Please learn more about the latest news concerning this case, here: https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/three-girls-sue-state-to-stop-boys-who-say-theyre-girls-from-competing-in-their-sport Then, please SIGN this petition. Thank you! ________________________________________________________________________ Selina Soule is a female athlete who now must compete against biological males because of Connecticut's policy requiring that boys who identify as girls be admitted into girls' sports competitions. But, when boys compete in girls' sports, they win because they have a natural advantage. It's scientifically proven, and it's also common sense. This crushes the motivation of the biological girls who have worked hard to compete on a level playing field, only to enter into competitions which they can never win, despite all of their efforts. It also puts girls into harm's way in contact sports, AND it deprives female athletes of their right to fairly compete for college scholarships and other accolades. This is wrong! And, that's why this URGENT petition supports Selina and all the other female athletes out there, who have put in the hours on the track or on the court. Please SIGN this common sense petition supporting Selina Soule's complaint to the Dept of Education's Office for Civil Rights, against Connecticut's discriminatory policy. FOR MORE INFORMATION: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/high-school-girl-files-federal-complaint-for-having-to-race-boys https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/boys-claiming-to-be-girls-are-dominating-girls-sports-these-girls-are-fighting-back https://www.middletownpress.com/middletown/article/Federal-agency-to-investigate-CT-transgender-high-14300744.php#photo-18068164 *Above photo credit: Michael Goodin / The Daily Signal Hide Petition Text Sign this Petition
Biden has also said that he will “immediately reverse the discriminatory actions of the Trump-Pence Administration” against people suffering from gender dysphoria “during his first 100 days as President” through a proposal known as the “Equality Act.” The passing of the act is to be made a “top legislative priority.”
Gabbard, who supports the Supreme Court’s 1973 pro-abortion ruling Roe v. Wade, also recently introduced a pro-life “born-alive” bill in the House, which aims to protect babies born after a failed abortion attempt. The bill is set up to amend Title 18 of the United States Code “to ensure a health care practitioner exercises the proper degree of care in the case of a child who survives an abortion or attempted abortion.”
Share


lifesitenews--2020-12-11--Finance minister wants to ‘unleash’ Canadians’ savings as ‘pre-loaded stimulus’ to economy

OTTAWA , Ontario , December 10 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — In a troubling statement that sparked an immediate backlash from a prominent Conservative Party ( CPC ) MP , Canada ’ s Finance Minister said the government needs to “ find ways ” to “ unleash ” people ’ s hard-earned savings to stimulate the Canadian economy .
“ Some Canadian households , it tends to be the better-off households , do have quite a lot of money that they ’ ve saved because there hasn ’ t been that much to do in the pandemic .
Certainly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ money could go towards driving our recovery , ” said Canada ’ s Deputy Prime Minister , Finance Minister , and Liberal Party MP Chrystia Freeland during a Bloomberg interview last week .
“ And I want to make an offer now to all of your listeners , if people have ideas on how the government can act to help unlock that pre-loaded stimulus , I am very , very interested , ” Freeland quipped in reference to a recent CIBC report about the status of Canadians savings .
The now-viral interview clip @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Finance and MP Pierre Poilievre .
He tweeted that Freeland ’ s words should encourage Canadians to “ lock away ” their hard-earned savings and that Canada ’ s Prime Minister , Justin Trudeau , has no business touching people ’ s cash .
“ Folks , lock away your money .
Liberals are worried you ’ re saving too much .
They want ‘ ideas on how the government can act to unlock ’ those savings .
No , Trudeau , people ’ s savings don ’ t belong to you .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ them , ” wrote Poilievre on Twitter with a link to the Bloomberg video clip of Freeland ’ s remarks .
One Twitter user replied in agreement to Poilievre ’ s posting of the Bloomberg video clip by saying , “ That ’ s one hell of an argument for Canadians to buy # BITCOIN.
” Another user named replied in support of Poilievre ’ s tweet by saying , “ As a person who was born and raised in a communist country , sadly I must say , you should be afraid… @ @ @ @ @ @ @ !
” In her Bloomberg interview , Freeland added that her government needs to “ find ways ” to “ unleash ” Canadians savings to support the hospitality sector of the economy .
“ We need to find ways to unleash savings into the parts of the economy that need support like tourism , hospitality and domestic services , ” said Freeland .
Despite Freeland suggesting that the government can “ help ” Canadians unlock their own money to help the economy , government-imposed lockdowns have been devastating to the economy in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ small to medium size businesses .
Canada ’ s unemployment rate jumped dramatically to 13.5 percent in the spring following the first set of lockdowns , and despite recovering somewhat , it will likely rise again as a result of most provinces locking down a second time .
There are indicators that Canadians are struggling to simply stay afloat and pay their basic bills — a reality flying in the face of Freeland ’ s remarks that Canadians have large amounts of cash sitting in their bank accounts .
The affordability index by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 5 Canadians ’ personal finances took a nosedive during the first round of lockdowns .
Many Canadians have been struggling financially even before the pandemic hit , with a January MNP report stating that almost half , or 46 percent , are $ 200 or less away from insolvency .
The Trudeau government recently released its fall economic statement which shows that the national debt could hit nearly $ 1.4 trillion by the spring of 2021 .
As part of their economic statement , the Liberal government has promised billions of dollars @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to help the economy recover from COVID-19 , again in spite of the fact it was the government itself , es well as provincial and local governments , that have locked down the economy .
Trudeau has confirmed that he endorses the post-COVID-19 global “ Great Reset ” which has been promoted by Klaus Schwab of the World Economic Forum .
“ This pandemic has provided an opportunity for a reset .
This is our chance to accelerate our pre-pandemic efforts to reimagine economic systems that actually address global challenges like extreme poverty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ declared Trudeau recently .
As for Freeland , she took over as Finance Minister from Bill Morneau in August , who resigned amid his on-going involvement with the WE Charity scandal and alleged disagreements with his former boss , Trudeau .
At the time , Campaign Life Coalition ( CLC ) political operations director Jack Fonseca told LifeSiteNews that although they were happy to see Morneau go due to his anti-life voting record , Freeland as his replacement was “ deplorable ” for her anti-life voting record .
“ She voted in favour @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as euthanasia .
She voted against conscience rights for doctors , and in favour of legalizing prostitution .
Freeland is as radical a leftist as they come , and we hope she ’ ll be washed away in the next election , ” Fonseca told LifeSiteNews .

Government-imposed lockdowns have been devastating to the economy in the first place, and have particularly hit small to medium size businesses.
OTTAWA, Ontario, December 10, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — In a troubling statement that sparked an immediate backlash from a prominent Conservative Party (CPC) MP, Canada’s Finance Minister said the government needs to “find ways” to “unleash” people’s hard-earned savings to stimulate the Canadian economy.
“Some Canadian households, it tends to be the better-off households, do have quite a lot of money that they’ve saved because there hasn’t been that much to do in the pandemic. Certainly, it would be great if that money could go towards driving our recovery,” said Canada’s Deputy Prime Minister, Finance Minister, and Liberal Party MP Chrystia Freeland during a Bloomberg interview last week.
“And I want to make an offer now to all of your listeners, if people have ideas on how the government can act to help unlock that pre-loaded stimulus, I am very, very interested,” Freeland quipped in reference to a recent CIBC report about the status of Canadians savings.
The now-viral interview clip was shared by CPC Shadow Minister of Finance and MP Pierre Poilievre. He tweeted that Freeland’s words should encourage Canadians to “lock away” their hard-earned savings and that Canada’s Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, has no business touching people’s cash.
“Folks, lock away your money. Liberals are worried you’re saving too much. They want ‘ideas on how the government can act to unlock’ those savings. No, Trudeau, people’s savings don’t belong to you. Keep your hands where we can see them,” wrote Poilievre on Twitter with a link to the Bloomberg video clip of Freeland’s remarks.
Folks, lock away your money. Liberals are worried you're saving too much. They want “ideas on how the government can act to unlock” those savings. No, Trudeau, people's savings don't belong to you. Keep your hands where we can see them. pic.twitter.com/p0bfokpibl — pierrepoilievre (@PierrePoilievre) December 5, 2020
One Twitter user replied in agreement to Poilievre’s posting of the Bloomberg video clip by saying, “That’s one hell of an argument for Canadians to buy #BITCOIN.”
Another user named replied in support of Poilievre’s tweet by saying, “As a person who was born and raised in a communist country, sadly I must say, you should be afraid… All the symptoms of totalitarianism are here!”
In her Bloomberg interview, Freeland added that her government needs to “find ways” to “unleash” Canadians savings to support the hospitality sector of the economy.
— Article continues below Petition — PETITION: No to government and corporate penalties for refusing COVID-19 vaccine Show Petition Text 103183 have signed the petition. Let's get to 125000 ! Thank you for signing this petition! Add your signature: Show Petition Text Country... State... Sign this Petition **Photo credit: Shutterstock.com Mainstream media sources are promoting offensive suggestions by some doctors that people who refuse a vaccine for COVID-19 should be "punished" by the government and by business - effectively coercing them into taking the vaccine. One group of doctors writing in 'USA Today' suggested that the government impose special taxes (i.e., fines) on people who refuse the vaccination and that business simply refuse to serve them. [see story below]
Another doctor writing in an online publication called 'The Conversation' shamelessly suggested that people who refuse a vaccine should be given a psychoactive drug to induce compliance. [see story below] But, these suggestions are plain political posturing, and have nothing to do with science or with the recent trends of the disease. And, in case they haven't noticed, we live in a democracy not a medical dictatorship! Please SIGN this urgent petition which asks policy-makers and business people, at all levels, to pledge to respect the rights of those who, in good conscience, decide not to vaccinate themselves or their children. People should not have to live in fear of governmental or corporate retribution for refusing a vaccine which is being rushed to market by Big Pharma and their fellow-travelers in NGOs, like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. It would be intolerable and immoral for the government or business to coerce someone, and their family, to take a COVID vaccine against their will to avoid a fine, or just so they can do their weekly grocery shopping. Medical freedom must be respected in principle and also in practice. So, it is now time that our policy-makers listen to all voices involved in this vital conversation, and start to represent those who will not tolerate being punished for refusing a vaccine. Simply put, legislatures must begin to act as legislatures again. Questions must be asked. Hearings and investigations must be held. And, the legislatures of each state and country must return to the business of representing the people who voted for them, assuming their rightful place as the originator of legislation. We can no longer accept the dictates of executive branches without question, especially now that, statistically speaking, the initial brunt of the COVID crisis has passed. Neither can we accept the dictates of doctors who seem detached from reality and from science, and who only seem to be attached to the idea of promoting ideas which contribute to the agrandizement of power and control of political interests, and wealth of those who stand to make a lot of money from the sale of a COVID vaccine. Please SIGN this urgent petition which asks government and business leaders to pledge to respect the rights of those who refuse a COVID vaccine, and not seek to punish them for doing so. FOR MORE INFORMATION: 'Doctors lay out plan to ‘punish’ people who refuse coronavirus vaccine: ‘There is no alternative’' - https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/doctors-lay-out-plan-to-punish-people-who-refuse-coronavirus-vaccine-there-is-no-alternative 'US professor: ‘Psychoactive pill’ should be covertly administered to ensure lockdown compliance' - https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/us-professor-ensure-lockdown-compliance-by-drugging-dissenters-with-psychoactive-pill Hide Petition Text Sign this Petition
“We need to find ways to unleash savings into the parts of the economy that need support like tourism, hospitality and domestic services,” said Freeland.
Despite Freeland suggesting that the government can “help” Canadians unlock their own money to help the economy, government-imposed lockdowns have been devastating to the economy in the first place, and have particularly hit small to medium size businesses.
Canada’s unemployment rate jumped dramatically to 13.5 percent in the spring following the first set of lockdowns, and despite recovering somewhat, it will likely rise again as a result of most provinces locking down a second time.
There are indicators that Canadians are struggling to simply stay afloat and pay their basic bills — a reality flying in the face of Freeland’s remarks that Canadians have large amounts of cash sitting in their bank accounts.
The affordability index by BDO Canada Ltd. has shown that 2 in 5 Canadians’ personal finances took a nosedive during the first round of lockdowns.
Many Canadians have been struggling financially even before the pandemic hit, with a January MNP report stating that almost half, or 46 percent, are $200 or less away from insolvency.
The Trudeau government recently released its fall economic statement which shows that the national debt could hit nearly $1.4 trillion by the spring of 2021.
As part of their economic statement, the Liberal government has promised billions of dollars in what they say is an effort to help the economy recover from COVID-19, again in spite of the fact it was the government itself, es well as provincial and local governments, that have locked down the economy.
Trudeau has confirmed that he endorses the post-COVID-19 global “Great Reset” which has been promoted by Klaus Schwab of the World Economic Forum.
“This pandemic has provided an opportunity for a reset. This is our chance to accelerate our pre-pandemic efforts to reimagine economic systems that actually address global challenges like extreme poverty, inequality and climate change,” declared Trudeau recently.
As for Freeland, she took over as Finance Minister from Bill Morneau in August, who resigned amid his on-going involvement with the WE Charity scandal and alleged disagreements with his former boss, Trudeau.
At the time, Campaign Life Coalition (CLC) political operations director Jack Fonseca told LifeSiteNews that although they were happy to see Morneau go due to his anti-life voting record, Freeland as his replacement was “deplorable” for her anti-life voting record.
“She voted in favour of legalizing the form of homicide known as euthanasia. She voted against conscience rights for doctors, and in favour of legalizing prostitution. Freeland is as radical a leftist as they come, and we hope she’ll be washed away in the next election,” Fonseca told LifeSiteNews.
For respectful communications, please contact:
Finance Minister of Canada – Chrystia Freeland
Ottawa, Ontario,
Canada
K1A 0A6
Telephone: 613-992-5234
Fax: 613-996-9607
Email: [email protected]
Member of Parliament Pierre Poilievre – Conservative Shadow Minister of Finance
Ottawa, Ontario,
Canada
K1A 0A6
Telephone: 613-992-2772
Fax: 613-992-1209
Email: [email protected]
Share


lifesitenews--2020-12-11--WATCH LIVE: Arizona Senate hearing on election integrity

ARIZONA , December 11 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – The Arizona Senate Judiciary Committee is holding a hearing on @ @ @ @ @ a.m. Eastern time .
Watch it live here .
LifeSiteNews is facing increasing censorship .
@ @ @ @ @ to receive emails when we add to our video library .

The latest state legislature hearing on voter fraud the mainstream media won't tell you about.
ARIZONA, December 11, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – The Arizona Senate Judiciary Committee is holding a hearing on election integrity today at 11:00 a.m. Eastern time. Watch it live here.
LifeSite is streaming a Wisconsin hearing HERE.
LifeSiteNews is facing increasing censorship. Click HERE to sign up to receive emails when we add to our video library.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-12-11--Explaining the huge significance of Texas’s vote fraud case

LifeSiteNews is facing increasing censorship .
Click HERE to sign up to receive emails when we add to our video library .
December 11 , 2020 ( American Thinker ) — On Tuesday , the State of Texas filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court against Georgia , Michigan , Pennsylvania , and Wisconsin .
The suit alleged that because these states conducted elections that violated their own laws , they tainted the integrity of the vote , something that damaged not only their own citizens , but also the citizens in other states .
Because this is an intelligent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surprise that eight other states have already joined the litigation .
To date , we 've seen a multiplicity of lawsuits filed , although , significantly , none has come before the Supreme Court for substantive review .
Courts in various states , however , have proven resistant to these suits .
As I noted here , partisan judges are issuing what I will politely call `` garbage '' decisions .
Judges are refusing to consider the evidence , with only one Nevada court attempting to do so .
Instead , they make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ courts were to consider Trump 's claims , they would run the risk of `` disenfranchising '' Biden voters .
That is a singularly dishonest argument .
Disenfranchisement occurs when people are deprived of the right to vote .
No one was deprived here .
What Trump is doing , with his request that every legal vote count , is asking that courts invalidate illegal votes .
You can not disenfranchise an illegal voter , whether that `` voter '' is dead , a computer algorithm , or a form filled out in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know what happens when you invalidate fraudulent votes and count only legal votes ?
You identify the winner and loser in an election , as has happened in America since 1792 .
Those who voted for the losing candidate were not disenfranchised ; they just voted for the losing candidate .
The Texas lawsuit argues that the four defendant states changed their mail-in voting rules without going through the constitutional , legislative process .
By doing so , they assured illegal mail-in votes , meaning that all votes under the new `` rules @ @ @ @ @ @ @ These invalid votes override the will of those who legitimately cast votes , tainting the national election .
After all , we are a federation of states .
While the individual states control their own election rules , each state is affected by the election outcomes in the other states .
Texas attorney general Ken Paxton 's statement about the lawsuit perfectly sums up the correct legal standard : Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton today filed a lawsuit against Georgia , Michigan , Pennsylvania and Wisconsin in the United States Supreme Court .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to justify ignoring federal and state election laws and unlawfully enacting last-minute changes , thus skewing the results of the 2020 General Election .
The battleground states flooded their people with unlawful ballot applications and ballots while ignoring statutory requirements as to how they were received , evaluated and counted .
`` Trust in the integrity of our election processes is sacrosanct and binds our citizenry and the States in this Union together .
Georgia , Michigan , Pennsylvania and Wisconsin destroyed that trust and compromised the security and integrity of the 2020 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by their duly elected legislatures , thereby violating the Constitution .
By ignoring both state and federal law , these states have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens ' vote , but of Texas and every other state that held lawful elections , '' said Attorney General Paxton .
`` Their failure to abide by the rule of law casts a dark shadow of doubt over the outcome of the entire election .
We now ask that the Supreme Court step in to correct this egregious error . ''
Elections @ @ @ @ @ @ @ constitutional standards .
For presidential elections , each state must appoint its electors to the electoral college in a manner that complies with the Constitution .
The Electors Clause requirement that only state legislatures may set the rules governing the appointment of electors and elections and can not be delegated to local officials .
The majority of the rushed decisions , made by local officials , were not approved by the state legislatures , thereby circumventing the Constitution .
Because this is a suit between two states , the Supreme Court has original @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pure case , which does not require looking at the reams of evidence demonstrating fraud .
If you want a good overview about why the case is really huge , Jay Sekulow , one of America 's most brilliant constitutional lawyers , and his team at the American Center for Law and Justice explain the procedure and the substance : No wonder it appears that eight other states have joined the case ( Arkansas , Florida , Louisiana , Mississippi , Alabama , Kentucky , , and South Carolina ) .
The only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whether the Supreme Court justices are willing to show the necessary courage to ensure that the will of the people , and not the will of the corruptocrats , prevails in this election .
UPDATE : As of Wednesday afternoon , the most current list of states that have signed on to the Texas litigation says that , in addition to Missouri ( represented by state AG Eric Schmitt ) , 16 other states have joined the case : Published with permission from the American Thinker .

LifeSiteNews is facing increasing censorship. Click HERE to sign up to receive emails when we add to our video library.
December 11, 2020 (American Thinker) — On Tuesday, the State of Texas filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court against Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. The suit alleged that because these states conducted elections that violated their own laws, they tainted the integrity of the vote, something that damaged not only their own citizens, but also the citizens in other states. Because this is an intelligent, powerful case, it's no surprise that eight other states have already joined the litigation.
To date, we've seen a multiplicity of lawsuits filed, although, significantly, none has come before the Supreme Court for substantive review. Courts in various states, however, have proven resistant to these suits.
As I noted here, partisan judges are issuing what I will politely call “garbage” decisions. Judges are refusing to consider the evidence, with only one Nevada court attempting to do so. Instead, they make variations of the argument that, if courts were to consider Trump's claims, they would run the risk of “disenfranchising” Biden voters.
— Article continues below Petition — Stand with Texas in Supreme Court voter fraud challenge Show Petition Text 1464 have signed the petition. Let's get to 2500 ! Thank you for signing this petition! Add your signature: Show Petition Text Country... State... Sign this Petition PETITION UPDATE (12/12/2020) - In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court of the United States declined to hear the case filed by the state of Texas. PETITION UPDATE (12/11/2020) - 6 states have formally joined Texas in its Supreme Court suit against Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—four battleground states who ran illegal and unconstitutional elections. Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Utah have formally joined Texas and agree that the defendant states exploited the COVID-19 pandemic to justify unlawfully enacting last-minute changes and ignoring both federal and state election laws, thus skewing the results of the 2020 General Election. While Missouri and 16 other states filed an amicus brief with the Court supporting Texas, 20 other states plus the District of Columbia signed an amicus brief supporting the 4 defendant states. Please SIGN this petition and STAND with Texas, as the state seeks justice in the 2020 general election for all citizens of the United States. '6 states formally join Texas in lawsuit defending the security of the 2020 election' - https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/6-states-formally-join-texas-in-lawsuit-defending-the-security-of-the-2020-election ____________________________________________________________________ The state of Texas has filed suit against Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Georgia in the Supreme Court over changes which those states made to their election rules, claiming they violated the U.S. Constitution in the process. Here is the central part of the argument: if Texas were to allow possible voter fraud to go unchecked in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Georgia, it would be akin to committing fraud upon the people of Texas, who cast their ballots within the framework of the law. Indeed, this would apply equally to all citizens who voted within the framework of the law across the United States! Thankfully, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is stepping up to vindicate the right of all Texans - and, all Americans - to have every legal vote be counted. But, the Supreme Court has only until Thursday morning to either accept or decline hearing the case. Please SIGN and SHARE this urgent petition, now. The main claim that Texas makes is that Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Georgia violated the Electoral Clause of the U.S. Constitution by changing their election rules on mail-in ballots by executive or judicial action, rather than by action from the legislature. But, America is a land of laws, and most people play by the rules. Citizens also want our state executives and judiciaries to play by the rules. Bypassing state legislatures, even during a pandemic, cannot be justifiable as it goes against our system of checks and balances, and, ultimately, as it is the legislatures who have the power, vested by the people, to make determinations about state electoral regulations. Texas also alleges that the defendant-states further violated the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clause by applying different election rules for different parts of their respective states, meaning that election rules were not the same for every citizen of each state. Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because in disputes between states, the Supreme Court is the court of "first impression." But, the Court only has a limited window to accept or decline hearing the case. Please SIGN and SHARE this important petition today. FOR MORE INFORMATION: '‘This is the big one’, says Trump of Texas SCOTUS election challenge' - https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/this-is-the-big-one-says-trump-of-texas-scotus-election-challenge 'Texas asks Supreme Court to toss 4 states’ election results over illegal mail ballots' - https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/texas-asks-supreme-court-to-toss-4-states-election-results-over-illegal-mail-ballots Hide Petition Text Sign this Petition
That is a singularly dishonest argument. Disenfranchisement occurs when people are deprived of the right to vote. No one was deprived here. What Trump is doing, with his request that every legal vote count, is asking that courts invalidate illegal votes. You cannot disenfranchise an illegal voter, whether that “voter” is dead, a computer algorithm, or a form filled out in a Chinese print shop.
Do you know what happens when you invalidate fraudulent votes and count only legal votes? You identify the winner and loser in an election, as has happened in America since 1792. Those who voted for the losing candidate were not disenfranchised; they just voted for the losing candidate.
The Texas lawsuit argues that the four defendant states changed their mail-in voting rules without going through the constitutional, legislative process. By doing so, they assured illegal mail-in votes, meaning that all votes under the new “rules” were illegal from the get-go. These invalid votes override the will of those who legitimately cast votes, tainting the national election.
After all, we are a federation of states. While the individual states control their own election rules, each state is affected by the election outcomes in the other states. Texas attorney general Ken Paxton's statement about the lawsuit perfectly sums up the correct legal standard:
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton today filed a lawsuit against Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin in the United States Supreme Court. The four states exploited the COVID-19 pandemic to justify ignoring federal and state election laws and unlawfully enacting last-minute changes, thus skewing the results of the 2020 General Election. The battleground states flooded their people with unlawful ballot applications and ballots while ignoring statutory requirements as to how they were received, evaluated and counted. “Trust in the integrity of our election processes is sacrosanct and binds our citizenry and the States in this Union together. Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin destroyed that trust and compromised the security and integrity of the 2020 election. The states violated statutes enacted by their duly elected legislatures, thereby violating the Constitution. By ignoring both state and federal law, these states have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens' vote, but of Texas and every other state that held lawful elections,” said Attorney General Paxton. “Their failure to abide by the rule of law casts a dark shadow of doubt over the outcome of the entire election. We now ask that the Supreme Court step in to correct this egregious error.” Elections for federal office must comport with federal constitutional standards. For presidential elections, each state must appoint its electors to the electoral college in a manner that complies with the Constitution. The Electors Clause requirement that only state legislatures may set the rules governing the appointment of electors and elections and cannot be delegated to local officials. The majority of the rushed decisions, made by local officials, were not approved by the state legislatures, thereby circumventing the Constitution.
Because this is a suit between two states, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction. It's also a factually pure case, which does not require looking at the reams of evidence demonstrating fraud.
If you want a good overview about why the case is really huge, Jay Sekulow, one of America's most brilliant constitutional lawyers, and his team at the American Center for Law and Justice explain the procedure and the substance:
(Here's more about the role the House of Representatives could play. Also, you can see the lawsuit here.)
No wonder it appears that eight other states have joined the case (Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Kentucky, North Carolina , and South Carolina). The only thing that remains to be seen is whether the Supreme Court justices are willing to show the necessary courage to ensure that the will of the people, and not the will of the corruptocrats, prevails in this election.
UPDATE: As of Wednesday afternoon, the most current list of states that have signed on to the Texas litigation says that, in addition to Missouri (represented by state AG Eric Schmitt), 16 other states have joined the case:
Schmitt's brief was joined by 16 other states: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia.
Published with permission from the American Thinker.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-12-11--Google, YouTube announce blatant censorship of any mention of election fraud

LifeSiteNews is facing increasing censorship .
Click HERE to sign up to receive emails when we add to our video library .
December 11 , 2020 ( American Thinker ) — Google/YouTube did n't try to be subtle .
It announced on Wednesday that it would delete any videos that so much as mentioned the word `` fraud '' in connection with Joe Biden 's patently fraudulently ascension to the top of the ticket in the days after the November 3 election .
The implications of this are so enormous that it 's currently difficult to assimilate all of them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be done to hang on to American liberty .
You can not discuss what Google just did without first turning to George Orwell 's Nineteen Eighty-Four , which he wrote as a warning about the dangers of a modern totalitarian government .
The book 's protagonist , Winston Smith , is a member of Big Brother 's party who works in the Records Department of the Ministry of Truth .
In fact , there is no `` truth '' in Oceania .
Instead , the only `` truth '' is Big Brother 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Winston receives messages telling him to locate past predictions from Big Brother that events had proven to be wrong .
He is responsible for rewriting the statements ( using a method similar to today 's speech recognition technology ) to conform to actual events .
Then : As soon as Winston had dealt with each of the messages , he clipped his speakwritten corrections to the appropriate copy of 'The Times ' and pushed them into the pneumatic tube .
Then , with a movement which was as nearly as possible unconscious , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any notes that he himself had made , and dropped them into the memory hole to be devoured by the flames .
Having had a refresher course in how completely evil totalitarian dictatorships work , you 're ready for Google/YouTube 's announcement about its new policy .
The policy rejoices under the Orwellian name `` Supporting the 2020 U.S. election , '' which actually means squelching all challenges to the massive human and electronic fraud that pushed Biden over the top .
The announcement begins by assuring everyone : As you may recall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ memory-holed , in pursuit of this main goal , Google/YouTube systematically censored any negative coverage about Biden — most especially reports about Hunter Biden 's sexual and drug debauchery and about his corrupt dealings with China and Ukraine , including written evidence and first-person statements about Biden 's knowledge of and profiting from Hunter 's deals .
Now that Operation Big Brother Phase One has succeeded , and the AP has declared Biden the winner ( something that supersedes silly little things like constitutional requirements for victory ) , YouTube/Google is ready for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Memory Hole : Once you get past the self-serving language , you get to the meat of the matter , which I 've highlighted : Yesterday was the safe harbor deadline for the U.S. Presidential election and enough states have certified their election results to determine a President-elect .
Given that , we will start removing any piece of content uploaded today ( or anytime after ) that misleads people by alleging that widespread fraud or errors changed the outcome of the 2020 U.S. Presidential election , in line with our approach towards @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we will remove videos claiming that a Presidential candidate won the election due to widespread software glitches or counting errors .
We will begin enforcing this policy today , and will ramp up in the weeks to come .
Google/YouTube has not removed a single video about the Russia Hoax , even though the Mueller Report , albeit reluctantly , totally discredited it .
It also has not removed a single video about the Ukraine hoax .
Indeed , so far as I know , it has never removed a single video @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Tucker Carlson to discuss what Google/YouTube is doing : It is to be hoped that , as the Supreme Court justices contemplate the overt , extreme , and outcome-changing constitutional violations that the left visited on the 2020 presidential election , they also consider what will become of America if the justices put their imprimatur on the left 's election fraud and its ability to rewrite history in a way that Big Brother would envy .
Right now , the only person who can keep us from traveling down this road to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Donald Trump .
NOTE : Here at American Thinker , as long as this policy is in effect , we will do everything we can to avoid relying on YouTube videos .
However , we ca n't yet embed videos from other sites such as Rumble , although we 're working on the problem .
Meanwhile , we encourage content-providers to abandon YouTube immediately .
Published with permission from the American Thinker .

The implications of this are so enormous that it's currently difficult to assimilate all of them.
LifeSiteNews is facing increasing censorship. Click HERE to sign up to receive emails when we add to our video library.
December 11, 2020 (American Thinker) — Google/YouTube didn't try to be subtle. It announced on Wednesday that it would delete any videos that so much as mentioned the word “fraud” in connection with Joe Biden's patently fraudulently ascension to the top of the ticket in the days after the November 3 election. The implications of this are so enormous that it's currently difficult to assimilate all of them, let alone understand what needs to be done to hang on to American liberty.
You cannot discuss what Google just did without first turning to George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, which he wrote as a warning about the dangers of a modern totalitarian government. The book's protagonist, Winston Smith, is a member of Big Brother's party who works in the Records Department of the Ministry of Truth.
In fact, there is no “truth” in Oceania. Instead, the only “truth” is Big Brother's perpetual perfection. In his job, Winston receives messages telling him to locate past predictions from Big Brother that events had proven to be wrong. He is responsible for rewriting the statements (using a method similar to today's speech recognition technology) to conform to actual events. Then:
— Article continues below Petition — Stand with Texas in Supreme Court voter fraud challenge Show Petition Text 1464 have signed the petition. Let's get to 2500 ! Thank you for signing this petition! Add your signature: Show Petition Text Country... State... Sign this Petition PETITION UPDATE (12/12/2020) - In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court of the United States declined to hear the case filed by the state of Texas. PETITION UPDATE (12/11/2020) - 6 states have formally joined Texas in its Supreme Court suit against Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—four battleground states who ran illegal and unconstitutional elections. Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Utah have formally joined Texas and agree that the defendant states exploited the COVID-19 pandemic to justify unlawfully enacting last-minute changes and ignoring both federal and state election laws, thus skewing the results of the 2020 General Election. While Missouri and 16 other states filed an amicus brief with the Court supporting Texas, 20 other states plus the District of Columbia signed an amicus brief supporting the 4 defendant states. Please SIGN this petition and STAND with Texas, as the state seeks justice in the 2020 general election for all citizens of the United States. '6 states formally join Texas in lawsuit defending the security of the 2020 election' - https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/6-states-formally-join-texas-in-lawsuit-defending-the-security-of-the-2020-election ____________________________________________________________________ The state of Texas has filed suit against Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Georgia in the Supreme Court over changes which those states made to their election rules, claiming they violated the U.S. Constitution in the process. Here is the central part of the argument: if Texas were to allow possible voter fraud to go unchecked in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Georgia, it would be akin to committing fraud upon the people of Texas, who cast their ballots within the framework of the law. Indeed, this would apply equally to all citizens who voted within the framework of the law across the United States! Thankfully, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is stepping up to vindicate the right of all Texans - and, all Americans - to have every legal vote be counted. But, the Supreme Court has only until Thursday morning to either accept or decline hearing the case. Please SIGN and SHARE this urgent petition, now. The main claim that Texas makes is that Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Georgia violated the Electoral Clause of the U.S. Constitution by changing their election rules on mail-in ballots by executive or judicial action, rather than by action from the legislature. But, America is a land of laws, and most people play by the rules. Citizens also want our state executives and judiciaries to play by the rules. Bypassing state legislatures, even during a pandemic, cannot be justifiable as it goes against our system of checks and balances, and, ultimately, as it is the legislatures who have the power, vested by the people, to make determinations about state electoral regulations. Texas also alleges that the defendant-states further violated the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clause by applying different election rules for different parts of their respective states, meaning that election rules were not the same for every citizen of each state. Texas approached the Supreme Court directly because in disputes between states, the Supreme Court is the court of "first impression." But, the Court only has a limited window to accept or decline hearing the case. Please SIGN and SHARE this important petition today. FOR MORE INFORMATION: '‘This is the big one’, says Trump of Texas SCOTUS election challenge' - https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/this-is-the-big-one-says-trump-of-texas-scotus-election-challenge 'Texas asks Supreme Court to toss 4 states’ election results over illegal mail ballots' - https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/texas-asks-supreme-court-to-toss-4-states-election-results-over-illegal-mail-ballots Hide Petition Text Sign this Petition
As soon as Winston had dealt with each of the messages, he clipped his speakwritten corrections to the appropriate copy of 'The Times' and pushed them into the pneumatic tube. Then, with a movement which was as nearly as possible unconscious, he crumpled up the original message and any notes that he himself had made, and dropped them into the memory hole to be devoured by the flames.
Having had a refresher course in how completely evil totalitarian dictatorships work, you're ready for Google/YouTube's announcement about its new policy. The policy rejoices under the Orwellian name “Supporting the 2020 U.S. election,” which actually means squelching all challenges to the massive human and electronic fraud that pushed Biden over the top. The announcement begins by assuring everyone:
Our main goal going into the election season was to make sure we're connecting people with authoritative information, while also limiting the reach of misinformation and removing harmful content. The work here is ongoing and we wanted to provide an update.
As you may recall, if your memory hasn't been memory-holed, in pursuit of this main goal, Google/YouTube systematically censored any negative coverage about Biden — most especially reports about Hunter Biden's sexual and drug debauchery and about his corrupt dealings with China and Ukraine, including written evidence and first-person statements about Biden's knowledge of and profiting from Hunter's deals.
Now that Operation Big Brother Phase One has succeeded, and the AP has declared Biden the winner (something that supersedes silly little things like constitutional requirements for victory), YouTube/Google is ready for Operation Big Brother Phase Two – the Memory Hole:
Once you get past the self-serving language, you get to the meat of the matter, which I've highlighted:
Yesterday was the safe harbor deadline for the U.S. Presidential election and enough states have certified their election results to determine a President-elect. Given that, we will start removing any piece of content uploaded today (or anytime after) that misleads people by alleging that widespread fraud or errors changed the outcome of the 2020 U.S. Presidential election, in line with our approach towards historical U.S. Presidential elections. For example, we will remove videos claiming that a Presidential candidate won the election due to widespread software glitches or counting errors. We will begin enforcing this policy today, and will ramp up in the weeks to come.
Google/YouTube has not removed a single video about the Russia Hoax, even though the Mueller Report, albeit reluctantly, totally discredited it. It also has not removed a single video about the Ukraine hoax. Indeed, so far as I know, it has never removed a single video attacking Donald Trump.
Harmeet Dhillon appeared on Tucker Carlson to discuss what Google/YouTube is doing:
#Thread (1/2): I joined @TuckerCarlson tonight to discuss @YouTube’s new policy of removing all videos regarding #ElectionIntegrity #ElectionFruad while still hosting videos with crazy 9/11 conspiracy theories — #SiliconValley is trying to hide the evidence… pic.twitter.com/syIiIX0T5Q — Harmeet K. Dhillon (@pnjaban) December 10, 2020
It is to be hoped that, as the Supreme Court justices contemplate the overt, extreme, and outcome-changing constitutional violations that the left visited on the 2020 presidential election, they also consider what will become of America if the justices put their imprimatur on the left's election fraud and its ability to rewrite history in a way that Big Brother would envy. Right now, the only person who can keep us from traveling down this road to becoming the United States of Oceania is Donald Trump.
NOTE: Here at American Thinker, as long as this policy is in effect, we will do everything we can to avoid relying on YouTube videos. However, we can't yet embed videos from other sites such as Rumble, although we're working on the problem. Meanwhile, we encourage content-providers to abandon YouTube immediately.
Published with permission from the American Thinker.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-12-11--How Pennsylvania’s tyrannical Supreme Court threw the 2020 election into chaos

LifeSiteNews is facing increasing censorship .
Click HERE to sign up to receive emails when we add to our video library .
December 11 , 2020 ( American Thinker ) — If you want to see how a U.S. Supreme Court , packed to 13 or 15 with Joe Biden appointees , would act , then look at the Pennsylvania Supreme Court , which is dominated by five elected Democrats .
In February 2018 , the PA Court threw out the existing congressional district map and re-drew it according to its notion of `` fairness . ''
In July 2020 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ favor of Democrat Governor Wolf to continue his China virus emergency declaration .
In September 2020 , the Court rewrote Pennsylvania election law to allow ballots received three days after Election Day , even without a postmark , to be counted .
Further , it kicked off the ballot the Green Party candidate , who normally takes away votes from the Democratic candidate .
The Court rewrote the clear language of the statute : This case is on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court on the argument that only the Legislature can set @ @ @ @ @ @ @ On November 27 , 2020 , Judge McCullough of the PA Commonwealth Court issued a preliminary injunction to stop certification of the vote pending review because the Pennsylvania statute , Act 77 , enacted on October 31 , 2019 , which provided for `` no-excuse '' mail- in voting , changed the Pennsylvania constitution .
Amending the PA Constitution requires that the Legislature pass the law in two sessions , and then the amendment is voted upon by the voters .
This was not followed in enacting Act 77 .
The case is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ al .
v. Commonwealth of Pa , Governor Thomas Wolf , et al .
On Saturday , November 28 , 2020 , the Pennsylvania Supreme Court overruled Judge McCullough .
The vote was 7-0 , with the two Republicans joining in the decision with the exception that the two Republicans wanted to keep the case open to decide the constitutionality of the statute .
The two Republicans should have dissented to state that the election was held under an unconstitutional and therefore an illegal statute .
They should have stated that Gov .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and Democrat attorney general Josh Shapiro allowed the election to proceed under a statute they knew was unconstitutional .
All three are sworn to uphold the laws and constitutions of Pennsylvania and the United States .
Senator Kelly filed an emergency appeal to Judge Alito of the U.S. Supreme Court requesting an injunction to bar the certification .
The issues raised by Kelly are as follows : On December 8 , Justice Alito issued a one-sentence order to deny the request for an injunction .
Senator Kelly has the right to file @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which is a request to the Supreme Court to hear the case .
But since the Court denied the request for an injunction , the Court will not hear the case .
If it wanted to hear the case , it would have issued an injunction to stop the certification .
The PA Supreme Court did not question whether Act 77 is constitutional .
Instead , the Court ruled that the plaintiffs waited too long to sue , relying on a legal doctrine of `` laches , '' which means a party did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Pennsylvania law on laches is as follows : The harm is not to the defendants , among them Governor Wolf , but to the voters who relied on the system created by Wolf .
Laches is a judge-created `` law '' that gives a judge wide discretion to dismiss a suit if he believes that the litigant did not promptly sue .
Judges usually reject laches because the legislatures have enacted laws specifying the statute of limitations for the deadlines to file suit and to proceed once suit is filed .
To @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the plaintiffs to explain why they waited to file suit so the judge has facts upon which to decide whether to apply laches and how the defendants are harmed .
The Court did not hold an evidentiary hearing to question why Wolf allowed the election to proceed pursuant to a statute he knew was unconstitutional .
Further , the Republicans have a majority in the Senate and House of the PA Legislature .
Why did the Republicans in the Legislature vote for Act 77 to allow no-excuse mail-in voting ?
The votes of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ treated equally because the no-excuse mail-in voters voted pursuant to an unconstitutional law .
This is a denial of equal protection and due process .
The PA Supreme Court also said the mail-in voters would be disenfranchised .
But that is the fault of Wolf and his secretary of state , who created the problem , not the fault of those challenging an unconstitutional law .
Senator Ted Cruz urged the U.S. Supreme Court to review Kelly 's appeal .
The PA Supreme Court ruled to protect the `` win '' by Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to rewrite the law to allow unlimited mail-in ballots received after the election date .
Two of the plaintiffs , Sean Parnell and Wanda Logan , may have lost because of the mail-in ballots .
The PA Court did not rule on the constitutionality of Act 77 because it knows that it is unconstitutional .
It dismissed with prejudice on flimsy reasoning of laches without an evidentiary hearing on who was at fault in having an election based on an unconstitutional law .
The only hope is the suit filed by Texas and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suit raises similar issues raised in the Kelly-Parnell suit : the election laws were changed unlawfully by the courts , the Legislature in PA , and the secretaries of state .
The bottom line is that states that followed a constitutional system do not have their voters ' votes treated equally because Pennsylvania and the other three states held an unconstitutional election .
The difficulty for the Supreme Court is the remedy .
If this involved an election to a minor local office , the Court would do its constitutional duty to set @ @ @ @ @ @ @ requests an injunction to stop certification and that the vote of the electors not be counted , or that electors be appointed in a constitutional manner .
But since the Court denied Kelly 's request for an injunction , it appears that the Court does not want to decide who won the election .
The Court can not just set aside the election in the four states — Pennsylvania , Georgia , Michigan , and Wisconsin — to resolve the issue of the proper electors for the presidential race because the elections involved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and House and Senate congressional races .
The Court will most likely rule that this is a political question that should be decided by the legislatures of Pennsylvania , Georgia , Michigan , and Wisconsin because the Constitution states that each state Legislature shall select the electors .
The Court will pass the buck back to the politicians in the four states .
This means that the Legislature of each state should investigate the election and make the decision .
Published with permission from the American Thinker .

If you want to see how a packed U.S. Supreme Court would act, then look at the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which is dominated by five elected Democrats.
LifeSiteNews is facing increasing censorship. Click HERE to sign up to receive emails when we add to our video library.
December 11, 2020 (American Thinker) — If you want to see how a U.S. Supreme Court, packed to 13 or 15 with Joe Biden appointees, would act, then look at the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which is dominated by five elected Democrats.
In February 2018, the PA Court threw out the existing congressional district map and re-drew it according to its notion of “fairness.”
In July 2020, the PA Supreme Court ruled in favor of Democrat Governor Wolf to continue his China virus emergency declaration.
In September 2020, the Court rewrote Pennsylvania election law to allow ballots received three days after Election Day, even without a postmark, to be counted. Further, it kicked off the ballot the Green Party candidate, who normally takes away votes from the Democratic candidate. The Court rewrote the clear language of the statute:
Deadline.–Except as provided under 25 Pa.C.S. § 3511[24] (relating to receipt of voted ballot), a completed mail-in ballot must be received in the office of the county board of elections no later than eight o'clock P.M. on the day of the primary or election.
This case is on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court on the argument that only the Legislature can set the rules for a federal election:
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing* Senators.
On November 27, 2020, Judge McCullough of the PA Commonwealth Court issued a preliminary injunction to stop certification of the vote pending review because the Pennsylvania statute, Act 77, enacted on October 31, 2019, which provided for “no-excuse” mail- in voting, changed the Pennsylvania constitution. Amending the PA Constitution requires that the Legislature pass the law in two sessions, and then the amendment is voted upon by the voters. This was not followed in enacting Act 77. The case is Mike Kelly, Sean Parnell, et al. v. Commonwealth of Pa, Governor Thomas Wolf, et al.
On Saturday, November 28, 2020, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court overruled Judge McCullough. The vote was 7-0, with the two Republicans joining in the decision with the exception that the two Republicans wanted to keep the case open to decide the constitutionality of the statute.
The two Republicans should have dissented to state that the election was held under an unconstitutional and therefore an illegal statute. They should have stated that Gov. Wolf, his Democrat secretary of state, and Democrat attorney general Josh Shapiro allowed the election to proceed under a statute they knew was unconstitutional. All three are sworn to uphold the laws and constitutions of Pennsylvania and the United States.
Senator Kelly filed an emergency appeal to Judge Alito of the U.S. Supreme Court requesting an injunction to bar the certification.
The issues raised by Kelly are as follows:
1. May a legislature violate its state constitution's restrictions on the lawmaking power when enacting legislation for the conduct of federal elections pursuant to Article I, § 4, and Article II, § 1 of the U.S. Constitution? 2. Did the Pennsylvania Supreme Court violate Petitioners' rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by dismissing with prejudice the case below, on the basis of laches, thereby foreclosing any opportunity for Petitioners to seek retrospective and prospective relief for ongoing constitutional violations?
On December 8, Justice Alito issued a one-sentence order to deny the request for an injunction.
Senator Kelly has the right to file a Petition for Writ of Certiorari, which is a request to the Supreme Court to hear the case. But since the Court denied the request for an injunction, the Court will not hear the case. If it wanted to hear the case, it would have issued an injunction to stop the certification.
The PA Supreme Court did not question whether Act 77 is constitutional. Instead, the Court ruled that the plaintiffs waited too long to sue, relying on a legal doctrine of “laches,” which means a party did not act promptly to file suit.
The Pennsylvania law on laches is as follows:
Laches is an equitable doctrine[.] … [I]ts purpose is for the repose of title, claims and demands for peace and order in society[.] … The question of its application does not depend upon the fact that a certain definite time has elapsed since the cause of action accrued, but rather whether, under the circumstances of the particular case, the complaining party or parties are chargeable with want of due diligence in failing to institute or prosecute the claim[.] … [I]t must further appear that injury or material prejudice has resulted to the defendant through the delay.
The harm is not to the defendants, among them Governor Wolf, but to the voters who relied on the system created by Wolf.
Laches is a judge-created “law” that gives a judge wide discretion to dismiss a suit if he believes that the litigant did not promptly sue.
Judges usually reject laches because the legislatures have enacted laws specifying the statute of limitations for the deadlines to file suit and to proceed once suit is filed. To apply laches requires an evidentiary hearing for the plaintiffs to explain why they waited to file suit so the judge has facts upon which to decide whether to apply laches and how the defendants are harmed.
The Court did not hold an evidentiary hearing to question why Wolf allowed the election to proceed pursuant to a statute he knew was unconstitutional.
Further, the Republicans have a majority in the Senate and House of the PA Legislature. Why did the Republicans in the Legislature vote for Act 77 to allow no-excuse mail-in voting?
The votes of voters who voted in person were not treated equally because the no-excuse mail-in voters voted pursuant to an unconstitutional law. This is a denial of equal protection and due process.
As Judge McCullough stated:
[A] mail-in voting process that would exceed the limits of absentee voting prescribed in PA Const. Article VII sec 14 could be construed as violating the “one person one vote.” In that event, the sheer magnitude of the number of mail-in ballots would not be a basis to disregard not only this provision of the Pennsylvania Constitution but also the “one person, one vote” doctrine established by Reynolds, one of the bedrock decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court.
The PA Supreme Court also said the mail-in voters would be disenfranchised. But that is the fault of Wolf and his secretary of state, who created the problem, not the fault of those challenging an unconstitutional law.
Senator Ted Cruz urged the U.S. Supreme Court to review Kelly's appeal.
The PA Supreme Court ruled to protect the “win” by Biden. This is consistent with its decision to rewrite the law to allow unlimited mail-in ballots received after the election date.
Two of the plaintiffs, Sean Parnell and Wanda Logan, may have lost because of the mail-in ballots.
The PA Court did not rule on the constitutionality of Act 77 because it knows that it is unconstitutional. It dismissed with prejudice on flimsy reasoning of laches without an evidentiary hearing on who was at fault in having an election based on an unconstitutional law.
The only hope is the suit filed by Texas and joined by 17 other states. The suit raises similar issues raised in the Kelly-Parnell suit: the election laws were changed unlawfully by the courts, the Legislature in PA, and the secretaries of state. The bottom line is that states that followed a constitutional system do not have their voters' votes treated equally because Pennsylvania and the other three states held an unconstitutional election.
The difficulty for the Supreme Court is the remedy. If this involved an election to a minor local office, the Court would do its constitutional duty to set aside the election.
The Texas suit requests an injunction to stop certification and that the vote of the electors not be counted, or that electors be appointed in a constitutional manner.
But since the Court denied Kelly's request for an injunction, it appears that the Court does not want to decide who won the election.
The Court cannot just set aside the election in the four states — Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin — to resolve the issue of the proper electors for the presidential race because the elections involved many local races, state races, and House and Senate congressional races.
The Court will most likely rule that this is a political question that should be decided by the legislatures of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin because the Constitution states that each state Legislature shall select the electors. The Court will pass the buck back to the politicians in the four states. This means that the Legislature of each state should investigate the election and make the decision.
*original spelling in Constitution
Published with permission from the American Thinker.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-12-11--The foundation of Western civilization is relentlessly attacked in Europe

December 11 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — Over the past several months , pressure on Christians has increased as the beliefs that form the foundation of Western civilization are relentlessly attacked as hateful and bigoted .
Norway has just banned “ transphobia ” ; a Finnish parliamentarian is under police investigation for defending traditional marriage ; Dutch Christian schools are under attack by the government for teaching the biblical view of sexuality ; a German pastor was fined 8,100 euros for statements against LGBTQ ideology .
The list goes on .
European Christians are increasingly trapped between the pincers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I recently spoke with Madeleine Enzlberger of the Observatory on Intolerance and Discrimination Against Christians in Europe .
Enzlberger , a native Austrian , has a background in conflict management and security politics and conducted field research in Iraq on the persecution of Christians and the promotion of International Religious Freedom Policy .
Are hate incidents against Christians on the rise in Europe ?
Hate incidents are rising — not significantly in numerical terms , but the general culture is taking a shift .
This means that we do have political and cultural @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but individual freedoms in general .
Areas like freedom of speech , conscience and religion are intrinsically linked to each other and restrictions on one can lead to limitations on one of the other freedoms .
Currently we can identify three main areas in which Christians are facing most pressure .
The first category is violence , as in vandalism , which is considered a hate crime by the OSCE , against churches or Christian institutions .
The majority of the cases we report fall under this category .
Sadly , we also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like the recent tragic killing of Christians in the basilica of Nice , but they are very rare .
The motive and bias of the perpetrators is very diverse .
Among them we find anti-religious , radical feminist and LGBTQ+ groups , or radical Islamists .
The second field in which Christians face most adversities is radical secularization , which we can observe to take place on a political/legal level , but also a shift in general cultural attitudes towards Christians .
Here we have cases of new hate speech or equality legislation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arguments or the beliefs of Christians .
In these cases , the basic human rights of committed Christians , like freedom of speech and conscience , are subdued under a new secular world view that claims moral authority .
Radical Islamists and radical Islamist groups are the third area of pressure for Christians .
In these cases , Muslim converts , specially asylum seekers from the Middle East , are often targeted physically and mentally .
Another new problem in this area is the growing phenomenon of hotspots in which radical Islamists or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attack Christians .
France and the UK are among the countries who struggle most with this problem .
What are the most alarming trends ?
The most alarming trend at the moment is the arbitrariness of the new equality and hate speech legislation being formulated , but also how existing ones are being executed — and how society reacts .
The newly drafted equality legislation in Malta , for example , includes the term of “ hurt feelings , ” which means if someone feels “ hurt ” by a statement of another @ @ @ @ @ @ @ charge for discrimination .
Additionally , the legal principle of the burden of proof — innocent until proven guilty — is reversed .
This means that the person who is being accused of having discriminated against someone else because their feelings got hurt has to prove that they are innocent .
This could mean that even a Bible verse could be considered to “ hurt ” feelings .
These expanded concepts of hate speech and equality often including fuzzy terms like “ hurt feelings , ” which are non-tangible for actual jurisdiction .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ was accused of hate speech because she publicly displayed Bible verses about homosexuality in her restaurant .
Luckily a court decided that she is free to do this because her freedom of religion needs to be guaranteed .
In another case in Norway , which is just drafting a new hate speech law , it will technically be forbidden to state that a man can not become a woman , a typical example for an expanded concept .
All of this leads to social dynamics which are not just putting a strain on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in general .
We advocate for the protection of human rights of Christians not out of selfish reasons but because we can observe a general danger for the whole of society .
We can see that Christians and Christian institutions are not just being de-platformed for holding different views , they are also self-censoring , especially at universities , because they fear negative consequences on a legal or social level .
This form of cancel culture has a major chilling effect on Christians and others .
A survey in Germany showed that only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to say in public what they would in private .
Another study at a German university in Frankfurt revealed that students are highly intolerant of other views .
A research recently done by ADF , a Christians legal organization , at U.K. universities shows that 25 % of Christian students do not feel safe to voice their belief or opinions publicly and many Christian organizations are being kept from affiliating with university associations .
What does the Observatory classify as an “ incident ” ?
An incident is a case in which Christians @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , vandalism , physical attacks , negative stereotyping , threats or denial of access because of their beliefs or morals .
We mostly have cases of vandalism against churches or Christian buildings , like pro-life offices .
We also report on legal cases in which Christians and their human rights are infringed , like in the famous bakery shop case , in which a Christian bakery refused to make a cake with a support slogan for gay “ marriage.
” Lastly , we have cases in which people are facing societal or social @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Those are also cases in which people are not allowed to freely voice their opinion without running the risk of harsh social reactions or even expulsion .
What is the greater threat to European Christianity , immigration from hostile areas or radical secularization ?
The Observatory was founded in 2008 , long before the high influx of immigrants in 2015 , because the founders were convinced that it is necessary to create awareness of this new social phenomenon unfolding in Europe that no one was taking notice of .
The main driver of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ look at the majority of cases , is an increase of secular intolerance , which is starting to manifest in legal regulations and the creation of new social codes of conduct ( or social justice ) , as stated before .
The separation of the state and the church as such is not the problem because it is a vital common denominator in our democratic society .
Problematic is that religion and belief are more and more relegated to the private sphere , not leaving enough space in the public debate and delegitimizing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ immigration , there is pressure against Christians , but as outlined earlier there are certain hotspots in some European countries which do have a problem with radical Islamist or political Islamist movements .
The problem should not be underestimated , but compared to the other trends we can observe this is not our biggest problem , as it is not a systematic undercurrent like intolerant secularization that is spreading continually .
How should Christians respond to this unfolding situation ?
The best response in this situation is to stand firm and speak up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of society .
Christian values and beliefs should not be banned from the public .
The best way to do this is not with an already-hardened heart and a fighter mentality but with a sound mind , a loving heart , good facts , and reliable numbers .
I think Jesus gives the best advice in Matthew 10:16 : Behold , I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves ; so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves .
To some extent non-conformity and being the uncomfortable stumbling block @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hopefully , that will never change .

‘To some extent non-conformity and being the uncomfortable stumbling block is part of our Christian DNA and hopefully, that will never change,’ Madeleine Enzlberger explained.
December 11, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Over the past several months, pressure on Christians has increased as the beliefs that form the foundation of Western civilization are relentlessly attacked as hateful and bigoted. Norway has just banned “transphobia”; a Finnish parliamentarian is under police investigation for defending traditional marriage; Dutch Christian schools are under attack by the government for teaching the biblical view of sexuality; a German pastor was fined 8,100 euros for statements against LGBTQ ideology. The list goes on. European Christians are increasingly trapped between the pincers of radical secularization and radical Islam.
I recently spoke with Madeleine Enzlberger of the Observatory on Intolerance and Discrimination Against Christians in Europe. Enzlberger, a native Austrian, has a background in conflict management and security politics and conducted field research in Iraq on the persecution of Christians and the promotion of International Religious Freedom Policy.
Are hate incidents against Christians on the rise in Europe?
Hate incidents are rising — not significantly in numerical terms, but the general culture is taking a shift. This means that we do have political and cultural changes that do not only affect Christians but individual freedoms in general. Areas like freedom of speech, conscience and religion are intrinsically linked to each other and restrictions on one can lead to limitations on one of the other freedoms.
Currently we can identify three main areas in which Christians are facing most pressure. The first category is violence, as in vandalism, which is considered a hate crime by the OSCE, against churches or Christian institutions. The majority of the cases we report fall under this category. Sadly, we also have actual physical assaults on Christians, like the recent tragic killing of Christians in the basilica of Nice, but they are very rare. The motive and bias of the perpetrators is very diverse. Among them we find anti-religious, radical feminist and LGBTQ+ groups, or radical Islamists.
The second field in which Christians face most adversities is radical secularization, which we can observe to take place on a political/legal level, but also a shift in general cultural attitudes towards Christians. Here we have cases of new hate speech or equality legislation, which potentially criminalize moral, faith-based arguments or the beliefs of Christians. In these cases, the basic human rights of committed Christians, like freedom of speech and conscience, are subdued under a new secular world view that claims moral authority.
Radical Islamists and radical Islamist groups are the third area of pressure for Christians. In these cases, Muslim converts, specially asylum seekers from the Middle East, are often targeted physically and mentally. Another new problem in this area is the growing phenomenon of hotspots in which radical Islamists or radical groups discriminate, marginalize or even attack Christians. France and the UK are among the countries who struggle most with this problem.
What are the most alarming trends?
The most alarming trend at the moment is the arbitrariness of the new equality and hate speech legislation being formulated, but also how existing ones are being executed — and how society reacts. The newly drafted equality legislation in Malta, for example, includes the term of “hurt feelings,” which means if someone feels “hurt” by a statement of another person he or she can file a charge for discrimination. Additionally, the legal principle of the burden of proof — innocent until proven guilty — is reversed. This means that the person who is being accused of having discriminated against someone else because their feelings got hurt has to prove that they are innocent. This could mean that even a Bible verse could be considered to “hurt” feelings. These expanded concepts of hate speech and equality often including fuzzy terms like “hurt feelings,” which are non-tangible for actual jurisdiction. In one case in Berlin a woman was accused of hate speech because she publicly displayed Bible verses about homosexuality in her restaurant. Luckily a court decided that she is free to do this because her freedom of religion needs to be guaranteed. In another case in Norway, which is just drafting a new hate speech law, it will technically be forbidden to state that a man cannot become a woman, a typical example for an expanded concept.
— Article continues below Petition — TELL VIMEO: Stop silencing conservatives and Christians! Show Petition Text 4388 have signed the petition. Let's get to 5000 ! Thank you for signing this petition! Add your signature: Show Petition Text Country... State... Sign this Petition UPDATE (4/22/2020) - Video platform Vimeo has deleted the account of the American Family Association (AFA), characterizing the pro-family organization as a hate group. According to a report by OneNewsNow.com, which is affiliated with AFA, "Vimeo told the American Family Association (AFA) it will not host an account if the owner is a member of a terror or hate group." This is outrageous! Please SIGN this petition, which will be sent to all of the Big Tech companies as well as to the Trump Administration, telling them that this kind of censorship of conservatives and Christians is indefensible. Vimeo needs to restore AFA's account with immediate effect. "In recent weeks they’ve taken action against our account,” AFA president Walker Wildmon recounted. “They’ve officially shut down American Family Association’s video account with no in-depth explanation and no recourse, no way to defend our credibility." “Vimeo’s done great harm to American Family Association by limiting our free speech and basically targeting us based on our religious beliefs,” he added. Please SIGN this petition which takes a strong stand for conservatives and Christians on social media. Vimeo’s actions, Wildmon explained, were “based on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s reckless labeling of AFA.” The far-left Southern Poverty Law Center had categorized AFA as a hate group. "The scandal-ridden SPLC should not be permitted to advise Big Tech companies, the government, or anyone else, on so-called "hate groups," as their bias against conservatives and Christians is well known," stated Gualberto Garcia Jones, LifeSite's Director of Advocacy. This is just the latest affront to free speech by social media giants. As such, the Trump Administration will also be CC'ed on this petition as they might consider bringing some oversight to this important matter. Thank you for SIGNING this important petition, TODAY. FOR MORE INFORMATION: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/vimeo-shuts-down-christian-group-accused-of-hate-by-far-left-radical-org ______________________________________________________________________________ Twitter’s October 18 decision to lock LifeSite’s account for posting an article about STD rates among active homosexuals is the latest in a long line of abuses conducted by social media companies. In recent years, a growing number of conservative voices have found themselves suspended from, and/or seen their content deleted or suppressed not only on Twitter, but also on Facebook, YouTube, and Google. These giants of the tech world are staffed almost exclusively by liberal ideologues who support progressive policies. Although they claim to stand for freedom of speech and democratic principles, facts show they are increasingly intolerant of anyone who doesn’t share their personal views, and are taking steps to limit the social media reach of those they disagree with. Consider that a January 2018 Project Veritas video showed Twitter employees admitting that they “shadow-ban” some conservative users. Facebook relies on the George Soros-funded Snopes.com and the left-leaning PolitiFact to “fact check” users’ posts. The extremist, anti-Christian Souther Poverty Law Center also has a cozy relationship with Google, YouTube, and Twitter. The instances of censorship that have occurred as a result of these partnerships are simply too many to count. It's beyond time for this censorship to end! Hide Petition Text Sign this Petition
All of this leads to social dynamics which are not just putting a strain on Christians individually, but our democratic fabric in general. We advocate for the protection of human rights of Christians not out of selfish reasons but because we can observe a general danger for the whole of society. We can see that Christians and Christian institutions are not just being de-platformed for holding different views, they are also self-censoring, especially at universities, because they fear negative consequences on a legal or social level. This form of cancel culture has a major chilling effect on Christians and others. A survey in Germany showed that only 18% of people would feel safe to say in public what they would in private. Another study at a German university in Frankfurt revealed that students are highly intolerant of other views. A research recently done by ADF, a Christians legal organization, at U.K. universities shows that 25% of Christian students do not feel safe to voice their belief or opinions publicly and many Christian organizations are being kept from affiliating with university associations.
What does the Observatory classify as an “incident”?
An incident is a case in which Christians are facing discrimination, intolerance, marginalization, vandalism, physical attacks, negative stereotyping, threats or denial of access because of their beliefs or morals. We mostly have cases of vandalism against churches or Christian buildings, like pro-life offices. We also report on legal cases in which Christians and their human rights are infringed, like in the famous bakery shop case, in which a Christian bakery refused to make a cake with a support slogan for gay “marriage.” Lastly, we have cases in which people are facing societal or social pressure by being discriminated or marginalized. Those are also cases in which people are not allowed to freely voice their opinion without running the risk of harsh social reactions or even expulsion.
What is the greater threat to European Christianity, immigration from hostile areas or radical secularization?
The Observatory was founded in 2008, long before the high influx of immigrants in 2015, because the founders were convinced that it is necessary to create awareness of this new social phenomenon unfolding in Europe that no one was taking notice of. The main driver of cultural change in Europe, when we look at the majority of cases, is an increase of secular intolerance, which is starting to manifest in legal regulations and the creation of new social codes of conduct (or social justice), as stated before. The separation of the state and the church as such is not the problem because it is a vital common denominator in our democratic society. Problematic is that religion and belief are more and more relegated to the private sphere, not leaving enough space in the public debate and delegitimizing transcendent rationales. When it comes to immigration, there is pressure against Christians, but as outlined earlier there are certain hotspots in some European countries which do have a problem with radical Islamist or political Islamist movements. The problem should not be underestimated, but compared to the other trends we can observe this is not our biggest problem, as it is not a systematic undercurrent like intolerant secularization that is spreading continually.
How should Christians respond to this unfolding situation?
The best response in this situation is to stand firm and speak up about what is going at all levels of society. Christian values and beliefs should not be banned from the public. The best way to do this is not with an already-hardened heart and a fighter mentality but with a sound mind, a loving heart, good facts, and reliable numbers. I think Jesus gives the best advice in Matthew 10:16: Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves. To some extent non-conformity and being the uncomfortable stumbling block is part of our Christian DNA and hopefully, that will never change.
Follow Jonathon Jonathon Van Maren is a public speaker, writer, and pro-life activist. His commentary has been translated into more than eight languages and published widely online as well as print newspapers such as the Jewish Independent, the National Post, the Hamilton Spectator and others. He has received an award for combating anti-Semitism in print from the Jewish organization B’nai Brith. His commentary has been featured on CTV Primetime, Global News, EWTN, and the CBC as well as dozens of radio stations and news outlets in Canada and the United States. He speaks on a wide variety of cultural topics across North America at universities, high schools, churches, and other functions. Some of these topics include abortion, pornography, the Sexual Revolution, and euthanasia. Jonathon holds a Bachelor of Arts Degree in history from Simon Fraser University, and is the communications director for the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform. Jonathon’s first book, The Culture War, was released in 2016.
Share