Texas Teacher Scolds Parents Protesting Drag Queens in School: ‘You Don’t Know What is Best for Your Kids’
This state enforcer believes your kids are his property.
By Shane Trejo
Texas teacher Anthony Lane has laid the agenda bare of what public schools are doing in regards to the LGBT agenda.
The English teacher at Willis High School recently took to Facebook to denigrate parents who believe that it is improper to have events featuring drag queens at the school.
“I believe that raising a child is the responsibility of the community, and that parents should not have the final say. Let’s be honest, some of you don’t know what is best for your kids,” he wrote.
Lane made it clear that he believes the parents should have no say in what their kids are taught, and that indoctrinators such as himself should have total control over the children’s minds.
“Parents believe they should be able to storm the school in the name of political and religious beliefs if something happens in the school that they are morally opposed to. They forget that we make a promise to prepare their children to live in a diverse world. We are not required to protect the misguided, bigoted views of their parents,” Lane wrote.
“If you want your children educated with your values, find a private school that will do it. The public education system is not here to serve your archaic beliefs,” he added.
Lane also spoke at a public meeting claiming that it was necessary for the high school to host drag queen events in order to fight supposed homophobia.
“I think as a district we need to make an initiative to teach our kids to be tolerant and respectful,” he said.
Last month, a drag queen showed up at the high school for a cosmetology class. Parents were not alerted beforehand, and it caused controversy after a photograph of the drag queen posing with students was posted on social media:
Oh Miss Lynn Adonis, how we thoroughly enjoyed your company today! Laughs all day and memories we’ll never forget. So thankful for you! pic.twitter.com/Y7GjPziQsJ
— Willis High School Cosmetology (@willishscosmo) October 18, 2019
“I put numerous calls into the administrator’s office, which of course they made it abundantly clear they will not talk about it,” said concerned parent Dale Inman.
“I’ve got a problem when somebody with a false name enters a school and has advertised himself as an adult exotic dancer for men … Nobody would be allowed in a school under those circumstances,” he added. “As a parent, I have a right to know who’s in that school building.”
Drag queens have emerged as a linchpin for LGBT outreach to children, as drag queens regularly host events in places where they will have access to kids such as public libraries and churches. At least two drag queens involved in story hour presentations have been revealed to be convicted sexual predators.
Gutfeld: Dems’ joke impeachment hearings are all feelings, no facts
11/18/2019
That Schiff impersonation deserved max publicity.
Twitter’s ‘ban’ on political ads has a gaping, legacy media-shaped loophole
Trying to stay ahead of spurious allegations of enabling ‘Russian meddling’ into US elections, Twitter has outlawed all political advertising – but left an exemption most US legacy media, though partisan, will easily sail through.
“Twitter globally prohibits the promotion of political content. We have made this decision based on our belief that political message reach should be earned, not bought,” the company announced Friday, sharing the details of its ad ban.
Elaborating on the decision in a thread, Twitter’s head of legal, policy and Trust & Safety Vijaya Gadde effectively admitted that the ban was driven by concerns over digital advertising “driving political outcomes” – even though the effects of micro-targeted ads “are not yet fully understood.”
The ban is scheduled to go into effect on November 22. In addition to banning candidates, parties, and affiliated groups like political action committees (PACs) from advertising, Twitter is also ruling out ads that are about influencing votes, parties, ballot initiatives or elections. “Cause-based ads” will be allowed with certain restrictions, but again not when coming from candidates, parties or politicians.
If this sounds convoluted, banning both people and content, that’s because it is. However, the policy has a sizeable exemption for “news publishers” who can run ads referencing “political content and/or prohibited advertisers,” so long as there is no advocacy for or against.
To qualify, a publication’s website must have “a minimum of 200,000 monthly unique visitors in the US,” the ability to contact its editors and reporters online, have a searchable archive, and not be a user-generated platform or aggregator. Nor can the publication be dedicated to advocating on a single issue.
These parameters clearly skew the playing field in favor of US legacy media – despite its open partisanship over the past several years. Not only have the legacy media and Democrats blamed the social media for enabling the election of President Donald Trump, they have also led the charge in pressuring Twitter, Facebook and others to “deplatform” any alternative voices they might find unsavory.
As voice after voice gets purged from social media, still think there’s no censorship?
Most recently, Sen. Kamala Harris (D-California) actually demanded Twitter suspend Trump’s account as part of her pitch for the 2020 presidential nomination – so far, without effect.
In August, Twitter rolled out a ban on ads from “state-controlled news media entities,” using a convoluted definition that also carves out exemptions for well-established legacy outlets in the West.
(Full disclosure: Twitter banned RT ads long before that, without explanation or process, following the initial 2017 congressional hearings into social media platforms, and the revelation that it proposed a multi-million dollar deal to RT during the 2016 election, which was declined.)
The vast majority – about 86 percent – of Twitter’s revenue comes from advertising, with data licensing and other sources accounting for the rest. The company turned an annual profit for the first time in 2018, five years after going public.
LGBT Child Educational Curriculum Uses NAMBLA Talking Points to Sexually Brainwash Kids
This video from Canada shows how kids are being institutionally abused by the LGBT agenda.
By Shane Trejo
A troubling video of sexual education in Canada has shown exactly how depraved and abusive the LGBT agenda has become toward children.
A pro-children advocacy group, Questioning LGBT/CSE Education, posted the video on social media in several parts showing how children are being sexualized and indoctrinated before thae age of adolescence.
The first lesson starts innocuous enough, featuring a basic anatomy lesson with two dolls. This is meant to normalize talk about genitals as the lesson gets more explicit:
Another lesson shows the instructors telling children “there’s no right or wrong age to fall in love,” which is straight out of the NAMBLA playbook before dovetailing into masturbation tips for the confused children:
Next, the instructors tell the children to simulate different types of kissing with the dolls:
The instructors move on to talking about gender, introducing concepts like “fluidity” and “non-binary” that the children are clearly unable to comprehend. A lecherous creep is then brought in as an “expert” to address children about the gender spectrum:
The second part of the following video shows the children perplexed after the lecture by the so-called “Drag King,” as the trans male explains to the kids how he took drugs for the purposes of his gender transition before they play a gender-driven game of musical chairs:
The next lesson is about sexuality, in which one of the instructors comes out as bisexual and the kids are encouraged to explore their boundaries. Then, drag queens are brought in to help the kids “learn more about orientation and attraction.” These are the same drag queens who regularly host story hour events in libraries that have become a magnet for pedophiles:
While this lesson plan is from Canada, the LGBT children curriculum in the U.S. and the rest of the West is following suit.
One educational whistleblower from California explained how children as young as 10 are being taught how to perform oral and anal sex as well as put condoms on prosthetic genitalia.
Big League Politics reported on this shocking story of LGBT child abuse:
A whistle-blowing former public school teacher is sounding the alarm about new middle school sexual education standards in California that sexualize children and teach them dangerous sexual behaviors before the age of adolescence.
“It’s shocking,” Rebecca Friedrichs, the founder of For Kids & Country, said in an interview with The Christian Post. She spoke of relay races where 10- and 11-year-old girls are trained to put condoms on a prosthetic male erection as the boys watch on.
Kids as young as 11 years old are trained in how to engage in oral and anal sex and taught to experiment with bisexuality by public school teachers.
“It is medically risky on multiple levels. And when you read the curriculum … it’s written almost like a college fraternity wrote this curriculum in a very crass and a juvenile way,” she said of the ongoing sexualization of children.
“I always tell people that the scary thing is, I’ll give radio interviews and I can’t even say on the radio things that are being taught in our elementary and middle school classrooms in mixed company. There’s something very wrong there,” said Friedrichs, a conservative activist who taught in public schools for 28 years.
“No one believes it until they see it,” she said. “Now that we’ve been able to help parents to understand what’s actually in the curriculums and they’re viewing it for themselves, they see the urgent need to rescue the kids. Now there’s a groundswell of parents that’s growing fast and fighting back.”
The LGBT movement has advanced from marriage equality to robbing kids of their innocence in less than a decade. If their perverted agenda is not stopped, there is no telling how many childrens’ souls they will destroy.
Facebook Removes Any News Reporting On – or Even Mention of – Who the ‘Whistleblower’ Is Alleged to Be
By ALLUM BOKHARI 11/8/2019
Facebook is removing any mention of the potential whistleblower’s name and is cracking down against Facebook publishers that mention any allegation of the potential whistleblower’s name, claiming they are violating Facebook’s Community Standards and Policies.
For example, on Wednesday evening, Facebook removed Breitbart posts reporting on the fact other respected news outlets have reported the identity of the alleged whistleblower is Eric Ciaramella. Any Facebook user who attempts to click on that article on Facebook is now given a message that says, “this content isn’t available at the moment.”
To be clear, Breitbart did not “out” the alleged whistleblower but did provide additional relevant reporting about him; he is, after all, a public figure, having served on the National Security Council. Moreover, his name has been used in the Mueller report (p283) and Ambassador Bill Taylor’s testimony.
Administrators of Breitbart News’ Facebook page began receiving notifications on Wednesday evening stating that Breitbart’s page is “at risk of being unpublished” but were not given any details as to why, or even which posts were allegedly at issue.
Yesterday afternoon, however, in response to questions from Breitbart, a Facebook spokesman issued the following statement:
Any mention of the potential whistleblower’s name violates our coordinating harm policy, which prohibits content “outing of witness, informant, or activist.” We are removing any and all mentions of the potential whistleblower’s name and will revisit this decision should their name be widely published in the media or used by public figures in debate.
Breitbart News is currently the 68th-most visited site in the United States according to Alexa, and the 13th most-engaged Facebook publisher in the world according to NewsWhip.
Multiple other publishers have named the alleged whistleblower or reported on outlets naming him, including Heavy.com, the Washington Examiner, The Federalist, and the Western Journal. Saagar Enjeti, Chief Washington Correspondent for The Hill, also tweeted the alleged whistleblower’s name.
Radio hosts Mark Levin and Glenn Beck, Students for Trump co-chair Ryan Fournier, former Deputy Assistant to the President Sebastian Gorka, bestselling author Dinesh D’Souza, One America News host Jack Posobiec, and TownHall.com senior columnist Kurt Schlichter are among the other public figures and major media personalities who have also named the alleged whistleblower.
It isn’t only conservatives reporting on Ciaramella. New York Magazine and HuffPost contributor Yashar Ali identified Ciaramella as the alleged whistleblower in a since-deleted tweet. Ali claimed to have confirmed the identity with three sources. Facebook’s requirement to revise its policy on Ciaramella appears to already have been met.
Other publishers that have named the alleged whistleblower on Facebook have reported that their posts have been taken down as well.
WATCH: KAITLIN BENNETT MEETS ANTIFA
Radical leftists gathered to protest Trump in Dallas, Texas
OCTOBER 18, 2019
Kaitlin Bennett ran into a group of Antifa members in Dallas, Texas and per-usual, the face-covered communists had nothing to say.
Romney: Trump Syria Policy “A Bloodstain In the Annals Of American History”
Posted By Ian Schwartz
On Date October 18, 2019
Senator Mitt Romney (R-UT) delivers remarks on the Senate floor on Syria. “What we have done to the Kurds will stand as a bloodstain in the annals of American history.”
Let me briefly recount what’s happened in the past seven days since the U.S. announced our withdrawal. The Kurds, suffering loss of life and property, have allied with Assad. Russia has assumed control of our previous military positions, and the U.S. has been forced in many cases to bomb some of our own facilities to prevent their appropriation by Russia and Turkey…
The ceasefire does not change the fact that America has abandoned an ally. Adding insult to dishonor, the Administration speaks cavalierly, even flippantly, even as our ally has suffered death and casualty, their homes have been burned, and their families have been torn apart…
What we have done to the Kurds will stand as a blood stain in the annals of American history.
There are broad strategic implications of our decision as well. Iranian and Russian interests in the Middle East have been advanced by our decision. At a time when we are applying maximum pressure on Iran, by giving them a stronger hand in Syria, we have actually weakened that pressure. Russia’s objective to play a greater role in the Middle East has also been greatly enhanced. The Kurds out of desperation have now aligned with Assad. So America is diminished. Russia, Iran, and Assad are strengthened.
And so I ask how and why that decision was made?…
I ask whether it is the position of the Administration that the United States Senate, a body of 100 people representing both political parties, is to be entirely absent from decisions of the magnitude just taken in Syria?
Now some argue that we should not have been in Syria in the first place because there was not a vote taken by the Senate to engage in war there. I disagree. Congress has given the President legal authority and funding to fight against terrorists in Syria…
Others argue that we should just get out of a messy situation like this. The Middle East, they say, has had wars going on forever, just let them have at it. There’s of course a certain logic to this position as well, but again it applies only to the original decision as to whether or not we should have gone into Syria. Once we have engaged, and made the commitments we made, honor as well as self-interest demand that we not abandon our allies.
It has been suggested that Turkey may have called America’s bluff, telling the president that they were coming no matter what we did. If this is so, we should know it, for it would tell us a great deal about how we should deal with Turkey now and in the future.
Some have argued that Syria is a mess, with warring groups and sub groups, friends and allies shifting from one side to another, and thus we had to exit because there was no reasonable path for us to go forward. Are we incapable of understanding and shaping complex situations? Russia seems to have figured it out. Are we less adept than they? And are our principles to be jettisoned when we find things get messy?
The Administration claims that none of these reasons are accurate. Instead, the President has said that we left to fulfill a commitment to stop endless wars, to bring troops home, to get them out of harm’s way, perhaps to save money. I find these reasons hard to square. Why? Well, we withdrew 1,500 troops in Syria but we are adding 2,000 troops in Saudi Arabia. And all totaled, we have 60,000 troops in the Middle East.
Assuming for the sake of understanding that getting out of endless wars was the logic for the decision, why would we take action so precipitously? Why would we not warn our ally, the Kurds of what we were about to do? Why would we not give them time to also withdraw or perhaps to dig in to defend themselves? Clearly, the Turks had a heads up because they were able to start bombing within in mere hours.
I simply do not understand why the Administration did not explain in advance to Erdogan that it was unacceptable for Turkey to attack an American ally. Could we not insist that together we develop a transition plan that protects the Kurds, secures the ISIS prisoners, and meets the legitimate concerns of Turkey as well? Was there no chance for diplomacy? Are we so weak, and so inept diplomatically that Turkey forced the hand of the United States of America? Turkey?
We once abandoned a red line. Now, we have abandoned an ally.
CENSORSHIP: TWITTER ANNOUNCES NEW RESTRICTIONS FOR WORLD LEADERS
Big Tech moving to block Trump’s reach to public as election season heats up
OCTOBER 15, 2019
In a move surely meant to muzzle President Trump, Twitter has announced new rules for the accounts of world leaders, making clear that certain content will result in “enforcement action,” according to a press release.
“There continues to be meaningful public conversation about how we think about Tweets from world leaders on our service,” Twitter stated Tuesday. “We welcome the conversation and want to share more context on our principles and process for reviewing reported Tweets from these accounts.
“When it comes to the actions of world leaders on Twitter, we recognize that this is largely new ground and unprecedented. We understand the desire for our decisions to be “yes/no” binaries, but it’s not that simple. The actions we take and policies we develop will set precedent around online speech and we owe it to the people we serve to be deliberate and considered in what we do.”
“Our mission is to provide a forum that enables people to be informed and to engage their leaders directly. We also have a responsibility to the people who use Twitter to better explain why we make the decisions we make, which we will do here.”
Twitter then lays out their “Enforcement scenarios” that would limit a world leader’s account or the ability of users to share their posts.
“The below areas will result in enforcement action for any account on our service (without consideration of the potential public interest value in allowing the Tweet to remain visible behind a notice):”
– Promotion of terrorism;
– Clear and direct threats of violence against an individual (context matters: as noted above, direct interactions with fellow public figures and/or commentary on political and foreign policy issues would likely not result in enforcement);
– Posting private information, such as a home address or non-public personal phone number;
– Posting or sharing intimate photos or videos of someone that were produced or distributed without their consent;
– Engaging in behaviors relating to child sexual exploitation; and
– Encouraging or promoting self-harm.
“In other cases involving a world leader, we will err on the side of leaving the content up if there is a clear public interest in doing so.”
Notably, if Twitter believes a world leader violated these policies, the company will freeze other users’ ability interact with that leader’s post.
“We haven’t used this notice yet, but when we do, you will not be able to like, reply, share, or Retweet the Tweet in question,” Twitter stated. “You will still be able to express your opinion with Retweet with Comment.”
Though Twitter made a similar announcement back in June, these new restrictions are far more severe than simply “down-ranking” a post.
Democrats will likely pressure Twitter relentlessly to enforce these limitations on Trump because they’re triggered by everything he says or tweets.
2020 presidential candidate Kamala Harris already demanded that Twitter outright remove Trump’s account earlier this month because he could “harm” people with his words.
Other Democrats also called for Twitter to remove Trump’s account, including former DNC Deputy Chairman Keith Ellison and Rep. Jackie Speier (Calif.).
Regardless of what Democrats try to do, Twitter has clearly decided it will serve as the gatekeeper for what information you can and cannot disseminate from your elected leaders.
Schiff Learned About Deep State CIA Spy’s Accusations Several Days Before ‘Whistleblower’ Filed Complaint
October 2, 2019
House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) learned about the Deep State CIA spy’s accusations against President Trump several days before the officer filed a whistleblower complaint.
It is blatantly obvious that Adam Schiff is one of the main architects of this coup against Trump and worked with the Brennan protege to help him craft the complaint.
Then just days after the whistleblower filed a claim of wrongdoing by President Trump, an aide to Schiff flew to Ukraine.
The trip by a staffer on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, on which Schiff serves as chairman, was “sponsored and organized by the Atlantic Council think tank,” Breitbart reported. “The council is funded by and routinely works in partnership with Burisma, the natural gas company at the center of allegations regarding Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden.”
So Schiff knew about the accusations well before the CIA spy filed a whistleblower complaint and planned accordingly.
Schiff colluded with the Deep State CIA spy. This is a conspiracy against President Trump.
The New York Times reported:
The Democratic head of the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, learned about the outlines of a C.I.A. officer’s concerns that President Trump had abused his power days before the officer filed a whistle-blower complaint, according to a spokesman and current and former American officials.
Before going to Congress, the C.I.A. officer had a colleague convey his accusations to the agency’s top lawyer. Concerned about how that avenue for airing his allegations was unfolding, the officer then approached a House Intelligence Committee aide, alerting him to the accusation against Mr. Trump. In both cases, the original accusation was vague.
The House staff member, following the committee’s procedures, suggested the officer find a lawyer to advise him and file a whistle-blower complaint. The aide shared some of what the officer conveyed to Mr. Schiff. The aide did not share the whistle-blower’s identity with Mr. Schiff, an official said.
“Like other whistle-blowers have done before and since under Republican and Democratic-controlled committees, the whistle-blower contacted the committee for guidance on how to report possible wrongdoing within the jurisdiction of the intelligence community,” said Patrick Boland, a spox for Schiff.
The CIA spy filed a whistleblower complaint in order to remain anonymous under the Whistleblower Protection Act.
The Deep State spook filed a complaint on August 12 based on second-hand knowledge and hearsay of Trump’s July 25 phone call to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, yet the Democrats are using this hit to push to impeach President Trump.
The ‘whistleblower’ alleged that Trump used quid pro quo to pressure Zelensky to investigate the Biden crime family — the Trump-Zelensky transcript was released and showed evidence to the contrary.
The whistleblower’s complaint was not written by a CIA officer, said former CIA analyst Fred Fleitz — the whistleblower had help and it looks life Schiff may be one of the people who helped him write the complaint.
Schiff not only helped this CIA spy from the beginning, he libeled President Trump and read a completely fabricated transcript of Trump’s call to Zelensky during a congressional hearing.
President Trump called for Adam Schiff to resign from Congress for the “crime of fraudulently fabricating a statement of the President of the United States and reading it to Congress.”
President Trump said Adam Schiff should be charged and arrested for treason.
“Coup conspiracy against President Trump confirmed?” Tom Fitton said in response to the New York Times story on Adam Schiff.
Tom's Blog 