MEXICAN IMMIGRANTS vs AFRICAN IMMIGRANTS (DEMOCRATS DISCRIMINATE & DIVIDE)

MEXICAN IMMIGRANTS vs AFRICAN IMMIGRANTS (DEMOCRATS DISCRIMINATE & DIVIDE):

WE ARE ALL ONE BUT DEMOCRATS APPEAR TO FIGHT MORE FOR MEXICAN IMMIGRANTS THAN BLACKS.

IS IT BETTER TO SEPARATE BLACK CHILDREN FROM FAMILIES THAN MEXICAN CHILDREN FROM FAMILIES?

DEMOCRATS ALSO ENDORSE TAKING JOBS FROM YOUNG BLACK MEN TO GIVE TO MEXICAN IMMIGRANTS.

YET DURING EACH MAJOR ELECTION DEMOCRATS SEEK THE BLACK MAJORITY VOTE.

IF WE ARE ALL ONE, WHY CAN'T BOTH AFRICAN & MEXICAN IMMIGRANTS BENEFIT FROM FAIR, UNBIASED IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT??


Post Sources: Bloomberg, Daily Republic, Youtube


******** Liberals say immigration enforcement racist, but Black men most likely to benefit


Donald Trump’s election victory over Hillary Clinton seemed to herald a new era for border security and immigration enforcement. But his polarizing and occasionally ignorant comments about immigrants have handed his adversaries a convenient pretext for stymying compromise on immigration reform: racism.

Left-leaning advocacy groups and a host of Democrats all too often shy away from the specifics of the debate and instead lean on cries of bigotry, resorting to claims like that of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who has described Trump’s approach to immigration reform as an effort to “make America white again.”

Claims that immigration enforcement equals racism ignore the reality that the group most likely to benefit from a tougher approach to immigration enforcement is young black men, who often compete with recent immigrants for low-skill jobs.

This dynamic played out recently at a large bakery in Chicago that supplies buns to McDonald’s. Some 800 immigrant laborers, most of them from Mexico, lost their jobs last year after an audit by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The Cloverhill Bakery, owned by Aryzta, a big Swiss food conglomerate, had to hire new workers, 80 percent to 90 percent of whom are African-American. According to the Chicago Sun Times, the new workers are paid $14 per hour, or $4 per hour more than the (illegal) immigrant workers.

In this case, and in many others, the beneficiaries of immigration enforcement were working-class blacks, who are often passed over for jobs by unscrupulous employers.

The labor force participation rate for adult black men has declined steadily since the passage of the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act, which ushered in a new era of mass immigration. In 1973, the rate was 79 percent. It is now at 68 percent, and the Bureau of Labor projects that it will decline to 61 percent by 2026.

The Obama White House in 2016 produced a 48-page report acknowledging that immigration does not help the labor force participation rate of the native-born. It concluded, however, that “immigration reform would raise the overall participation rate by bringing in new workers of prime working age.”

Although the report used the term “new workers,” Democrats may also be tempted by the prospect of new voters. But they should be aware that in courting one group, they risk losing others.

African-Americans tend to be a reliable voting bloc for the Democratic Party, but they have repeatedly indicated in public opinion surveys that they want significantly less immigration.

A recent Harvard-Harris poll found that African-Americans favor reducing legal immigration more than any other demographic group: 85 percent want less than the million-plus we allow annually, and 54 percent opted for the most stringent choices offered – 250,000 immigrants per year or less, or none at all.

These attitudes are rational.

In a 2010 study on the social effects of immigration, the Cornell University professor Vernon Briggs concluded: “No racial or ethnic group has benefited less or been harmed more than the nation’s African-American community.”

The Harvard economist George Borjas has found that between 1980 and 2000, one-third of the decline in the employment among black male high school dropouts was attributable to immigration. He also reported “a strong correlation between immigration, black wages, black employment rates, and black incarceration rates.”

University of Notre Dame professor Stephen Steinberg argued in a 2014 paper on neoliberal immigration policies and their effects on African-Americans that thanks to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, “African-Americans found themselves in the proverbial position of being ‘last hired.’” Steinberg also noted that “immigrants have been cited as proof that African-Americans lack the pluck and determination that have allowed millions of immigrants from Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean to pursue the American dream.”

The struggles of black men obviously cannot all be linked to immigration, but it’s clear that the status quo does not benefit them.

As elected leaders consider changing our immigration laws, the interests of America’s most vulnerable citizens shouldn’t be overlooked. The first step toward honest reform is for the Democratic Party to admit that while liberal immigration enforcement might help them win new voters, it also harms and disenfranchises their most loyal constituency.

TRUMP DC HOTEL SUED FOR EMPLOYMENT & RACIAL DISCRIMINATION (DOMINIQUE HILL, IRVING SMITH JR); BLACK vs LATINO WORKERS

TRUMP DC HOTEL SUED FOR EMPLOYMENT & RACIAL DISCRIMINATION (DOMINIQUE HILL, IRVING SMITH JR); BLACK vs LATINO WORKERS:

I REALLY HOPE THIS ISN'T TRUE.

BLACK PEOPLE & LATINO PEOPLE ARE BOTH CONSIDERED MINORITIES BUT LATINOS CAN'T BE HIRED TO REPLACE BLACKS.

LARGE & SMALL COMPANIES ARE NOW HIRING LATINOS TO REPLACE BLACKS FOR LOWER WAGES WITH THE PREMISE THAT LATINOS ARE STILL MINORITIES.

WHEN BLACK EMPLOYEES SUE COMPANIES FOR SUCH DISCRIMINATION, EMPLOYERS DON'T BELIEVE WE CAN PROVE IT.

EEOC NO LONGER PROTECTS BLACK PEOPLE WHO ARE TRULY DISCRIMINATED AGAINST IN THE WORKPLACE.

OBAMA CHANGED EEOC LAWS TO ONLY PROTECT WHITE WOMEN, LATINOS, MIDDLE EASTERN MUSLIMS AND NON-BLACK GAY PEOPLE.

SO WHERE IS CONGRESS ON THIS ISSUE?

CONGRESS DOESN'T CARE.

YET MILLIONS OF BLACK VOTERS ELECTED CONGRESS.

IN FACT MILLIONS OF BLACK VOTERS ELECTED CONGRESS DECADES BEFORE LATINOS VOTED FOR AMERICAN POLITICIANS.



Sources: Washington Post


***** Black employees of BLT Prime, in Trump International Hotel, allege racial discrimination


Dominique Hill and Irving Smith Jr. had good jobs.

Last year, Hill worked as a bartender at P.F. Chang’s in Tysons Corner and Smith had recently been promoted to bartender at Wildfire grill, also in Tysons. Each had more than a decade of experience working in restaurants and was making $700 to $900 a week.

But last summer both of them walked away from their jobs for a chance at something better: the opportunity to work at BLT Prime, the steakhouse in the luxury Trump International Hotel, Washington D.C.

The couple said they soon discovered their hopes were misplaced. In a civil complaint filed Wednesday morning in D.C. Superior Court, Hill, a former BLT employee, and Smith, a current one, allege that the Trump Organization and hotel managing director Mickael Damelincourt saw to it that the restaurant routinely steered black employees to less lucrative shifts and subjected them to discriminatory behavior by other staff and by guests. The two men are joined in the case by another former BLT employee, JaNette Sturdivant.

Hill said he was the first bartender the restaurant hired last summer, before the hotel opened, but was almost exclusively given only lunch shifts.
“Some days I would just stand there all day long and have no customers,” he said. He routinely made $300 to $400 for a 30- to 35-hour workweek at BLT. He claims only four black employees still work at BLT after the hotel opened with 15 or more.

Smith, who works as a BLT server, said he was demoted to assistant server early on and rarely given prime shifts, where weekly earnings averaged $600 to $1,500 and which allegedly went instead to newly hired white and Latino employees.
“They started hiring all these people and instead of putting them on day shifts they was giving them night shifts and keeping us on day shift. Next thing I know, within the month all the black people were on the day shift,” he said.
In a statement, the Trump Organization, which runs the hotel, called the allegations “utterly baseless,” particularly because “the Hotel never employed these individuals.”

“Rather, the plaintiffs worked for a third-party restaurant company that is solely responsible for the direction, supervision, and management of its own employees. In short, this lawsuit appears to be nothing more than a desperate, politically-motivated publicity stunt. We look forward to litigating this matter,” said Amanda Miller, a spokeswoman for the Trump Organization, in a statement.
ESquared Hospitality, which operates the restaurant, said it “wholeheartedly” disputed the allegations and that the employees “did not previously voice or file complaints through any of the proper channels.”
“Had they done so, BLT Prime would have immediately taken the alleged complaints seriously and investigated them to the fullest extent and would have taken appropriate action where warranted,” the company said.

Trump opened the hotel last fall, weeks before he was elected president. He no longer runs his company and has placed his ownership into a trust, but the family name still adorns everything from the sign out front to the cocktail napkins. After the election, Smith claimed one of his co-workers began making racist statements to him and that Smith’s complaints to management fell on deaf ears.

The lawsuit’s allegations about the restaurant stand in contrast to the operation of the larger hotel, whose is widely diverse by race, gender and nationality. On a busy Friday night in September, when the hotel unveiled a new dessert menu, staff who appeared to be black worked in prominent positions as bartender, hostess, server, valet and other posts.
A reporter observing six shifts of morning, afternoon and evening work at BLT, viewed staffs that appeared to be diverse as well, although evening bartenders appeared to usually be white. “We work diligently to create a culture of equal opportunity employment with a zero-tolerance policy for any kind of discrimination regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion or otherwise,” ESquared said in its statement.
Gregg C. Greenberg, a Maryland employment attorney, said racial discrimination cases are often difficult to prove.

“If you have a client that says, ‘I have been discriminated against,’ how and why are you able to prove it? Do you have emails or policies in place that are objectively discriminatory? Or do you just have the feeling that someone there is out for you?” he said.
Smith and Hill, unlike most workers in the hotel, were not employed directly by the Trump Organization but by ESquared. Hill produced paperwork showing that in March he filed a discrimination charge with the D.C. Office of Human Rights and underwent mediation in July with attorneys for ESquared.
When that failed, he filed suit with representation from A.J. Dhali, a D.C. attorney who said he has brought nearly 100 employment cases in his career and averages 15 to 18 annually.
Dhali argued the Trump Organization had control over the BLT employees’ employment because of the nature of the management contract between the hotel and ESquared. Whether other black employees were treated well or not was not the issue for the court to consider, he said.
“I don’t have to show that discrimination occurred against everybody. I just have to show that discrimination occurred against my clients,” Dhali said. The plaintiffs are seeking $14.5 million in damages.
Hill and Smith said they have both experienced discrimination in other restaurant jobs. Smith said guests at Wildfire once informed management they did not want a black or gay server. “Management asked them to leave,” he said. He said management at Clyde’s issued the same directive when necessary, but that at BLT, he said he had twice observed guests requesting service from nonblack staff who were allowed to stay. The suit cites other allegedly racist behavior by some guests, and it describes a working environment where, for instance, a staff memo posted in the kitchen details how the staff ought to handle $39 ostrich eggs for a dish that includes a photo of an ostrich chasing a black man.
The third plaintiff, Sturdivant, 34, a black woman who worked at BLT from May to June as a server, claimed she was complimented on her light skin after arriving.

“When I first came on board … the server manager said it’s good to see someone with Milano complexion here,” she said. Still, she said she was not given “moneymaking” night shifts.
Hill said he was fired after dropping a bloody mary on a baby in a stroller at a weekend brunch. But he said a white server who spilled a bottle of champagne down a bride’s dress and was not suspended or fired.
“I kept saying, why am I being terminated? Why can’t I be suspended or transferred? … My feeling was Mickael, who was right there, was letting me go from the company.” After being fired he said he was without work for six weeks and had his cable and electricity cut off in his apartment. Smith lost his car because he could not make the payments.
Smith said he took a second restaurant job to pay his bills and works about 60 hours a week.
“I would go to work crying and ask god why are you doing this? We were so comfortable and gave up everything to go to this place. And then to be treated like this.”

MARYLAND'S REAL ID ACT ABUSE, BARRIER TO EMPLOYMENT (MVA)

MARYLAND'S REAL ID ACT ABUSE, BARRIER TO EMPLOYMENT (MVA):

HOW THE US DEPT OF HOMELAND SECURITY ALLOWS MARYLAND TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST BLACKS & LATINOS.



If you (BLACK or LATINO citizen) have been adversely impacted via the State of MARYLAND'S Motor Vehicle Dept (MVA) inaccurately and Illegally interpreting a Federal law called the REAL ID ACT, which was enacted by Congress in 2005, to instruct States on proper procedures to authenticate documents used for identification purposes and that adverse action by the State of MARYLAND'S Dept of Motor Vehicle (MVA) has prevented you from being EMPLOYED, then please watch this video.

Illegally denying you (BLACK or LATINO citizen) a Drivers License or ID Card so you can be gainfully EMPLOYED, is indeed a Barrier to EMPLOYMENT which causes Unreasonable Hardship.

So if you have VALID identification documents which you previously used in other states to obtain Federal Employment, US Military Enlistment and Drivers Licenses or ID Cards, yet in MARYLAND you are being denied by the MVA, then please do watch this video.

The REAL ID Act of 2005, Pub.L. 109–13, 119 Stat. 302, enacted May 11, 2005, was an Act of Congress that modified U.S. federal law pertaining to security, authentication, and issuance procedures standards for the state driver's licenses and identification (ID) cards, as well as various immigration issues pertaining to terrorism.

The REAL ID Act of 2005, is enforced by the US Dept of Homeland Security.


Sources: NBC News, Washington Post, Baltimore Sun, YouTube



**** D.C., Maryland and Virginia drivers find different licensing rules despite federal ID law


Protecting the nation from international terrorists is primarily a federal job. Testing and credentialing people to drive is a local task. During the past several weeks, D.C. residents have been learning that, under federal law, the two overlap.

That’s the reason they now need to collect a bunch of identity documents and bring them to the Department of Motor Vehicleswhenever their driver’s licenses expire. In many ways, the applicants are going back to square one to prove who they are, where they are and that it’s legal for them to be here.

This is not so much about making sure the right people are driving cars. It has much more to do with who is boarding airplanes. What D.C. drivers will go through when they renew licenses stems from the federal REAL ID Act of 2005, passed with the knowledge that many of the terrorists who brought down planes on Sept. 11, 2001, had been issued state driver’s licenses.

In the nine years since the act was passed, the effort to impose uniform security standards on the various approaches to issuing driver’s licenses has raised concerns among civil libertarians, privacy advocates and immigrant groups. But the ID law also has run into something at least as powerful: state bureaucracies that had their own histories of providing motor vehicle services.

Some states have refused to conform to the law. Many have been deemed in compliance. Some are still figuring out their own ways of conforming in consultation with the federal Department of Homeland Security.

The D.C. region illustrates the diverse responses to a law requiring uniformity.

The District Department of Motor Vehicles is now on track to revalidate their drivers as they come in with expiring licenses. The drivers must appear in person at a DMV office to supply proof of identity, address and Social Security number.

After this one-time-only appearance, they will be mailed a new style of driver’s license marked with a star in the upper right corner. The star indicates compliance with the REAL ID Act. This year and early next, the federal government is phasing in a requirement that only this compliant type of driver’s license can be accepted when a driver’s license is presented for identification at a secure federal facility or a nuclear power plant.

It may eventually be the only type of driver’s license accepted for boarding a commercial airliner, but that won’t apply before 2016.

Drivers who live in Maryland or Virginiawho are aware of the new procedure for D.C. licenses may be wondering if they’ll get the same treatment as their licenses expire.

The answer is no. If I took my Maryland driver’s license in for renewal this week, I’d be subject to the usual vision screening, but I wouldn’t need to rummage for my birth certificate, or passport or proof of residence. And I’d walk out of with a license similar to the one I went in with — except for my somewhat older looking mug.

No star in the upper right.

And yet the Department of Homeland Security deemed Maryland compliant with the REAL ID Act back in 2012. For many years now, the Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration has been electronically verifying its drivers’ identifies, said spokesman Buel Young. The MVA worked through the long list of long list of security issues identified under the federal rules and the Homeland Security department accepted the state as compliant with the law, Young said.

Virginia is different. In fact, the General Assembly reacted to the REAL ID Act by passing its own bill in 2009 that prohibits the commonwealth from implementing any part of the REAL ID Act or other federal law that would compromise the economic privacy or biological data of any Virginian.

The Senate version of the bill was sponsored by then-state Sen. Ken Cuccinelli II (R) and signed into law by then-Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D).

As of this spring, Virginia’s Department of Motor Vehicles is not compliant with the federal law. And the DMV has scheduled no changes in its licensing process.

But, said DMV spokeswoman Sunni Blevins Brown, “The Department of Homeland Security has acknowledged Virginia DMV’s significant progress enhancing the security and issuance process for credentials, and as a result, Virginia has been granted an extension until at least October.

“Virginians will not experience any difficulty in obtaining federal services or access to federal facilities with their Virginia credentials.”

It’s some of that e pluribus unum we’re famous for. The goal is the same, but for drivers, the procedures are looking a bit different.

“Virginia has one of the most secure licenses in the country,” Brown said of her non-compliant state.

What’s a driver to do? Follow the mailed instructions from your motor vehicle agency when renewal time approaches.

NORTH CAROLINA VOTER ID LAW INVALIDATED BY FED COURT

NORTH CAROLINA VOTER ID LAW INVALIDATED BY FEDERAL COURT

FIRST TEXAS NOW THE TARHEEL STATE.

Sources: Politico, WNCT, Austin Chronicle, Youtube

**** Federal Court strikes down North Carolina voter ID law

A federal appeals court has struck down North Carolina’s voter identification law, holding that it was “passed with racially discriminatory intent.”

The ruling also invalidated changes the state made in 2013 to early voting, same-day registration, out-of-precinct voting, and preregistration.

The state could seek to appeal the decision to the full bench of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals or to the Supreme Court, but it seems unlikely those courts will step in to restore the voter ID law and other voting-related changes in advance of the November election.

MCCRORY vs LORETTA LYNCH: MCRORY MAY LOSE

MCCRORY vs LORETTA LYNCH: MCRORY MAY LOSE

WHITE MAN vs BLACK WOMAN FOR 2016 POLITICS.

MCRORY STOOD UP AGAINST POLITICAL INTIMIDATION BUT HE MAY HAVE DONE SO TOO LATE.

Sources: Fox News, CNN, Citizen Wells, Youtube

In February 2016, despite wide voter opposition, Charlotte City Council members passed a Transgender Bathroom Sharing Ordinance which only forced Private Businesses, Private Schools (not Public Schools), Churches and Non-Profit agencies to comply.

The Ordinance was due to become effective April 1st.

In March 2016, North Carolina Gov Pat McCory and the NC General Assembly repealed the Charlotte Ordinance via passage of House Bill 2.

Ironically the man who spearheaded passage of Charlotte's Transgender Bathroom Ordinance is an LGBT Advocate who was Convicted of taking Indecent Liberties with a 15-yr old boy on a field trip.

The mainstream media refuses to report on this fact.

In May 2016, GOP North Carolina Gov Pat McCrory is suing the Federal gov't for its overreach in trying to force every state and commonwealth in America to enact laws which order Private Businesses and Churches to allow Transgender people to use Bathroom facilities of their personal choice.

US DOJ Attorney General Loretta Lynch, a Black Woman from North Carolina, claims that denying Transgender people access to use Bathrooms of their choice is a Civil Rights Violation.

In response to Gov McCrory's lawsuit, Loretta Lynch has now countersued the state of North Carolina.

So here we have a Powerful Black Woman from North Carolina fighting a Powerful White Man from North Carolina over Bathrooms for Transgender people during a critical election year.

Unlike Black people, Transgender were not Biologically born Transgender. Instead their sexual orientation is merely a Lifestyle choice.

Millions of US citizens are unemployed, the US Military is lacking in crucial funding for Training so they can defeat ISIL and America's Borders are porous yet Obama has Politicians fighting and wasting US Taxpayer money over Bathrooms for Transgender people.

God Forbid!

I stand with Gov McCrory on HB2, however this public legal battle may indeed cost him re-election.

Why?

Because McCrory sat quietly for too long and then allowed Obama to intentionally drag him into a Cultural Political war for the sole purpose of destroying Pat McCrory's political career forever and for the 2016 election.

I will continue to Pray diligently for Gov McCrory and for the entire United States of America.

**** North Carolina, U.S., square off over transgender rights

(CNN)The United States and North Carolina tangled over transgender rights on Monday, with the Justice Department filing a civil rights lawsuit over the state's so-called bathroom bill and state officials defiantly filing suits against the federal directive to stop the implementation of the controversial legislation.

Also, a major player in North Carolina -- the state's public university system -- defied the governor and legislature and told the Justice Department on Monday it intends to act "in compliance with federal law" as it relates to House Bill 2, known as HB2.

The Justice Department seeks declaratory relief and threatens to curtail federal funding to the North Carolina Department of Public Safety and the University of North Carolina.

With hundreds of millions of dollars in funding at stake, UNC System President Margaret Spellings said longstanding policy prohibits university personnel from discriminating on the basis of, among other things, gender identity, sex, or sexual orientation.

Attorney General Loretta Lynch, announcing the U.S. legal action to reporters on Monday, cast the bathroom bill issue as the latest civil rights struggle of the era.

"It was not so very long ago that states, including North Carolina, had other signs above restrooms, water fountains, and on public accommodations, keeping people out based on a distinction without a difference. We've moved beyond those dark days," Lynch said.

The act bans people from using public bathrooms that do not correspond with their biological sex. Since its passage in March, North Carolina has become a national battleground on the issue of transgender rights. It has drawn a flurry of condemnation from civil liberties groups, LGBT advocates and major businesses. It has also won praise from groups like the Family Research Council.

After the law's passage, musicians Bruce Springsteen, Demi Lovato, Nick Jonas, and the bands Pearl Jam and Boston canceled concerts in the state. Those cancellations have cost one major venue nearly $200,000 in ticket sales.

PayPal and Deutsche Bank have both canceled plans to expand into North Carolina.

The Justice Department said last week that "access to sex-segregated restrooms and other workplace facilities consistent with gender identity is a term, condition or privilege of employment. Denying such access to transgender individuals, whose gender identity is different from their gender assigned at birth, while affording it to similarly situated non-transgender employees, violates Title VII," a section of the Civil Rights Act prohibiting discrimination against workers on the basis of sex, race, color, national origin, and religion.

The federal government demanded the state "remedy" the act or risk being in violation of federal law. 

Instead, North Carolina officials filed a lawsuit calling the Justice Department's position a "radical reinterpretation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act." Top state legislators, Phil Berger and Tim Moore, also filed a complaint against the Justice Department.

But Lynch on Monday said the legislature and governor put the state in "direct opposition to federal laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex and gender identity. More to the point, they created state-sponsored discrimination against transgender individuals who simply seek to engage in the most private of functions in a place of safety and security, a right taken for granted by most of us."

After the federal government asked the state to certify by the end of the day Monday that it would not comply with or implement the bill's restriction on bathroom access, Lynch said the state requested an extension and that had been under "active consideration."

Instead, the governor and the state chose another course: a lawsuit.

"But instead of replying to our offer or providing a certification, this morning, the state of North Carolina and its governor chose to respond by suing the Department of Justice. As a result of their decisions, we are now moving forward," Lynch said.

The federal suit also says the state is in violation of Title IX, the Education Acts Amendment of 1972 that bans gender discrimination in education, and the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act that outlaws discrimination on the basis of sex. 

"This action is about a great deal more than bathrooms," Lynch said. "This is about the dignity and the respect that we accord our fellow citizens and the laws that we as a people and as a country have enacted to protect them."

Lynch said there have been "discriminatory responses to historic moments of progress": the Jim Crow laws that followed the Emancipation Proclamation, the resistance to Brown V. Board of Education, and the "proliferation of state bans on same-sex unions that were intended to stifle any hope that gay and lesbian Americans might one day be afforded the right to marry."

"That right, of course, is now recognized as a guarantee embedded in our Constitution. And in the wake of that historic triumph, we have seen bill after bill in state after state taking aim at the LGBT community," she said. 

She told transgender people that the Obama administration "will do everything we can to protect you going forward."

'Not a protected class'

McCrory's communications director Josh Ellis said after Lynch's remarks that the governor is "appropriately seeking legal certainty to a complex issue impacting employers and students throughout the country" but "in contrast, the attorney general is using divisive rhetoric to advance the Obama administration's strategy of making laws that bypass the constitutional authority of Congress and our courts." 

The act puts in place a statewide policy that bans individuals from using public bathrooms that do not correspond to their biological sex and stops cities from passing anti-discrimination ordinances to protect gay and transgender identity. That power is reserved for the state under the new law. 

North Carolina officials defend the act and said it doesn't violate federal law. The state also said the United States didn't give the state enough time to deal with the matter.

McCrory said Monday that he requested an additional two weeks to respond but was told he would be granted one week, and only if he issued a statement concurring with the Justice Department.

The lawsuit filed by the governor and Public Safety Secretary Frank Perry calls the demand that the state "remedy" the legislation by Monday or risk being in violation of federal law "a baseless and blatant overreach" and said it is making a "radical reinterpretation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act."

McCrory's argument also said the state of North Carolina hasn't been given enough time to respond and that the federal government is overstepping its authority.

In a Monday news conference, McCrory blamed the city of Charlotte for raising the issue of gender identity and public restrooms. The matter was not on the state's agenda, he said, until the city imposed a mandate that "caused major privacy concerns about males entering female facilities and females entering male facilities."

Because, he said, this is now a national issue -- and could affect every U.S. company with more than 15 employees -- McCrory called on Congress to revisit the anti-discrimination provisions under Titles VII and IX.

"Our nation is one nation, especially when it comes to fighting discrimination, which I wholeheartedly support," McCrory said. 

North Carolina homes in on Title VII in its lawsuit, saying precedence is clear: "Transgender status is not a protected class under Title VII," and it cites a half-dozen cases that it says back its stance. Only Congress can change this, the lawsuit says.

Even if the state felt transgender individuals were afforded federal protection, the Justice Department demands overstep, the state suit says, because the law "allows accommodations based on special circumstances, including but not limited to transgender individuals." 

In a statement announcing the lawsuit, McCrory said the federal government was trying to tell every government agency and company employing more than 15 people "that men should be allowed to use a women's locker room, restroom or shower facility."

He said later that the "new, complex and emotional issue" pitted privacy against equality.

The lawsuit emphasizes that no one is facing discrimination because the law applies equally to everyone.

"All state employees are required to use the bathroom and changing facilities assigned to a person of their same biological sex, regardless of gender identity, or transgender status," it says.

The lawsuit filed by Berger, North Carolina Senate president pro tempore and Moore, state House Speaker, reflected the views of many of the bill's supporters that people "expect to encounter only other people of the same biological sex" when they are in intimate setting such as public bathrooms.

It says the "ideological extremity -- and utter unworkability -- of the department's position on the issues in this case is astonishing." 

LGBT CULTURE WARS: DESIGNED TO DESTROY UNITED STATES (HB2)

LGBT CULTURE WARS:

DESIGNED TO DESTROY THE UNITED STATES

THE ROMAN ARMY WAS DEFEATED VIA HOMOSEXUALITY.

IT'S TIME TO PRAY AND VOTE BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE.

Sources: WND, NBC, Lost History.com, Youtube

Despite what propaganda Mainstream Media networks report to American citizens, the LGBT movement culture war is not about DISCRIMINATION.

Nor is the LGBT movement culture war about Transgender Bathroom Sharing Ordinances.

To the contrary!

Instead the LGBT movement culture war is really about destroying Christianity and dividing the United States, just as the Roman Army was eventually defeated via transforming the Roman soldiers into Homosexuals.

I am well aware that the main focus and discussion of this post is a controversial topic but......

Will the citizens of 21st century America wake up to what is actually going on in this country before it's too late?

Or is the USA headed for eternal Moral and Political DESTRUCTION?

Rome didn't fall in a day.

I say it's time to Pray and Vote before it's too late.

***** CHRISTIANS MUST UNITE AGAINST GAY BULLIES

Michael Brown urges readers to take action in support of religious freedom.

The mayor of San Francisco has banned all publicly funded city employees from traveling to North Carolina.

The NFL threatened to block Atlanta, Georgia, from hosting a future Super Bowl.

The NBA is threatening to relocate next year’s All Star game from Charlotte, North Carolina, to another city.

Corporate giants like American Airlines and Hollywood giants like Disney are threatening action against Georgia and North Carolina.

Why?

It is because North Carolina has passed a bill requiring people to use the public bathroom or locker room that corresponds to their birth certificate gender and because Georgia has enacted legislation (subsequently vetoed by the governor) that would protect pastors from having to perform same-sex “marriages.”

It is time for Christians and all people of conscience to say, “Enough is enough with your bullying. We are not going to bow down to your threats. We will do what is right, regardless of cost or consequence, and in the end, we will be vindicated for taking a stand.”

As for Ed Lee, the mayor of San Francisco, he’s acting more like a dictator than a mayor. Who gave him the right to tell city-funded employees where they could travel in their own country, once known as “the land of the free”?

Unfortunately, the pattern is all too familiar.

A state like Indiana passes a Religious Freedom Restoration Act that mirrors national law, as a result of which gay bullies and their allies threaten to pull their businesses from the state – from Wal-Mart to Apple to Craig’s List to the NCAA – and within days, the governor and the legislation cave, passing a new law that makes things worse than ever. (This happened in March 2015; the Indianan legislators and governor have since pushed back to some degree.)

We cannot let this happen in our states (I have lived in North Carolina since 2003), and as believers nationwide, we must stand together and reject these pressure tactics and call them out for what they are: unethical, strong-armed bullying.

Never bow down to bullies!

The culture war is not over! Gain hope, courage and practical advice in Michael Brown’s latest book, “Outlasting the Gay Revolution: Where Homosexual Activism Is Really Going and How to Turn the Tide”

Earlier this year, I helped draft an eight-page letter to the mayor and City Council of Charlotte, detailing the negative effects their new “anti-LGBT discrimination” bill could have. (Ironically, a gay man who was instrumental in helping to push this bill through was a convicted, child sex-offender who has since resigned as president of Charlotte’s LGBT Chamber of Commerce because of his past record.)

Among the negative effects of this bill outlined in my letter were:

• The door would be opened wide to heterosexual predators who would use transgender bathroom rights to spy on girls and women (for chilling video evidence of what these heterosexual predators have done, see here).
• The proposed changes could lead to widespread discrimination against Christians and other people of faith who, in good conscience, could not participate in same-sex “weddings” (such as photographers, bakers, florists, and others). The law would now be decidedly against them.

I also noted that, “National studies indicate that states which do not have non-discrimination laws including ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identity’ are suffering no ill effects economically,” dispelling the myth that only “progressive” (= “pro-LGBT”) cities are prospering. The evidence is clearly against this.

This is yet another reason to stand up to the bullies: Good business practices and hard work lead to prosperity, not being politically correct. (For the truth about the North Carolina bill, which the secular media is largely failing to report, see here, and note that in North Carolina, some of the companies protesting the loudest already have policies to protect LGBT “rights,” and those policies are completely unaffected by the new law.)

In Georgia, the main focus was preserving religious freedoms, such as protecting pastors from having to perform same-sex “wedding” ceremonies. (Religious freedoms were certainly an issue in North Carolina, but the central focus here was on the bathroom bill.)

Yet as Ryan Anderson pointed out, the bill passed by the Georgia Legislature was quite narrow in its protections, contained language that could be used against people of faith and was a significantly gutted version of a far from perfect original bill.

In other words, the bill Gov. Nathan Deal vetoed Monday is quite tame, simply providing the barest of protections of our religious liberties, yet it still created an uproar of protest, as “More than 30 of Hollywood’s heaviest hitters sent a threatening letter to Gov. Nathan Deal, telling him in no uncertain terms that if he passes the religious-freedom bill the legislature handed him for consideration, they’ll never work in Georgia again.”

As I have warned for years (and repeated almost ad infinitum), the activists who came out of the closet want to put you and me in the closet, and they will not rest until that door is safely shut. It is time for us to say: That will never happen, and we will go to jail rather than compromise our convictions. Your bullying will backfire in the end.

When it comes to transgender issues, we are dealing with an unquantifiable, untestable condition that relies entirely on self-perception (and can switch by the day or the hour), as noted by Margaret A. Hagen, professor of psychological and brain sciences at Boston University. Yet the mayor of Seattle recently used an executive order to allow biological males to use women’s bathrooms.

What kind of social madness is this?

In the days to come, I plan to lay out some specific calls to action, including a strategy for Christian athletes in the NFL and NBA. But for now, it’s time for us to get on our knees before God so we can stand tall before man, resolving in our hearts that, whatever it takes (in godly, not fleshly terms), we will do what is right. (For an excellent, strategic handbook, see here.)

For the moment, I encourage you to take a moment to send a note of appreciation to Gov. Pat McCrory in North Carolina for not caving in (he will be under heavy pressure in the days ahead). Will you stop and do that right now?

Billy Graham once said, “Courage is contagious. When a brave man takes a stand, the spines of others are often stiffened.”

Let courage spread from you to others – in your home, your school, your place of business, your congregation – beginning today.

We will not bow down to the bullies!

PAT MCCRORY RUINS POLITICAL CAREER; REPEALS LGBT BATHROOM ORDINANCE (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS)

PAT MCCRORY RUINS POLITICAL CAREER; REPEALS LGBT BATHROOM ORDINANCE 

IT'S NOT ABOUT PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION. IT'S REALLY ABOUT 2016 POLITICS.

GAY RIGHTS BULLIES & POLITICAL CORRECTNESS vs COMMON SENSE & PUBLIC SAFETY

Sources:  ABC News, Charlotte Observer, WSOC, Twitter, Youtube

Pat McCrory Tweeted:–Verified account‏@PatMcCroryNC

"Ordinance defied common sense, allowing men to use women’s bathroom/locker room for instance. That’s why I signed bipartisan bill to stop it."

7:16 PM - 23 Mar 2016

February 22, 2016 Charlotte City Council members rammed through an Aggressive Politically-Correct LGBT Bathroom Sharing ordinance without regard for public safety.

March 24, 2016 amid THREATS from Gay Rights Bullies with tons of MONEY, 

North Carolina Gov Pat McCrory repealed this Aggressive Politically-Correct LGBT Bathroom Sharing ordinance.

Now the OBAMA Administration and wealthy donors are ordering all mainstream media networks to ruin Gov McCrory's political career via negative propaganda just like Bullies do when they want to destroy someone's life.

Before I proceed with this post I want to make it clear that I have not always agreed with Gov McCrory's policies but in this instance I do.

Now let's analyze the theatrics behind all this Obama-inspired, Politically-Correct divisive drama.

So why did elected members of the Charlotte City Council recently pass an ordinance requiring all local businesses (including Churches) to allow Men, Women & Children to use bathrooms of their choice based on which Sexual or Gender they identify with on a day-to-day basis?

This ordinance was passed to repay Political favours.

You see during the last election (Nov 2015) wealthy donors and LGBT advocates poured tons of money into the campaign coffers of Charlotte's elected officials.

After winning their seats it was payback time.

Regardless of public safety concerns and the obvious lack of common sense, those wealthy donors and LGBT advocates forced Charlotte's elected officials into ramming through an Aggressive "Bathroom for everyone at the same time" ordinance.

You see the passage of such an aggressive ordinance was not about prohibiting Discrimination against LGBT people.

It was about repaying Political favors to wealthy political donors who don't really care about the U.S. Constitution, nor true Human Rights.

Instead it's about the 2016 election, enforcing new Politically-Correct government agendas and blackmailing Governors who don't want to comply.

Under this new ordinance, at any given time an Adult Man or Woman based on their Gender identity for that particular day, could enter a public bathroom and use the facilities alongside a little boy or girl.

To heck with public safety right?

How ironic is it that many wealthy donors who support Gay rights wouldn't think twice about voting "YES" to Abort a baby at nine months.

In addition these same wealthy donors who support Gay rights don't really give a darn about Civil Rights for BLACK people living in the United States.

I repeat.

The passage of such aggressive bathroom sharing ordinances is not about prohibiting Discrimination against LGBT people.

Instead it's about the 2016 election, enforcing new Politically-Correct government agendas and blackmailing Governors who don't want to comply.

Considering the totality of the circumstances, North Carolina Gov Pat McCrory was left with no choice other than to work with NC legislators on quickly  repealing Charlotte's Aggressive "Bathroom for everyone at the same time" ordinance.

Did Gov McCrory ruin his political career as the mainstream media predicts just because he dared to defy a few wealthy LGBT donors and the Obama Administration who think they have replaced the Lord GOD Almighty??

Stay tuned.

It's time to PRAY like never before for the United States of America.

****  MCCRORY SIGNS BILL OVERTURNING TRANSGENDER ORDINANCE

North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory has signed legislation designed to rein in local governments passing their own anti-discrimination rules.

McCrory's office confirmed he signed the law late Wednesday night, hours after the legislature finalized the bill in a one-day work session.

Lawmakers returned to Raleigh because a Charlotte City Council ordinance was supposed to take effect April 1 that expanded protections on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for treatment at hotels and restaurants.

Critics focused on the ability of transgender people to use the bathroom or locker rooms aligned with their gender identity. So did McCrory, Charlotte's mayor for 14 years.

The resulting legislation went further. Now cities, towns, and counties can't pass anti-discrimination rules beyond a new state standard. And public schools, public college campuses and government agencies must require bathrooms or locker rooms be designated for use only by people based on their biological sex.

McCrory's office released a statement Wednesday night, saying "the basic expectation of privacy in the most personal of settings, a restroom or locker room, for each gender was violated by government overreach and intrusion by the mayor and city council of Charlotte."

The governor also said the "radical breach of trust and security under the false argument of equal access not only impacts the citizens of Charlotte but people who come to Charlotte to work, visit or play. This new government regulation defies common sense and basic community norms by allowing, for example, a man to use a woman's bathroom, shower or locker room."

Lambda Legal, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of North Carolina, and Equality North Carolina condemned McCrory's action, and announced after the bill became law that the organizations are exploring legal challenges to the law.

"Instead of solving any real problems, the law would create new ones and could lead to intolerable and unfair conditions for transgender students who are entitled, by federal law, to a safe and equitable education," said Tara Borello, a senior attorney with Lambda Legal.

Republican majorities in the state House and Senate easily passed House Bill 2, blocking Charlotte's bathroom ordinance.

But something very unusual happened in the Senate - frustrated Democrats refused to vote on the bill, and walked out.

Facing a half-empty Senate chamber, Republican Sen.Tom Apodaca suggested Republicans move on with the vote.

"Mr. President, I move that we do third reading electronically, I don't think they're going to show back up," he said from the Senate floor.

After the Democrats walked out and let their empty seats do the talking. Republicans passed the bill without them, 32-0.

"I cannot recall a time when that's happened. I think it's a serious breach of (the Democrats') obligation to the citizens that voted to elect them," said Senate Pro-Tempore Phil Berger.

Still, in news releases sent out after the passage of the bill, Governor McCrory and legislative leaders referred to the measure as "bipartisan" - pointing out it did get votes from some Democrats.

The contentious vote proved a fitting end to what's been a controversial government power struggle.

Republicans argued that Charlotte had no authority to approve a city ordinance allowing transgender people to use the restroom aligned to their gender identity, a move to protect transgender citizens who felt intimidated or bullied in public restrooms.

HB2 blocks the ordinance and bars any other local government from enacting a similar measure.

"It's a terrible day for North Carolina. It's a terrible day," said Serena Sebring, a member of Southerner on New Ground, a group who came to oppose the General Assembly's vote. "People are harmed, people are going to be continued to be harmed. I would say shame on this state, shame on our lawmakers."

Social conservative activist Tami Fitzgerald led the fight against Charlotte's ordinance, arguing it gave license to sexual predators to enter the ladies' room.

"We're very pleased with the outcome", Fitzgerald said following the Senate vote. "Really it was just common sense, not to allow men in the women's bathrooms".

Fitzgerald, executive director of the North Carolina Values Coalition, also released a statement, saying in part, that, "we applaud Governor Pat McCrory for showing North Carolinians what a true leader looks like by sticking to his word in taking immediate action and signing HB2 into law. This new law strengthens North Carolina's already thriving business climate by giving business owners the freedom they deserve to do business effectively."

The law deals a blow to an LGBT movement that has had success getting similar ordinances approved in more than 200 cities across the country.

The ACLU of North Carolina issued an angry statement after the bill passed, calling the bill the "most-extreme anti-LGBT bill in the nation."

In part, the ACLU wrote:

The Charlotte ordinance protected lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender residents from discrimination in public accommodations including restaurants, hotels, taxis and bathrooms. Among other protections, it allowed transgender men and transgender women to use the restroom that corresponds to their gender identity. HB2 ... removes the ability of any local government to protect people from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity and requires all public facilities, including schools, to allow restroom access only on the basis of "biological sex." It also jeopardizes the more than $4.5 billion in federal funding that North Carolina receives for secondary and post-secondary schools under Title IX, which prohibits sex discrimination, including discrimination against transgender students.
Republican leaders at the General Assembly scheduled a one-day session after enough lawmakers requested to reconvene. They were responding to worries from constituents and conservative activists about the provision in the state's largest city that's set to take effect April 1. Otherwise, they wouldn't have met again until late April.

Republican House Speaker Tim Moore has said intervening is necessary to protect the safety of women and children. There have been arguments that any man - perhaps a sex offender - could enter a woman's restroom or locker room simply by calling himself transgender.

"What we're doing is preserving a sense of privacy that people have long expected in private facilities and we are restoring and clarifying ... the existing authority and limits of authority of local government," said GOP Rep. Dan Bishop, who represents Charlotte, a bill sponsor.

NC Attorney General Roy Cooper, a Democrat, released a statement Wednesday after the House vote voicing his opposition to the passage of the bill.

"We're better than this. Discrimination is wrong, period," Cooper said, in part. "That North Carolina is making discrimination part of the law is shameful. It will not only cause real harm to families, but to our economy as well."

The NC GOP fired back at Cooper, who is running for governor, saying "today, lawmakers were forced to return to Raleigh to hold an emergency session of the General Assembly because Attorney General Roy Cooper refused to do his job and protect North Carolina families and children."

Representatives for gay-rights groups said overturning the ordinance is wrong and demonizing the community. They say blocking the ordinance will deny lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people essential protections needed to ensure they can get a hotel room, hail a taxi or dine at a restaurant without fear.

At least 225 cities and counties nationwide have passed similar anti-discrimination laws.

"Charlotte's law is not unusual, unique or radical," said Chris Sgro, executive director of Equality North Carolina. "A special session to deal with such an ordinance is radical, unique and unusual."

Leading up to last month's approval in Charlotte, city leaders heard from LGBT residents who say they've experienced harassment and discrimination trying to use public accommodations.

The ordinance "sends a message to everyone that we matter," Erica Lachowitz of Charlotte, who was born male but identifies as female, said last week. Otherwise, she added, "we are afraid half the time to walk in to a bathroom that matches our gender identity."

McCrory, a Republican, has been critical of the ordinance in Charlotte, where he was mayor for 14 years.

Legislation requiring transgender students to use bathrooms corresponding with their birth gender have failed recently in other states. South Dakota's legislature failed to override Gov. Dennis Daugaard's veto of such legislation. A similar Tennessee bill died Tuesday in a House committee.