TRANSGENDERS vs US MILITARY - BAN IS REINSTATED (NO SOCIAL EXPERIMENTS)

TRANSGENDERS vs US MILITARY - BAN IS REINSTATED:

THE US MILITARY WAS ESTABLISHED TO LEAD AND DEFEND OUR NATION NOT TO CONDUCT FAKE DISCRIMINATORY SOCIAL EXPERIMENTS.

TAXPAYER MONEY SHOULD NOT USED TO CHANGE THE NATURAL GOD-GIVEN PHYSICAL GENDER OF HUMAN BEINGS.


Sources: BBC, Fox News, YouTube



***** Trump announces ban on transgender individuals serving in military


President Trump touched off a firestorm Wednesday after tweeting that he wants to ban transgender people from serving in the U.S. military in any capacity -- citing advice from his "generals" and medical costs.

In a series of tweets, he wrote:

"After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow...Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military. Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming..victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail. Thank you."

The president’s tweets came only a few weeks after Defense Secretary James Mattis said he would give military chiefs another six months to conduct a review to determine if allowing transgender individuals to enlist in the armed services will affect the “readiness or lethality” of the force. The deadline for that review was Dec. 1, 2017.

“This is worse than don’t ask don’t tell, this is don’t serve, don’t serve,” The National Center for Transgender Equality said in a written statement. “This is an appalling attack on our service members; it is about bigotry rather than military readiness, reason or science. It is indefensible and cannot stand.”

The Family Research Council praised Trump’s action.

“I applaud President Trump for keeping his promise to return to military priorities – and not continue the social experimentation of the Obama era that has crippled our nation’s military,” FRC President Tony Perkins said in a statement. “The military can now focus its efforts on preparing to fight and win wars rather than being used to advance the Obama social agenda.”

Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, said "we don't need to be experimenting with the military. Plus there's no reason to take on that kind of financial burden."

But Trump himself tweeted during the campaign season that he would "fight" for the LGBTQ community while his opponent "Hillary (Clinton) brings in more people that will threaten your freedoms and beliefs."

During his confirmation hearing in January, Mattis was asked whether he believed that allowing LGBT Americans to serve in the military or women in combat would undermine the military’s lethality.

“Frankly, senator, I’ve never cared much about two consenting adults and who they go to bed with,” Mattis testified.

Abbie Goldberg, professor of psychology at Clark University who has researched and written about the LGBTQ community, told Fox News “no one wins under Trump’s plan.”

“Some people will not serve, which is a loss to the military and the country,” Goldberg said. “Others will serve, but not openly, and thus they will be at risk for discharge or verbal, physical and sexual abuse.”

The Pentagon has refused to release any data on the number of transgender troops currently serving. A RAND study found that there are between 2,500 and 7,000 transgender service members in the active-duty military, and another 1,500 to 4,000 in the reserves.

The study also found that allowing transgender people to serve in the military would have a "minimal impact" on the health care costs.

The Pentagon announced it would “continue to work closely with the White House to address the new guidance provided by the commander in chief on transgender individuals serving in the military.”

“We will provide revised guidance to the Department in the near future,” Pentagon spokesman Capt. Jeff Davis said in statement.

Trump’s announcement comes as lawmakers on Capitol Hill debate the current practice of requiring the Pentagon to pay for medical treatment for gender transition.

Missouri Republican Rep. Vicky Hartzler offered an amendment that would prohibit the Pentagon from spending money on transition surgeries or hormone therapy. Her amendment was narrowly defeated earlier this month.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., called Trump’s decision a “cruel and arbitrary decision designed to humiliate transgender Americans.”

“On this very day in 1948, President Harry Truman signed the executive order desegregating the U.S. military. Sixty-nine years later, President Trump has chosen this day to unleash a vile and hateful agenda that will blindside thousands of patriotic Americans already serving with honor and bravery,” she said.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.,slammed the sudden announcement and said anyone who is fit to serve in the military should be allowed to do so.

“The president’s tweet this morning regarding transgender Americans in the military is yet another example of why major policy announcements should not be made via Twitter,” McCain, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said.

Transgender service members have been able to serve openly in the military since last year, when former Defense Secretary Ash Carter ended the ban. Since Oct. 1, transgender troops have been able to receive medical care and start formally changing their gender identifications in the Pentagon's personnel system.

But Carter also gave the services until July 1 to develop policies to allow people already identifying as transgender to newly join the military, if they meet physical, medical and other standards, and have been stable in their identified genders for 18 months.

"I continue to maintain that what matters in choosing those who serve is that they are best qualified," Carter said in a statement. "To choose service members on other grounds than military qualifications is social policy and has no place in our military. There are already transgender individuals who are serving capably and honorably. This action would also send the wrong signal to a younger generation thinking about military service.”

Key concerns include whether currently enlisted troops have had medical or other issues that cause delays or problems with their ability to deploy or meet physical or other standards for their jobs. Military leaders also wanted to review how transgender troops are treated, if they're discriminated against or if they have had disciplinary problems, the officials said. They were not authorized to discuss internal deliberations publicly, so spoke on condition of anonymity.

STACEY DASH TOO OLD FOR FOX NEWS OR WAS IT HER COMMENTARY?

WAS STACEY DASH TOO OLD FOR FOX NEWS OR WAS IT HER COMMENTARY?

BLACK DEMOCRATS WHO PRAISED OBAMA'S APATHY NOW CELEBRATE STACEY'S FIRING.

WHY IS THERE SO MUCH HATERADE TOWARDS BLACK REPUBLICANS?


Sources: NY Daily News, Fox News, YouTube


***** Stacey Dash fired from Fox News


Fox News has decided to part ways with the controversial Stacey Dash.

Dash has been a contributor for the network since 2014, but hasn't been seen on the air since last September. According to The Hollywood reporter,

Fox News made the decision not to renew Dash's contract last fall.
The "Clueless" actress has yet to comment on her departure, and her Twitter page still lists that she's a contributor for the network.


During Dash's time at Fox News, the 50-year-old often made headlines for her controversial remarks. In December 2015, she was temporarily suspended after she cursed on-air while sharing her thoughts on then President Barack Obama's speech on terrorism.

"I didn't feel any passion from him," she said. "I feel like he could give a s---, excuse me, he could care less."

Fox News' senior executive vice president Bill Shine said in a statement to Entertainment Tonight that Dash was suspended for two weeks for making comments deemed "completely inappropriate and unacceptable for our air."


Dash was completely unapologetic, tweeting after her suspension that she would "gladly" accept the consequences.

The actress also caused an outrage in January 2016 when she appeared on "Fox & Friends" and said we should not have channels geared towards African-Americans if we don't want segregation.


"We have to make up our minds," she said. "Either we want to have segregation or integration. And if we don't want segregation, then we need to rid of channels like BET and the BET Awards and the (NAACP) Image Awards where you're only awarded if you're black. If it were the other way around, we would be up in arms. It's a double standard."


During her spiel, Dash also suggested getting rid of Black History Month because "we're Americans. Period. That's it."

HILLARY WILL WIN BECAUSE OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE & INEQUALITY (WOMEN)

"Hillary sees a world where girls are not captured and sold, but are fearless and bold."

~ SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR (D-MINN.)

HILLARY CLINTON WILL WIN BECAUSE OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE & INEQUALITY:

MOST MEN REFUSE TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE & INEQUALITY AGAINST WOMEN.

MANY WOMEN VOTERS IDENTIFY WITH HILLARY'S GENDER & THE GLASS CEILING.

Sources: HillaryClinton.com, Charlotte Observer, Washington Post, YouTube

**** Confront violence against women.

One in five women in America is sexually assaulted while in college. 

Twenty-two percent of women experience severe physical violence by an intimate partner at some point in their lifetime.

 American women are 11 times more likely to be murdered with guns than women in other high-income countries. 

It’s time to address violence against women—and Hillary will put forward bold plans to do that. 

DONALD TRUMP & BILL CLINTON FIGHT FOR WOMEN VOTERS (2016 BEEFS)

DONALD TRUMP & BILL CLINTON FIGHT FOR WOMEN VOTERS (2016 BEEFS):

DONALD'S FIRST TERM OR BILL CLINTON'S THIRD TERM?

Donald Trump & Bill Clinton are beefing to attract 2016 Women voters.

Donald claims Bill is a Pedophile (Monica Lewinsky).

Bill claims Donald doesn't care about Women's issues (Planned Parenthood).

So who wins this Gender War to attract Women voters?

Do Women voters care about Donald Trump serving his first term in the Oval Office?

Or.........

Do Women voters care more about Bill Clinton serving a Third term in the Oval Office?

Who wants a 2016 Coronation?

I most certainly don't!

I want to experience a REAL Presidential election just like in 2008.

The fireworks are beginning to heat up and I'm loving it!

Stay tuned.

~ Ex-Ally Donald Trump Now Heaps Scorn on Bill Clinton

For years, President Bill Clinton was the best friend Donald J. Trump always hoped to have.

When scandal engulfed Mr. Clinton’s White House, Mr. Trump leapt to the president’s defense. “He’s probably got the toughest skin I’ve ever seen, and I think he’s a terrific guy,” Mr. Trump told CNN.

Then there were Mr. Trump’s pitches to the former president to settle in a gilded Trump building in Manhattan when he and Hillary Clinton left the White House. They moved to Westchester instead. 

His overtures for them to vacation at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Fla., were also rebuffed. The Clintons preferred the Dominican Republic.

When Mr. Clinton had trouble joining a conservative Westchester golf club, Mr. Trump boasted that he welcomed the former president to a newly built Trump National Golf Club, a five-minute drive from the Clintons’ Chappaqua, N.Y., home.

“He’s a great gentleman, a good golfer and a wonderful guy,” the real estate developer said of Mr. Clinton, who, in reality, is a so-so golfer known for taking mulligans.

In the past week, any semblance of a friendship between Mr. Trump and Bill Clinton came to an ugly end as the former president and his wife’s presidential campaign found themselves in a muddy battle over sexism with the Republican candidate who has upended this election cycle with his insults and attacks.

“If Hillary thinks she can unleash her husband, with his terrible record of women abuse, while playing the women’s card on me, she’s wrong!” Mr. Trump wrote on Twitter on Monday.

The criticism of Mr. Clinton’s personal life comes as Mrs. Clinton is increasingly relying on the former president, mentioning him in almost every speech as she praises his economic record.

But Mr. Trump’s attacks on him are now rippling through the race, with other candidates and even a prominent newspaper columnist suggesting that Mr. Clinton’s sexual history is fair game.

“This works for Trump because it reinforces what his most ardent supporters believe to be his greatest strength,” said Kevin Madden, a Republican communications strategist. “He will say things that no one else will say but that need to be said.”

On Monday, Mr. Clinton will hold two organizing events for Mrs. Clinton in New Hampshire — his first solo outing on the campaign trail in a state where he remains widely popular and where polls show Mrs. Clinton slightly trailing Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

Mr. Trump’s turn against the former president started last week when Mrs. Clinton, in response to Mr. Trump’s use of a crude sexual reference to describe her loss to Barack Obama in 2008, accused him of having a “penchant for sexism.”

On Saturday, Mr. Trump said on Twitter: “Hillary Clinton has announced that she is letting her husband out to campaign but HE’S DEMONSTRATED A PENCHANT FOR SEXISM, so inappropriate!”

He went further on Tuesday, saying that in Mr. Clinton’s political career, “there were certainly a lot of abuse of women, and you look at whether it’s Monica Lewinsky or Paula Jones or many of them.”

In response to Mr. Trump’s latest onslaught, Mrs. Clinton’s campaign said in a statement that “Hillary Clinton won’t be bullied” or “distracted by the slings he throws at her and former President Clinton.” A spokesman for Mr. Clinton declined to comment.

Mr. Trump’s tactics could backfire. Mrs. Clinton had some of her highest approval ratings ever after revelations that Mr. Clinton had a relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, a 22-year-old White House intern.

This month at a New Hampshire town hall, a young woman asked Mrs. Clinton about several women who alleged they were sexually harassed by Mr. Clinton.

“You say that all rape victims should be believed,” the woman said. “Should we believe them as well?”

Mrs. Clinton did not hesitate. “Well, I would say that everybody should be believed at first until they are disbelieved based on evidence,” she said, with an awkward smile, as the crowd applauded.

Still, the issue seems to be echoing, at least among her detractors. 

Other Republican candidates, including Carly Fiorina and Ben Carson, have followed Mr. Trump’s lead, saying Mr. Clinton’s history is a legitimate criticism, though Mrs. Fiorina said she doubted voters would care. Mr. Clinton, after all, is 69 years old, and the Lewinsky scandal happened nearly two decades ago.

The Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus has been critical of Mr. Trump but on Tuesday wrote that she agreed with him that Mr. Clinton’s past is relevant to his wife’s campaign. “Trump has smeared women because of their looks,” she wrote. “Clinton has preyed on them.”

Mr. Trump has been the most direct in his attacks on Mr. Clinton, but Republicans, concerned about the party’s declining appeal to women, have long considered using the former president’s personal life and Mrs. Clinton’s response to the women who alleged extramarital affairs.

Stuart Stevens, a Republican operative and Mitt Romney’s chief strategist in his 2012 presidential campaign, said the way the Clinton operation disparaged women who complained about the president’s behavior in the 1990s “would be all but disqualifying in a Democratic primary” nowadays.

During Mr. Clinton’s 1992 campaign, Betsey Wright, a close aide, coined the term “bimbo eruptions” in describing rumors of extramarital affairs involving the candidate.

According to White House-era documents from Diane D. Blair, a close friend of Mrs. Clinton’s who died in 2000, the first lady had referred to Ms. Lewinsky as “a narcissistic loony toon.”

Until last week, Mr. Trump had hardly uttered a negative word about Mr. Clinton. In 1999, he said the president had been treated unfairly for his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. His criticism, according to an interview with The New York Times at the time, was the president’s choice of paramour: “It was Monica! I mean, terrible choice.”

Mr. Trump has been a donor to the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation and to Mrs. Clinton’s Senate campaign.

While a senator from New York, Mrs. Clinton and her husband attended Mr. Trump’s 2005 wedding to his third wife, the Slovenian model Melania Knauss, held in a $42 million ballroom at his Mar-a-Lago estate decorated to resemble Versailles. (Mr. and Mrs. Trump were not invited to Chelsea Clinton’s 2010 wedding.)

“He liked them and their star quality, and he respected a lot of things Bill Clinton did as president,” said Edward G. Rendell, a former governor of Pennsylvania who is close to the Clintons. “That’s all out the window now,” he added.

In an email, Mr. Trump said his friendship with Mr. Clinton was strictly business. “It was my obligation to get along with all politicians,” he wrote. “And I did it better than anybody.”

He said he did not recall whether the Clintons had stayed at Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach. “If they did want to stay there, or stayed there, it only shows that they have good taste,” he added.

Some have suggested that Mr. Trump, whose own affair with Marla Maples and his split from his first wife, Ivana Trump, were splashed across tabloids, is an imperfect messenger on the issue of fidelity.

Mr. Trump also opens himself up to criticism about his own personal life, including allegations that he assaulted Ivana Trump, which he has denied and which the former Mrs. Trump recently backed away from.

Mr. Trump, however, said he was “the perfect messenger because I fully understand life and all its wrinkles,” and reiterated his claim that Mrs. Clinton had bullied some of the women who accused her husband of improprieties.

Republican opponents have highlighted Mr. Trump’s previously fawning comments about Mr. Clinton.

Back in 1999, Mr. Trump expressed admiration for Mr. Clinton’s retail political skills, telling CNBC: “I wish I could be like that. I just can’t.”

And a couple of years later, he echoed that comment, recalling an anecdote about watching Mr. Clinton work a crowd.

“He shook hands with everybody out there,” said Mr. Trump, who is regarded as something of a germaphobe. “And some of these people had filthy hands.”

Sources: ABC News, NY Times, NBC News

Coakley Failed To Reach Many Female Voters; Left Standing Cold

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Coakley's Stunning Gender Gap


As women’s groups make a last-ditch bid to help Martha Coakley win the Massachusetts Senate seat, they face a tough problem: The candidate leaves too many female voters cold. Plus, read an on-the-ground account from rival Scott Brown’s rallies.

If Martha Coakley loses Tuesday in the special election to fill Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat, Democrats and progressives across the country will be devastated. But perhaps no group will be quite so disappointed as establishment feminists, who threw their weight behind the Massachusetts attorney general early on, when she faced a crowded primary field, and then watched, stunned, as Coakley’s lead disintegrated in the heavily Democratic state and her opponent, the previously unheard-of state senator Scott Brown, became a cause célèbre for disgruntled conservatives across the country.

Even as women’s organizations focus on getting voters to the polls today—asking hundreds of thousands of their members across the country to phone-bank for Coakley from home—some are looking back at the race with regret, wishing their own organizations had realized, earlier on, the threat of the Tea Party movement rallying to Brown’s side, or the extent of voter disenchantment with President Barack Obama’s health-care bill.

“I don’t think we saw this coming. … The mounting army coming from the Republican Party and all the Tea Party protesters. Maybe we could have forecasted that a little better,” says Lauren Martin, spokesperson for the Women’s Campaign Forum, a nonpartisan PAC that donates money to pro-choice female candidates. The group supported Coakley in both her primary and general-election races, but gave more during the primary, reflecting the conventional wisdom until just two weeks ago: that in liberal Massachusetts, Democratic primaries are where national races are won or lost.

“I’ve lived in Massachusetts my whole life,” says Christina Knowles, director of the Massachusetts chapter of the National Organization for Women. “It’s a shock.”

What’s even more shocking is how little enthusiasm Coakley’s campaign seems to have generated among the women of Massachusetts. According to several recent polls, female voters, who tend to be more liberal, are barely more likely than male voters to favor Coakley over Brown; one poll shows Coakley behind by four points among women, another has the candidates tied for the female vote.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

One outlier poll, conducted for liberal blog The Daily Kos, reports Coakley enjoys 13 percent more female support than Brown. But strategists would expect the gender gap to be safely large in a typical election, with far more women than men supporting the Democratic candidate. When Ted Kennedy ran for re-election the final time, in 2006, 72 percent of women supported his bid.

Coakley did not go out of her way, especially during the general-election campaign, to play up her feminist credentials. She never filmed a general-election ad that presented a positive image of herself as a defender of reproductive rights and civil liberties, as opposed to just attacking Brown on those issues. She also never fully embraced the message that her ascension to the Senate would be historic, putting the number of women serving in the upper chamber at 18, an all-time high. She has called her gender “secondary,” eschewing the more emotional feminist appeal that Hillary Clinton made in the final months of her presidential campaign.

That left women’s organizations making the activist case for Coakley without much media backup. “Martha’s a really great candidate for everything that NOW stands for,” says Knowles, of Massachusetts NOW. “She’s been a true champion of reproductive rights. She’s been a huge supporter of LGBT rights and gay marriage, and that’s something our members are very, very strong supporters of.”

It’s not as though Coakley didn’t have a strong progressive record to run on. She is the only state attorney general to have sued the federal government, alleging that the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman, is unconstitutional and discriminatory toward gay people. In a special election where getting the base to the polls is key, you’d think this would be a part of Coakley’s record she would boast about. Instead, she ran ads on prosecuting Internet sexual predators and supporting small business owners. She played it safe.

But it’s also true that Coakley’s campaign and women’s groups—some of her biggest champions—were slow to read the shifting mood of the country, and pick up on the fact that she might be in trouble. There have been signs since early summer that health-care reform was reigniting the culture wars, with abortion rights firmly at the center of the debate. In July, Rep. Bart Stupak, a conservative Democrat from Michigan, assembled a group of pro-life Democrats who vowed to vote “no” on any health bill that included coverage of abortion services, either publicly or privately financed. To the shock of pro-choice advocates, who had taken a less confrontational lobbying approach, Stupak’s ploy was largely successful in shifting the proposed legislation right.

Of course, the renewed vitriol over abortion presents a risk for pro-choice candidates in the form of energized challengers like Scott Brown—but it also offers an opportunity. The White House and Congress’s general capitulation to antiabortion Democrats has angered many liberals, and the vast majority of Massachusetts voters are pro-choice. During the primary, Coakley took a major risk by saying she would oppose any version of health reform that rolled back reproductive rights. She later backtracked, perhaps realizing that after numerous legislative delays, she would likely soon be in the position of having to vote on the actual bill.

But then, in an effort to drive values voters to the polls, Brown began touting his endorsement from Massachusetts Citizens for Life. Abortion was back in the spotlight. Last week, Coakley pressed Brown on his reproductive-rights record, attacking him in a debate, direct-mail appeal, and television advertisement for supporting a 2005 bill in the state legislature that would have allowed hospitals to deny emergency contraception to rape victims. She also called attention to Brown’s sponsorship of a “Women’s Right to Know” bill that would have enforced a 24-hour waiting period and required women to view ultrasound photographs before an abortion.

It may have been too little, too late. Still, despite the scary poll numbers, feminist groups continue to defend Coakley and her campaign, and said Monday that they believe she will prevail. Those who criticize Coakley as a lethargic candidate—as I did, in a recent column—“are living in a Disney movie where if she ran a good campaign, it would win,” says Terry O’Neill, president of NOW. “That’s not the real world. You have some people who are powerfully filled with hate and anger because they are unhappy with the outcome of the 2008 presidential election.”



View Larger Map


Sources: The Daily Beast, MSNBC, Google Maps