Wednesday, July 5, 2017

925 Canadians who oppose Transsexualism can be charged with a Hate crime, & jailed

Canadians who oppose Transsexualism can be charged with a Hate crime, &

Newsletter published on 2 July 2017

(1) Gay marriage or 'Gay Shame'? - Eric Walberg
(2) More Revelations of Intolerance from Gay Marriage Activists
(3) Canadians who oppose Transsexualism can be charged with a Hate
crime, & jailed
(4) California bans state employees from traveling on official business
to anti-LGBTQ states
(5) Canadian Parents refused adoption unless they accept accept Gender
(6) Swedish PM tells priests to carry out same-sex marriages ‘or do
something else’
(7) Kentucky judge refuses to hear adoption cases involving gay parents
(8) Harvard discriminates against Male Clubs
(9) Google renames Margaret Court tennis arena after her anti-Gay comments
(10) Top Gear gay joke

(1) Gay marriage or 'Gay Shame'? - Eric Walberg
    Eric Walberg<> 2 July 2017 at 00:17

Gay marriage or 'Gay Shame'?

Gay marriage or 'Gay Shame'?

Thursday, 29 June 2017 15:05   Eric Walberg

  It's official: gay marriage is as legit as marriage between a man and
woman. Dissenters to this new self-proclaimed truth are pilloried as
dinosaurs or bigots. The Pope is an object of ridicule, as is, of
course, Islam. Bakers who refuse to take an order for a gay couple's
wedding cake are convicted of discrimination and given a hefty fine.

The 'yeas' have triumphed among straights (heterosexuals) in the
secular, rich West, where gaylib established itself 50 years ago as the
latest trendy social movement. Larger and popular Gay Pride Day marches
in June have more straights than gays in attendance, and floats by
(straight) Google employees, Starbuckers, what-have-you, are the
centrepieces. June has been declared 'gay pride month' in Canada, the US
and much of western Europe, commemorating the 1969 Stonewall riots, a
series of spontaneous, violent (yes!) demonstrations against a police
raid that took place June 28, 1969, at the Stonewall Inn in the
Greenwich Village.

Legalization of homosexual activity came both before (UK and Canada) and
after 'Stonewall', and "buggery", the last frontier of sexuality (for
both gay and straight), was grudgingly removed from the legal code, with
only a few US states still holdouts. Of course, this is all part of the
western secular world bubble, though Russia legalized homosexuality in
1993 and China decriminalized it in 1997.

Gay marriage and the state: win-win

Gay marriage became the focus of the 'struggle' in the 21st century, the
final frontier. Why is gay marriage so important to activists? Civil
unions are perfectly adequate to cover the secular legal issues of
divorce. Those who opt for marriage should presumably be religious, but
there's not much left of religion these days, so what's the big deal?

The gay Christian Metropolitan Community Church (222 member
congregations in 37 countries) led the campaign for government approval
and it paid off. Today, MCC congregations around the world perform more
than 6,000 same-sex marriage ceremonies annually. Some gays are sincere
Christians and reform Jews, but marriage is being embraced by secular,
non-religious gays, who rarely frequent a church, even the MCC. Why? Is
it just the latest fashion? Or is it a recognition that marriage is as a
kind of commitment beyond just sex and material needs? Or is it more a
sign of acceptance by straight society? 'We are just as good as you.'

Why would the state and media embrace it, coolly throwing aside
millennia-old legal and public traditions? The legislative drive to
legalize marriage is a sign of how insignificant these traditions are in
our secular world. Most Protestant Christian churches gave in to state
and media pressure with little resistance. Only the Catholic Church,
Islam and Orthodox Judaism are holdouts.

Gay marriage is suddenly as kosher as 'motherhood', or rather
'parenthood' -- as 'mother' and 'father' too are being relegated to the
dustbin of history. Ontario Premier Kathleen Gwynne tried (so far,
unsuccessfully) to change all government documents and laws to erase
those supposed anachronisms from our minds. Parents can now be 'two
mommies' or 'two daddies'.

Marriage bandwagon

The loud voices touting marriage are not necessarily representative of
gays. No polls look at the actual numbers of gays who tie the knot, only
different ethnicities, age levels, political affiliates, i.e., straight
views. Some sleuthing shows 0.3% of marriages were of same-sex couples
in 2016 in the US. Given 3-5% of the population self-identify as gay,
this is roughly 10% of gays,* vs roughly 50% of straights, suggesting
gays are actually far less interested in gay marriage than the broader
population are interested in either straight or gay marriage.

Many homosexuals reject marriage, calling themselves "queer" in defiance
to what they see as a trivialization of their uniqueness. There is even
a Gay Shame movement, rejecting the commercialization and mainstreaming
of sexual nonconformists. Some, for religious reasoning, who hesitate to
tamper with millennia-old traditions, some, for the misuse of language
-- What can 'two husbands' possibly mean? What do the two pictures above
-- 2 straight-looking middle class guys vs a flaming queen -- have in

Many take pride in their radical, slightly subversive nature and
history. Where would western civilization be without the culture that
sexual nonconformers have produced over thousands of years? Culture
means a critical analysis of society, best done by outsiders, a love of
beauty for its sake alone, without the distractions of sex, or a
starving family to support.

Gay marriage - a western stopgap

That said, given the decadence of western society since WWII, where
'anything goes', where AIDS and STDs (sexually transmitted diseases) are
of epidemic proportions, and where gay male-fueled promiscuity is now
the norm for both gays and straights, the less cynical supporters of
this new 'morality' see there's a problem, and implicitly realize it is
not a stable state of affairs.

The sexual instinct is a very uncontrollable, dangerous impulse. In
Plato's Republic, a friend asks Sophocles: "How are you in regard to
sex, Sophocles? Can you still make love to a woman?" "Hush man," the
poet replied, "I am very glad to have escaped from this, like a slave
who has escaped from a mad and cruel master."

That is why historically marriage became the foundation of civilization
everywhere, why the violation of marriage bonds is (or was) considered
the worst sin in Christianity, Judaism and Islam. With the rise of
secularism and the waning of Christianity and Judaism, only Islam
maintains this. The eagerness of gays to join in the marriage ritual
ironically reflects the realization by gays themselves that maybe the
old ritual is not such a bad thing, and is a good way to tame the beast.

Get married, live longer

Monogamy appears to be gaining the ascendancy again, replacing
promiscuity as the long-term goal in social life. In the first place for
physical health reasons, including mental well-being. Studies confirm
for both straight and gay that having a committed monogamous
relationship extends life, improves the quality of life. Marriage is the
most sophisticated version of monogamy, as a sacred commitment, not just
a casual agreement, reflecting both the power of the sex drive in our
lives, the need to control it in the service of our own selves, and of
society at large.

Now, when population growth is a world problem, 'barren' marriages are
not so unusual, where foster children are many, and there is a huge and
growing population of refugees, 'two daddies' can be an acceptable
alternative to no parents at all. The issue of surrogate mothers and
sperm donation is perhaps, then, the last of the last frontier,
something for rich, designer parent wannabes. The moral issue there is
to say the least, cloudy.

The international branch of western gaylib would have this new scenario
being shaped in the West's Petri dish extended to the whole world, by
force if necessary (as the proverbial missionary handmaidens of
imperialism). This is most unlikely to succeed. Far better to deal with
our precarious western cultural bubble and make it less self-destructive
all round.

What's to be proud of?

Perhaps gay marriage is a hint of a return to morality and spirituality
in our relationships. So I would not spurn attending a gay marriage in
principle, though you won't catch me at a Gay Pride march. Gays are
humans and deserve civil rights. They long ago won them Canada, and
marches on Yonge St today will not do gays in Russia or Egypt any good.

What's there to be proud of? No one wants to be gay, and no parent wants
their child to be gay. It's something to be accepted and dealt with by
you and your relatives. A Gay Pride march is really the latter day
equivalent of a St Patrick's Day Parade, a quaint reminder of a
minority, once repressed, now celebrated or pitied (or to be gawked at,
like visiting a zoo).

Andrew Holleran, in Dancer from the Dance (1978) captures the
bittersweet tragedy of being born gay:

I don't think two men can love each other ... in that way. It will
always be a sterile union, it will always be associated with guilt.
Sometimes I think that God was sitting up above the world one day, after
He had created it and someone said 'Now what could we throw in to spoil
it? You've created such a perfect existence, how could it go amok?'
Someone said, 'Confuse the sexes. Have the men desire men instead of
women, and the women desire women.'
Life would be marvelous if we weren't homosexual. To grow up, to fall in
love, to have children, grow old and die. But then God threw in that
monkey wrench. As if out of sheer mischief!

When those affected realize their dilemma, they have to work hard to
make their antisocial lifestyle work – for themselves and society. It
will always mean higher suicide rates and social isolation. The 'gay
ghetto' is here to stay. So good luck with your marriage vows. The odds
of 'till death do us part' are probably less that one in two, given the
stats for straight marriages. But it may make your hard life a little
less hard, and disrupt society a little less.


*According to Gallup, 11.4% of LGBT men are married to a same sex
partner. 13.2% of LGBT men are married to an opposite sex spouse, which
would mean more gay men are married to women then other men.

Gaym Intolerance

(2) More Revelations of Intolerance from Gay Marriage Activists

More Revelations of Intolerance from SSM Activists

It’s been another big week in the marriage debate. Around the world, the
fallout from countries that have legalised same-sex marriage is becoming
more and more evident and the future of freedoms in these countries is
looking bleak.

According to Huffington Post: "California has banned state employees
from traveling on official business to four additional states that have
passed anti-LGBTQ legislation." Would you believe that these states
require people to use toilets that correspond with their biological
reality and/or grant foster kids their chance at enjoying the equally
valuable input of a Mum AND a Dad. How outrageous!

Canada is charging towards a totalitarian regime with yet another Bill
restricting freedoms for those who support traditional, science-based
views of gender. The Christian Institute reports: "The Bill adds ‘gender
expression’ and ‘gender identity’ to Canada’s Human Rights Code and to
existing hate crime legislation. Dr Jordan Peterson, of the University
of Toronto, previously warned that [the Bill] could result in him being
charged with a hate crime for refusing to use gender-neutral pronouns."

And according to RT: "Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Lofven has suggested
that all Church of Sweden priests be compelled to perform gay marriages,
despite the Lutheran Church’s position that clergy members should have
the right to refuse."

"We Social Democrats are working to ensure all priests will consecrate
everyone, including same-sex couples," Lofven told Kyrkans Tidning

Imagine a "male only" political party hosting an event to celebrate a
total lack of female representation in parliament. A baker is asked to
create and decorate a cake to commemorate the occasion. The baker
rightfully declines the invitation because he cannot, in good
conscience, participate in an event that denies the equally important
and invaluable role of women in Parliament. He would be lauded a hero
for standing up for gender equality!

This same baker is asked to create a cake to celebrate a union that
denies the equally important and invaluable role of a woman in marriage
and family. He is vilified and fined. This is what is happening in the
USA right now to bakers who are simply fighting to maintain their
artistic freedom. These bakers happily bake birthday cakes for members
of the gay community, but cannot, in good conscience, participate in an
event that denies gender equality.

This article from Christianity Today highlights the issue: "Jack’s
ability to make a living and run his family business shouldn’t be
threatened simply because he exercised his artistic freedom. Artists
speak through their art, and when Jack creates custom wedding cakes, he
is promoting and celebrating the couple’s wedding," said ADF senior
counsel Jeremy Tedesco. "He simply can’t put his artistic talents to use
on a custom cake for an event so at odds with his faith convictions."

Perhaps the most disturbing revelation of bullying and intolerance has
come from our own shores where a SSM activist has once again published
the family home address of ACL’s Lyle Shelton, along with current and
former members of the ACL board.

"There is only one reason for publicising someone’s home address and
that is to bully and intimidate," Lyle said.

"ACT Police have advised me that there is little they can do and I
should engage a private security firm to make recommendations about
upgrading security at my house."

Just days later, Christopher Pyne was caught out boasting that SSM is
closer than we think. According to The Australian: "Malcolm Turnbull
says he will not let any private member’s bill to legalise gay marriage
be debated in the parliament if a plebiscite is not held first, as
conservatives urge colleagues to return to the ‘main game’."

If you value freedom of conscience, freedom of artistic expression and
freedom of speech, you must speak up now, before we are all compelled,
by the full force of the law, to "forever hold our peace".

Written by AJ

(3) Canadians who oppose Transsexualism can be charged with a Hate
crime, & jailed

Canada law could force citizens to affirm trans agenda

     22 Jun 2017

Canadians who refuse to endorse transsexualism could be charged with a
hate crime, fined or even jailed under a controversial new law.

Critics say Bill C-16 may compel citizens to use the terms ‘ze’ and
‘zir’ when asked, instead of ‘he’ and ‘she’.

It was passed in the Canadian Senate by a vote of 67 to 11, and welcomed
as "great news" by the country’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

The Bill adds "gender expression" and "gender identity" to Canada’s
Human Rights Code and to existing hate crime legislation.

Dr Jordan Peterson, of the University of Toronto, previously warned that
C-16 could result in him being charged with a hate crime for refusing to
use gender-neutral pronouns.

After it was passed, Peterson tweeted:

Senate passes Bill C16 without amendment 67 for 11 against. Compelled
speech has come to Canada. We will seriously regret this.

— Jordan B Peterson (@jordanbpeterson) June 15, 2017

‘People of faith’

The Bill has also been criticised by the Campaign Life Coalition (CLC).

"This tyrannical bill is nothing but social engineering to the nth
degree, all in the name of political correctness", said Jeff Gunnarson,
CLC Vice President.

Jack Fonseca, Senior Political Strategist for CLC, added: "this law will
not be used as some sort of ‘shield’ to defend vulnerable transsexuals,
but rather as a weapon with which to bludgeon people of faith and
free-thinking Canadians who refuse to deny truth".


The Bill is the latest piece of Canadian legislation to restrict free

It follows an Ontario Act, which mandates the use of gender-neutral
pronouns on parents looking to adopt.

Critics say that Ontario’s Supporting Children, Youth and Families Act,
will bar parents from adoption or fostering, who oppose gender ideology
for not providing a home ‘in the best interests of the child’.

The Bill, described as "totalitarian" by critics, was passed earlier
this month by a vote of 63 to 23 by the Ontario Legislature. It was
pushed through by Ontario’s Premier Kathleen Wynne, who is herself in a
same-sex marriage.

(4) California bans state employees from traveling on official business
to anti-LGBTQ states

California Extends State Worker Travel Ban To 4 'Discriminatory' States

Restrictions now target eight states that have passed anti-LGBTQ laws.


California has banned state employees from traveling on official
business to four additional states that have passed anti-LGBTQ legislation.

State Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in a speech in San Francisco
on Thursday that state employees will no longer be permitted to use
state funds to visit Alabama, South Dakota, Kentucky or Texas. A
September 2016 law already prohibits state-funded travel to Kansas,
Mississippi, North Carolina and Tennessee.

"While the California DOJ works to protect the rights of all our people,
discriminatory laws in any part of our country send all of us several
steps back," Becerra said in a statement. "That’s why when California
said we would not tolerate discrimination against LGBTQ members of our
community, we meant it."

The state travel ban went into effect on Jan. 1 in response to the
anti-LGBTQ "bathroom bill" passed by North Carolina in March 2016. The
law, repealed a year later in an equally controversial "compromise
bill," required people to use public restrooms corresponding to their
biological sex. Kansas, Mississippi and Tennessee had proposed similar
anti-LGBTQ legislation.

California’s travel ban allows exceptions for enforcing state laws, or
to comply with requests from the federal government to appear before
committees. The law was written to allow the addition of other states
that enact anti-LGBTQ policies.

"If other states try and pass similar laws, we will work to stop them,"
state Assemblyman Evan Low, who co-authored the measure, said in a
statement in January. "Our zero-tolerance policy says there is no room
for discrimination of any kind in California, and AB 1887 ensures that
discrimination will not be tolerated beyond our borders."

The four new states on the list have enacted legislation that the
California Department of Justice deems discriminatory. Laws in Alabama,
South Dakota and Texas could prevent same-sex couples from adopting or
fostering children. A Kentucky measure makes it possible for student
groups at public schools and colleges to turn away LGBTQ students.

The discriminatory state laws "are completely out of step with the
values that make California the vibrant economic powerhouse that it is,"
Rick Zbur, executive director of Equality California, said in a statement.

Ashley Morris, organizing director of the ACLU of Northern California,
also supported the ban.

The travel ban will apply to a state for as long as any law deemed
discriminatory on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity or
gender expression remains in effect, the state Department of Justice
says on its webpage. Becerra told SF Gate he wouldn’t rule out extending
the ban to more states.

(5) Canadian Parents refused adoption unless they accept accept Gender

Parents told to accept gender ideology or be refused adoption: Canada

    30 Jan 2017

Families in Ontario, Canada are being threatened by a proposed Bill
which could be used to promote gender ideology in the home.

The "Supporting Children, Youth and Families Act" is being pushed
through by Ontario’s Premier Kathleen Wynne, who is herself in a
same-sex marriage.

The Bill described as ‘totalitarian’ has been widely criticised since
being put forward.

Gender ideology

Critics say that under the Bill parents who oppose gender ideology may
be ruled out for adoption and fostering for not providing a home
considered ‘in the best interests of the child’.

This would encompass the notion that there are more than two sexes or
that someone can be ‘trapped in the wrong body’.

Jeff Gunnarson, Vice President of Campaign Life Coalition, said: "The
premise that banning traditionally principled Canadians from becoming
parents is in the children’s best interests is a lie that must be exposed."

He added: "This Liberal government is actually telling Canadians who
don’t believe in the theory of gender identity or the gay lifestyle:
‘You are unfit to be parents. You are second class citizens who must be
banned from adopting children.’"

State control

Gwen Landolt, Vice President of REAL Women of Canada, said the Bill is a
reflection of the gender ideology of a Premier who "doesn’t think much
of the family, who thinks the state should be in control of children,
with her sex education".

"It’s a reflection of her ideology, but not that of the rank and file
parents", she added.

The Bill also removes the religious faith in which the parents are
raising the child as a consideration for child protection services.

Instead, it instructs parents to raise their children "in accordance
with the child’s or young person’s creed, community identity and
cultural identity".

(6) Swedish PM tells priests to carry out same-sex marriages ‘or do
something else’

Published time: 24 Jun, 2017 13:50

Same-sex weddings have been legal in Sweden since 2009, although priests
can decline to carry out these ceremonies under the country’s marriage code.

This could now change, however, given Lofven’s recent comments about the
role of priests in Swedish society.

The prime minister indicated in an interview with a church magazine that
if a priest cannot bless a gay marriage, they should consider another

"We Social Democrats are working to ensure all priests will consecrate
everyone, including same-sex couples," Lofven told Kyrkans Tidning magazine.

"I see parallels to the midwife who refuses to perform abortions. If you
work as a midwife you must be able to perform abortions, otherwise you
have to do something else… It is the same for priests," he said.

Official documents from the church say it "offers" both heterosexual and
homosexual marriage ceremonies. Although it is not against gay marriage,
the Church of Sweden’s official stance is that "no priest should be
obliged to officiate at the wedding of a same-sex couple."

In the interview, Lofven, who is not religious, defended the perceived
political incursion into the practice of religion, saying "the church
must stand up for human equality."

"The church will continue to play a major role, especially in times like
these with terror and refugee crisis," he added.

"The church binds society together and provides security," he added.

From: Peter Myers <> Subject: Kentucky judge
refuses to hear Gay adoption cases; Harvard’s nondiscrimination
hypocrisy To: Peter Mailstar <>

(7) Kentucky judge refuses to hear adoption cases involving gay parents

As ‘a matter of conscience,’ a Kentucky judge refuses to hear adoption
cases involving gay parents

By Samantha Schmidt May 1

Judge Mitchell Nance says he won't hear anymore adoption cases that
involve gay adults.

— WKYT (@WKYT) April 28, 2017

Two years after a Kentucky county clerk stirred national attention for
refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, a family court
judge in the same state announced he will no longer hear adoption cases
involving gay parents, calling his stance on the issue "a matter of

Judge W. Mitchell Nance, who sits in Barren and Metcalfe counties in
Kentucky, issued an order Thursday saying he believes that allowing a
"practicing homosexual" to adopt would "under no circumstance" promote
the best interest of the child, he wrote in the order obtained by The
Washington Post.

The judge disqualified himself from any adoption cases involving gay
couples, citing judicial ethics codes requiring that judges recuse
themselves whenever they have a "personal bias or prejudice" concerning
a case. Nance’s "conscientious objection" to the concept of gay parents
adopting children constitutes such a bias, he argued.

The announcement garnered support from some conservative groups, while
also spurring intense criticism from some lawyers and judicial ethics
experts who viewed the blanket statement as discriminatory, and a sign
that Nance is not fit to fulfill his duties as a judge. Kentucky state
law permits gay couples to adopt children, and the U.S. Supreme Court
ruled in 2015 that all states must allow same-sex marriage.

That ruling came in four cases consolidated as Obergefell et al. v
Hodges, one of which specifically involved a couple who wanted to adopt
but was barred from doing so because Michigan banned same-sex marriage
and adoption by unmarried couples.

Nance’s recusal drew some comparisons to the case of Rowan County Clerk
Kim Davis, who was jailed after she refused in the face of multiple
court orders to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples,
saying she couldn’t issue the licenses because her name was on them, and
it violated her religious beliefs. Eventually, deputies in her office
began issuing licenses. Kentucky’s governor and General Assembly would
later remove the name of clerks from the marriage licenses.

Reached by phone Sunday night, Nance told The Post he stood by his
order, "based on the law, based on my conscience," and to "minimize any
disruption in the litigation," he said. He declined to comment further
on the order or calls from the public for him to resign. But he gave no
indication that he would be stepping down.

Nance told the Glasgow Daily Times he issued the order so there wouldn’t
be a lag if an adoption case was filed in his court concerning adoption
by gay parents. Because Nance’s court, the 43rd Circuit Court, has two
divisions, the judge of the other division will hear any adoption cases
affected by Nance’s recusal. Gay parents seeking to adopt a child in the
affected counties should not expect a legal delay as a result of Nance’s

"I don’t have any plans to recuse myself from any so it should not
affect the ability of any same sex couples to adopt in Barren or
Metcalfe counties," the judge of the other division, Judge John T.
Alexander, told the Glasgow Daily Times.

Charles Geyh, an Indiana University law school professor who specializes
in judicial ethics, told the Louisville Courier-Journal that by issuing
such an order, Nance could be violating his oath to uphold the law,
"which by virtue of the equal protection clause does not tolerate
discrimination on the basis of race, religion or sexual orientation," he

"If he is unable to set his personal views aside and uphold the law —
not just in an isolated case, but with respect to an entire class of
litigant because he finds them odious — it leads me to wonder whether he
is able to honor his oath," Geyh said.

Chris Hartman, Kentucky Fairness Campaign director, told the Glasgow
Daily Times Nance’s decision not to hear adoption cases for gay parents
is "clear discrimination."

"And if Judge Nance can’t perform the basic functions of his job, which
are to deliver impartiality, fairness and justice to all families in his
courtroom, then he shouldn’t be a judge," Hartman said.

Yet other groups, such as the Family Foundation, a Lexington-based group
that promotes "family-first conservatism," expressed their support of
the judge’s decision to recuse himself.

"If we are going to let liberal judges write their personal biases and
prejudices into law, as we have done on issues of marriage and
sexuality," spokesman Martin Cothran said in a statement on the group’s
Facebook page, "then, in the interest of fairness, we are going to have
to allow judges with different views to at least recuse themselves from
such cases."

Cothran added that he was unaware of any state law that would require a
judge to place a child in a home with same-sex parents, prompting him to
wonder why judges were being held to such a standard.

"When adoption agencies abandon the idea that it is in the best interest
of a child to grow up with both a mother and father, people can’t expect
judges who do believe that to be forced to bow the knee," said Cothran.
"Judges have a right of conscience like everyone else."

[‘Mexican heritage’ judge bashed by Trump will oversee deported
‘dreamer’ case]

Lawyers told the Courier-Journal that Nance should now also have to
recuse himself from any legal cases involving gay people, including
divorces involving a spouse coming out as gay. Nance told the newspaper
he understands that gay and lesbian people would have reservations about
appearing before him.

Nance, who was first assigned to family court in 2004, performs
marriages, but has never been asked to marry a gay couple, he told the
Glasgow Daily Times. If he were asked, Nance said he would decline.

He told the Glasgow Daily Times he could recall being assigned to two
adoption cases involving gay parents, including one from which he
recused himself several years ago. About two to three months ago, Nance
was assigned to a case in Metcalfe County involving a same-sex couple
seeking to adopt. Nance said he ruled in favor of the parents, but
decided then he should take action to recuse himself permanently from
hearing such cases.

"It made the matter come to my awareness more directly, I would say,"
Nance told the Glasgow Daily Times. "I felt it would be more prudent to
go ahead and address it," he said.

(8) Harvard discriminates against Male Clubs

Harvard’s nondiscrimination hypocrisy

Harry Lewis, a former dean of Harvard College, is a computer science
professor at Harvard University.

When should traditional liberal values be sacrificed to important but
narrower ends? That is the question behind Harvard University’s effort
to subordinate freedom of association and freedom of speech to a locally
fashionable form of "nondiscrimination."

Last spring, the university decided to attack the off-campus, all-male
Final Clubs by disqualifying their members from Rhodes Scholarships and
other distinctions — unless the clubs admitted women. A few of these
clubs are infamous for loud parties and drunken misbehavior. The new
strategy against them had the merit of novelty, even in the absence of
evidence that coed clubs would behave any better.

Faculty members reacted with alarm, recalling Sen. Joseph McCarthy’s
persecution of Harvard professors in the 1950s simply for belonging to a
hated organization. Students deserve a better lesson from Harvard than
an attempt to solve social problems by blackballing members of unpopular

The policy covers all "single-gender social organizations" consisting of
Harvard students, so the same sanctions would be visited on women’s
clubs, including sororities. More women than men are affected, even
though most of the women’s clubs don’t have real estate, much less
raucous parties. Hundreds of women staged a surprise protest in response.

The current rationale for punishing single-gender groups is that they
are discriminatory. Problems that the policy was initially supposed to
address — sexual assault, elitism, drunken parties — have fallen away
under scrutiny, leaving gender exclusivity as the clubs’ irreducible
sin. As a university official stated, "Our commitment to a
non-discriminatory experience is unwavering."

That invites serious thought about discrimination.

Most of the newer clubs arose as the Harvard student body became more
diverse. They come, go and change as students and social mores change.
They receive no Harvard funds. One alumnus who had been an immigrant
student on scholarship described his multiethnic, multinational
fraternity as a comforting "ragtag group of misfits." Students whose
high school classmates joined fraternities and sororities at state
universities resent the implication that doing so at Harvard makes them
shamefully discriminatory.

I asked some female students what they thought. "Well, I am in a
sorority," one said. "You can guess what I think." When I pressed her,
she icily responded, "Give me a break. I’m a math major. I am the gender
inclusivity in most of my classes. After being taught by men and
surrounded by men all day, I don’t need a lecture from Harvard about
hanging out with women at night." There is, in fact, not a single
tenured woman in the Harvard Mathematics Department.

In response to such resistance, Harvard last month delayed enforcing the
policy against women’s groups, but not men’s. The "unwavering"
institutional commitment to nondiscrimination will be implemented in a
curiously and perhaps unlawfully discriminatory manner.

Don’t students have the right to associate with whomever they want off
campus? President Drew Gilpin Faust thought not, darkly comparing
freedom-of-association arguments with the tactics Southern racists used
to preserve segregated schools.

American society still accepts single-gender institutions such as
Faust’s alma mater Bryn Mawr College, long after turning against
all-white organizations. Harvard is coed, but even at Harvard race and
gender aren’t parallel categories. Men and women are roomed separately
but ethnic groups are not intentionally segregated. Gender may be a
social construct, but when it comes to the tensions of physical
proximity, gender does have something to do with sex.

Using "nondiscrimination" as a cudgel against students’ private
associations is odiously patronizing. No similar policy applies to
Harvard faculty or staff. Even worse, Harvard will compel students
seeking scholarships and leadership positions to affirm their compliance
with the policy — to respond to a McCarthyesque "Are you or have you
ever been a member" question, under the threat of punishment for perjury.

Harvard prohibits such questions in job interviews. It is an old
authoritarian trick to compel speech and then punish lies, a trick
Harvard has a history of resisting. For decades, Massachusetts teachers
had to swear their loyalty to the Constitution — until MIT and Harvard
professors refused in the 1960s and the law was overturned.

Could Harvard today require oaths about club memberships but resist if
the government required students to swear that they are lawfully on U.S.

In civil society, freedom of association is built into the Bill of
Rights because the state does not always know what is best for
individuals. It is an expression of American confidence that even when
authorities disapprove, the energy of heterodox private associations
improves society in the long run. And freedom of speech includes the
freedom not to be compelled to speak.

Ironically, Harvard is now in the process of writing a reference to the
Puritans out of its alma mater — to update the anthem "for the 21st
century" — even as it reasserts their practice of harsh, intrusive
judgments on private lives. A backlash is arising against this
institutional overreach. Students, faculty and alumni are marshaling
venerable liberal values — freedom of thought, of association and of
speech — against a twisted new nondiscrimination orthodoxy.

(9) Google renames Margaret Court tennis arena after her anti-Gay comments

Margaret Court Arena prematurely renamed to Evonne Goolagong Arena in
Google Maps By Jon Healy

The calls for Margaret Court Arena to be renamed appear to have been
heeded by Google, albeit slightly prematurely.

The tennis legend has come under fire for a host of recent comments
surrounding homosexuality, primarily for saying she planned to boycott
Qantas for its support of same-sex marriage.

That prompted fellow tennis star Martina Navratilova to write an open
letter in Fairfax Media calling for, among other things, Margaret Court
Arena to be renamed to remove all traces of the 64-time major winner.

"I think the Evonne Goolagong Arena has a great ring to it," Navratilova

"Now there is a person we can all celebrate. On every level."

Well, on Thursday it looked like Google had jumped the gun, with their
maps displaying the new moniker. Evonne Goolagong Arena Photo: Someone
should probably let Evonne Goolagong know she has a court named in her
honour. (Supplied: Google)

Court need not worry, though, as a quick click into Melbourne's famed
tennis precinct changed the court back to its regular name. Margaret
Court Arena Photo: Court's name has not been completely erased on Google
Maps. (Supplied: Google)

By the afternoon, Google had fixed the problem.

A spokesperson for Google said the organisation's use of "a wide range
of sources, including third-party providers, public sources, and user
contributions" helped make their maps all-encompassing, but there was a

"We recognise that there may be occasional inaccuracies that could arise
from any of those sources," the spokesperson said.

But calls for the change to become a reality are growing louder. More on

Aussie doubles star Casey Dellacqua opens up on life as a mother in a
same-sex relationship Margaret Court tennis academy 'targeted with
abuse' after same-sex marriage comments The Conversation — Note to
Margaret Court: Don't read the Bible that literally Stosur clarifies
comments after Australian Open boycott confusion Margaret Court Arena
furore could spark scheduling chaos, Andy Murray says

After Navratilova's letter, Tennis Australia (TA) released a statement
saying Court was unmatched as a player, but her personal views were out
of line with TA's "values of equality, inclusion and diversity".

There was some discussion around a boycott of the second-biggest stage
at the Australian Open after Samantha Stosur said "[we will see] who
wants to play on Margaret Court Arena and who doesn't".

Since then, the 'Rename the Margaret Court Arena the Evonne Goolagong
Arena' petition on has garnered more than 8,500 supporters.

"We think it is unsuitable for your arena to continue to be named in
honour of someone who has been consistently outspoken about her
opposition to equality, diversity and inclusion," the blurb reads.

"Evonne Goolagong, who was Australian of the year in 1971, is also a
great Australian tennis champion. She has a reputation for generosity
and inclusiveness. She is a far more suitable candidate for the official
name of your stadium."

(10) Top Gear gay joke

Richard Hammond is criticised for gay ice cream joke on Amazon show, The
Grand Tour

27 Dec 2016

TV presenter Richard Hammond has been criticised after making a joke
about eating ice cream being gay.

He was responding to a comment made by Jeremy Clarkson on The Grand Tour.

Talking to an audience, co-host Clarkson points at a photo of a Volvo's
interior and says: "The only problem is that in one of those, you
couldn't enjoy a chocolate Magnum ice cream."

Richard Hammond replied: "It's all right, I don't eat ice cream. It's
something to do with being straight." More related stories George
Michael How I featured on a George Michael song This is a photo of a
stack of Christmas gifts. What your Christmas behaviour say about you
People in the barber shop 2016 viewed from the barber's chair

After the audience on the Amazon Prime show applauded, Jeremy Clarkson
asks: "Why are you applauding him? What do you mean? You're saying all
children are homosexual?"

Richard Hammond replies: "What? What? Ice cream is a bit - you know...
There's nothing wrong with it, but a grown man eating an ice cream -
it's that way, rather than that way.

"I'm right. I can't believe you can't see that. It's easy. It's in front
of you."

But Twitter users aren't happy about the comments.

Years & Years singer Olly Alexander made a joke about it while others
people went further.

LGBT campaigner, Peter Tatchell, has also criticised Richard Hammond.

Speaking on BBC 5 Live Daily, he's told Adrian Chiles that he thinks the
comments "pander to prejudice".

"It's a perverse world when everyday pleasures like ice cream becomes
the butt of homophobic innuendo," he said.

"That Richard Hammond thinks he needs to boast about his heterosexuality
is weird and it will get people wondering, 'Why? Why is he saying that?'
Jeremy Clarkson Image caption Jeremy Clarkson asked the audience why
they were applauding Richard Hammond

"His pandering to prejudice is bad enough, of course. But the audience
applause that he got makes it even worse, and I think it shows that we
still have some way to go to end bigoted banter."

There's no word yet from Richard Hammond or the producers of The Grand Tour.

The comments were made on the sixth episode of the Amazon Prime show,
which was called Happy Finnish Christmas.

It was released on 23 December.

A spokesman for LGBT equality charity Stonewall said: "Hammond's choice
of words were not just ridiculous, but chosen purposefully to mock and

"This is the sort of childish language heard in playgrounds across Britain.

"Stonewall trains teachers to tackle homophobic, biphobic and
transphobic slurs like these, so to hear this sort of language on
television is extremely disappointing and sends the wrong message to
young people."

In the same episode Richard Hammond also takes a dig at the Top Gear
scene filmed at the Cenotaph in central London earlier this year.

Driving a Mustang on a tour of the city, he says: "That is the Cenotaph,
where we remember those who died fighting for us. Slow down a bit here,
show some respect." Mustang going past the Cenotaph

The BBC show, formerly fronted by The Grand Tour's Richard Hammond,
Jeremy Clarkson and James May, was criticised after new host Matt
LeBlanc and a professional driver performed "doughnuts" near the war
memorial. Matt Leblanc takes part in filming for the new BBC Top Gear
series near Cenotaph in Whitehall, London, on 13 March 2016

Former co-host Chris Evans apologised for the stunt, and said he and the
crew were "mortified".

924 Newsletters that may not have arrived

Newsletters that may not have arrived


b2949 June 17 NO

b2951 June 29 YES

b2953 June 29 NO

b2956 June 30 NO

b2952 June 30 YES

b2957 June 30 NO

b2950 June 30 YES

b2960 June 30 NO

923 Deep State: Unelected members of US security agencies & bureaucracy are pulling the strings

Deep State: Unelected members of US security agencies & bureaucracy are
pulling the strings

Newsletter published on 20 June 2017

(1) Subpoenas require NSA, FBI & CIA to disclose political intelligence
gathering by Obama admin
(2) U.N. ambassador Samantha Power sought info on Trump team
(3) Deep State WSJ: Liberal activists in the Bureaucracy work to
undermine Trump
(4) American deep state powered by intelligence leaks - Business Insider
(5) Far-left Green groups invited to advise EPA on scientific integrity
(6) Unelected members of US security agencies & bureaucracy are pulling
the strings
(7) Edward Snowden: NSA's "dangerous attack tools" now threaten lives of
  hospital patients

(8) Cyberattack Hackers use flaws NSA knew about, but used for spying

(1) Subpoenas require NSA, FBI & CIA to disclose political intelligence
gathering by Obama admin

House Subpoenas Elevate Probe Into Improper Intelligence Surveillance

UN Ambassador Samantha Power sought names of Americans hidden in
communications intercept

BY: Bill Gertz

June 2, 2017 5:00 pm

A House investigation into improper intelligence gathering gained
momentum this week after subpoenas were issued for records on three
Obama administration political appointees.

U.S. officials said the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
this week ordered the National Security Agency, FBI, and CIA to produce
records on all requests made by the three senior officials for the names
of Americans redacted in electronic intercepts of conversations of
foreign officials, said U.S. officials familiar with the matter.

The newest target of the investigation that began in March is former
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power, a long-time Obama

The other two being probed as part of the committee's investigation into
potentially improper political spying are former CIA Director John
Brennan and former White House National Security Adviser Susan Rice.

Power declined to comment through a spokesman. Rice and Brennan did not
return emails seeking comment.

The subpoenas were issued Wednesday by Committee Chairman Rep. Devin
Nunes (R., Calif.), who in April revealed that "dozens" of classified
intelligence reports appeared to have improperly unmasked the names of
Americans inadvertently spied on during foreign intelligence
surveillance operations.

Nunes was sidelined from the committee's Russia inquiry after a leftist
media monitoring group alleged he disclosed classified information. The
House Ethics Committee has launched an inquiry into the allegation.
However, the ethics panel so far has ignored similar allegations lodged
against the committee's ranking member, Rep. Adam Schiff (D., Calif.),
who appears to have disclosed classified information in public
discussion of former White House National Security Adviser Michael
Flynn’s intercepted conversation with the Russian ambassador.

The committee wants the three agencies to disclose the details about the
three former officials' requests of the agencies to provide the hidden
identities of the Americans who were caught in electronic surveillance.

The investigation into unmasking activities of Americans was initially
part of the intelligence oversight panel's investigation of Russian
political influence operations during the 2016 election.

In addition to the subpoenas for unmasking request records, the
committee also issued four related to the Russia aspect of the probe.
They include notices to former White House National Security Adviser
Flynn and Michael Cohen, President Trump's personal lawyer.

The issuing of subpoenas related to the disclosure of Americans'
identities are a sign that the probe into the potential political spying
by the Obama administration has been elevated.

The NSA, FBI, and CIA have provided some cooperation to the committee
but so far have not provided details sought by investigators. The
subpoenas are meant to compel the three agencies' cooperation on the matter.

Procedures for electronic intercepts that incidentally spy on Americans
require blacking out the names of the Americans in a bid to protect
privacy rights.

In cases usually limited to those involving terrorists or foreign
intelligence operatives communicating with Americans, senior government
officials can request that hidden names contained in raw transcripts be
revealed in order to better understand the context of conversations. The
unmasking is restricted to officials with a need to know and the
dissemination of the revealed names is supposed to be limited within
intelligence and government agencies.

House investigators believe the Obama administration sought to exploit
the intelligence reports by first obtaining the masked names and then
widely disseminating the reports in a bid to make identifying any leaks
to the press more difficult.

"It's clear that people on the Hill have found indications that
high-level officials of the Obama administration weaponized American
intelligence," said a senior U.S. official.

The officials said the probe into possible political intelligence
gathering by the Obama administration is now a separate inquiry from the
Russia probe that has been dominating major news outlets' coverage over
the past several weeks.

By contrast, the improper unmasking activities have been largely ignored
by most news media that have instead focused extensive coverage on the
Russian collusion allegations.

The Senate Intelligence Committee is also investigating the matter but
its inquiry appears to be limited to the Russia allegations. Former FBI
Director James Comey, who was fired by President Trump in part for
continuing the Russian counterintelligence investigation, is set to
testify before the Senate panel Thursday.

Trump, who has called the collusion allegations "fake news," joined the
fray on Thursday, tweeting, "The big story is the ‘unmasking and
surveillance' of people that took place during the Obama Administration."

Indications of a political spying operation against Trump and his
associates first surfaced in March when intelligence officials told the
New York Times that during the last days of the Obama administration,
White House officials had "scrambled to spread information" about
Russian hacking and collusion with Trump campaign officials.

The March 1 report said American intelligence agencies had eavesdropped
on communications of Russian officials, including some inside the
Kremlin, discussing contacts with Trump aides.

House investigators' concerns also were raised by earlier press
disclosures revealing the contents of an intercepted phone call between
Flynn and Moscow's ambassador to the United States, Sergey Kislyak,
discussing U.S. sanctions on Russia. Flynn later resigned as White House
national security adviser as a result of the disclosures.

Power, the former UN ambassador targeted by the unmasking investigation,
worked as an aide to Obama in the Senate and then on the White House
National Security Council staff from 2009 to 2013. She became U.N.
ambassador in 2013 and was a key figure in advocating U.S. military
intervention in Libya.

The United Nations is a major U.S. intelligence target for the NSA, FBI,
and CIA and investigators believe it is unusual for Power to have asked
for the identities of Americans in late 2016 and early 2017.

Rice, the former White House adviser, earlier this month told CNN she
would not testify before a Senate subcommittee investigating the Russia.

Rice called allegations she misused intelligence "absolutely false."

"I did my job which was to protect the American people and I did it
faithfully and to the best of my ability," she said. "And never did I do
anything that was untoward with respect to the intelligence I received."

On May 23, Brennan revealed in House testimony that he had made
unmasking requests during his tenure, but did not ask for the names of
Americans in classified intelligence reports on Jan. 20, the day he left

"No, I was not in the agency on the last day I was employed," Brennan
said. "I definitely know that on the last day I was employed I
definitely did not make such a request."

Brennan, a career CIA analyst who also worked closely with Obama in the
White House before moving to CIA, disclosed during his testimony that he
requested that the FBI investigate Trump associates during the 2016
presidential campaign after intelligence reports indicated ties between
campaign aides and Russians.

Critics have charged Brennan with politicizing the CIA during his tenure
as director, limiting the agency's espionage capabilities.

Brennan said he asked the FBI to investigate because he was worried by
intelligence reports of contacts between Russians and Americans he did
not identify in the May 23 testimony. "And so therefore I felt as though
the FBI investigation was certainly well-founded and needed to look into
those issues," he said.

On March 20 during testimony before the House intelligence panel,
then-FBI Director Comey and NSA Director Adm. Mike Rogers both testified
they had no information supporting claims by Trump that the Obama
administration had conducted political surveillance of him and his aides.

Days later, Nunes said he has been shown dozens of classified
intelligence reports that appeared to contradict the two officials'

"What I've read seems to be some level of surveillance activity, perhaps
legal, but I don't know that it's right and I don't know if the American
people would be comfortable with what I've read," Nunes said.

The intelligence reports included transcripts of communications,
including communications directly from Trump based on a foreign
electronic spying operation between November and January—the period when
the transition team was operating, mainly from Trump's New York
residence, Trump Tower.

Nunes has said the apparent political spying activities were based on
intercepts of a foreign target and were not related to the Russia inquiry.

(2) U.N. ambassador Samantha Power sought info on Trump team

New surprise suspect in Obama spy scandal

Why would U.N. ambassador be seeking info on Trump team?

Published: 05/31/2017 at 8:25 PM

WASHINGTON – The inquiry into whether the Obama administration spied on
the Trump campaign and transition team has a new surprise suspect:
former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power.

The House Intelligence Committee announced Wednesday it was submitting
subpoenas as part of its ongoing investigation into any Russian meddling
during the 2016 presidential election campaign, and sources gave more
details to the Wall Street Journal.

Buried inside the paper’s account was a potentially bombshell
development: The committee is seeking information from the FBI, CIA and
NSA on unmasking requests made by Power.

Unmasking is the revealing of names within the intelligence community of
U.S. citizens gathered in foreign surveillance.

The new subpoena immediately raises the question: Why would Power be
seeking such information?

Why would a diplomat care about Trump officials?

It would hardly seem to have any obvious relevance to her job as U.N.

She was, however, a close confidant of President Obama, and she served
him as a foreign-policy adviser when he was a senator.

And members of the intelligence committee have previously shown concern
about Obama officials unmasking Trump associates.

Sources told Fox News that Power’s role is now under increasing scrutiny
by the intelligence committee.

Republicans on the Intelligence Committee want to know if the Obama
administration spied on the Trump campaign for political purposes, as
the president has charged.

It has already been established that the Obama administration collected
surveillance information on Trump associates during the campaign, and on
the president’s former national security adviser, Michael Flynn, during
the transition.

The Obama administration claimed it was investigating possible collusion
between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. However, in the
seven months since the investigation was launched, no evidence of such
collusion has ever emerged, as even all of the top Democrats involved in
the inquiry have had to admit.

The House Intelligence Committee issued seven subpoenas Wednesday. Three
of them, signed by chairman Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., explicitly asked
the FBI, CIA and NSA for information on unmasking requests involving
three top officials of the Obama administration: former ambassador
Power, former White House national security adviser Susan Rice and
former CIA Director John Brennan.

Brennan admitted to the House Intelligence Committee during testimony
Tuesday that he instigated the investigation into whether the Trump
campaign colluded with Russia even though he had seen no evidence of that.

Brennan claimed he had seen some contacts between Trump associates and
Russian officials, and he was worried that might lead to collusion. So
he referred the matter to the FBI, which launched an investigation.
Former National Security Adviser Susan RIie, former Secretary of State
John Kerry and former President Barack Obama

Former National Security Adviser Susan Rice, former Secretary of State
John Kerry and former President Barack Obama

The other four subpoenas issued by the Intelligence Committee on
Wednesday were requested by the committee’s ranking Democrat, Rep. Adam
Schiff, D-Calif., and seek information on Trump attorney Michael Cohen
and on Flynn. Democrats are still hoping to find some evidence of
collusion between the Trump team and Russia.

Flynn was fired as national security adviser three weeks into the job
after his name was unmasked by someone in the Obama administration and
then leaked to the press.

Anonymous sources claimed Flynn discussed inappropriate topics before
the inauguration with the Russian ambassador, such as possible sanctions
relief. Trump said Flynn had not discussed anything inappropriate but
was fired for not telling Vice President Mike Pence the whole truth.

Speaking to MSNBC in April, Rice did not deny unmasking the identities
of Trump associates collected in foreign surveillance.

She implicitly acknowledged and explicitly defended unmasking by
claiming: "It was not uncommon. It was necessary at times to make those

But speaking to PBS on March 22, Rice had denied any knowledge of such
unmasking after it was revealed by House Intelligence Chairman Nunes.

She told PBS, "I know nothing about this," and "I was surprised to see
reports from Chairman Nunes on that count today."

So, by her own admission, Rice was not telling the truth on March 22.

Like the reporting you see here? Sign up for free news alerts from, America’s independent news network.

Rice tried to defend her actions by telling MSNBC she did nothing
inappropriate and that she sometimes sought the names of people in
intelligence reports, as part of her job.

But, if that was true, why did she not tell the truth to PBS on March 22?

In her defense, Rice merely asserted to MSNBC that she did not leak
unmasked names to the press and that the unmasking wasn’t politically

The big questions now are whether those statements are true.

Former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy, one of the nation’s top legal
minds, cast serious doubt on Rice’s veracity in comments made to WND and
in a column in National Review.

Rice had told MSNBC the unmasking of any names of Trump associates in
intelligence reports was not done to spy on them "for any political

"This is not anything political, as has been alleged," she said. "The
allegation is that somehow Obama administration officials utilized
intelligence for political purposes. That is absolutely false."

McCarthy pointed out that can’t be the case.

"The national-security adviser is not an investigator," he wrote. "She
is a White House staffer. The president’s staff is a consumer of
intelligence, not a generator or collector of it."

Therefore, "If Susan Rice was unmasking Americans, it was not to fulfill
an intelligence need based on American interests; it was to fulfill a
political desire based on Democratic Party interests."

In other words, her actions contradicted her explanation.

Requesting the unmasking, according to McCarthy, could have had no
purpose other than politics because she was not an investigator.

"The thing to bear in mind is that the White House does not do
investigations. Not criminal investigations, not intelligence
investigations," he wrote.

"There would have been no intelligence need for Susan Rice to ask for
identities to be unmasked," McCarthy added. "If there had been a real
need to reveal the identities – an intelligence need based on American
interests – the unmasking would have been done by the investigating

Therefore, McCarthy deduced, there could be but one conclusion: "Her
interest was not in national security but to advance the political
interests of the Democratic Party."

Of particular importance is that Rice focused her defense not on denying
unmasking, but on denying she was the leaker of unmasked names,
specifically denying she leaked the name of Mike Flynn, President
Trump’s former national security adviser.

"I leaked nothing to nobody and never have and never would," said Rice.

However, it was the unmasking that made the leak possible.

The unmasking was the crucial part.

The leak could have been committed by any of the dozens, perhaps
hundreds, of intelligence officials who could see the intelligence after
Flynn’s name was unmasked.

That was because of the executive order Obama issued in the waning days
of his presidency relaxing the rules on the sharing of information
within the intelligence community.

The New York Times reported Jan. 12, "[T]he Obama administration has
expanded the power of the National Security Agency to share globally
intercepted personal communications with the government’s 16 other
intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections."

That was eight days before the end of the Obama administration.

(3) Deep State WSJ: Liberal activists in the Bureaucracy work to
undermine Trump

Anatomy of a Deep State

The EPA’s ‘Science Integrity Official’ is plotting to undermine Trump’s

By Kimberley A. Strassel

May 25, 2017 7:07 p.m. ET

On May 8 a woman few Americans have heard of, working in a federal post
that even fewer know exists, summoned a select group of 45 people to a
June meeting in Washington. They were almost exclusively representatives
of liberal activist groups. The invitation explained they were invited
to develop "future plans for scientific integrity" at the Environmental
Protection Agency.

Meet the deep state. That’s what conservatives call it now, though it
goes by other names. The administrative state. The entrenched governing
elite.  Lois Lerner. The federal bureaucracy. Whatever the description,
what’s pertinent to today’s Washington is that this cadre of federal
employees, accountable to no one, is actively working from within to
thwart Donald Trump’s agenda.

There are few better examples than the EPA post of Scientific Integrity
Official. (Yes, that is an actual job title.) The position is a legacy
of Barack Obama, who at his 2009 inaugural promised to "restore science
to its rightful place"—his way of warning Republicans that there’d be no
more debate on climate change or other liberal environmental priorities.

Team Obama directed federal agencies to implement "scientific integrity"
policies. Most agencies tasked their senior leaders with overseeing
these rules. But the EPA—always the overachiever—bragged that it alone
had chosen to "hire a senior level employee" whose only job would be to
"act as a champion for scientific integrity throughout the agency."

In 2013 the EPA hired Francesca Grifo, a longtime activist at the
far-left Union of Concerned Scientists. Ms. Grifo had long complained
that EPA scientists were "under siege"—according to a report she helped
write—by Republican "political appointees" and "industry lobbyists" who
had "manipulated" science on everything from "mercury pollution to
groundwater contamination to climate science."

As Scientific Integrity Official, Ms. Grifo would have the awesome power
to root out all these meddlesome science deniers. A 2013 Science
magazine story reported she would lead an entire Scientific Integrity
Committee, write an annual report documenting science "incidents" at the
agency, and even "investigate" science problems—alongside no less than
the agency’s inspector general.

And get this: "Her job is not a political appointment," the Science
article continues, "so it comes with civil service protections." Here
was a bureaucrat with the authority to define science and shut down
those who disagreed, and she could not be easily fired, even under a new
administration. [...]

(4) American deep state powered by intelligence leaks - Business Insider

'This gets to the fabric of the nation': Inside the dark conspiracy that
made its way from the fringe to the White House

Sonam Sheth

May 7, 2017, 12:31 AM

The modern history of the "deep state" in American politics — real or
imagined — starts with real leaks of classified information and ends as
a conspiracy theory on popular yet dubious websites.

And how it got there raises serious questions about whether the
intelligence community is trying to subvert a new president or whether
it’s a convenient scapegoat for an administration that’s had its share
of early foibles.

A deep state is a network of influential members of a government’s
agencies or military who operate against a democratically elected
government. It might work to undermine an elected president’s authority
or legitimacy and has been common in countries such as Egypt and Turkey.

The concern in the US started shortly after Donald Trump took office. In
early February, The New York Times and The Washington Post published a
series of explosive reports about the intelligence community’s
investigations into the Trump campaign’s communications with Russian
officials during the 2016 election.

The reports, citing anonymous officials, revealed that then
national-security adviser Michael Flynn had discussed US sanctions on
Russia with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak before Trump took office,
despite Flynn’s claims that he and Kislyak had not discussed anything
sensitive during their phone calls.

The next day, The Times broke a story on what it said were "repeated
contacts" that Trump associates had with Russian officials during the
campaign. CNN published another report that night in which sources said
communication between Trump associates and Russian officials during the
campaign was "constant."

Flynn resigned a short time later.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions later had to recuse himself from any
Department of Justice investigations into the Trump campaign’s ties to
Russia after additional leaks revealed that he had also had contact with
Russian officials during the campaign.

An American deep state?

The steady drip of classified leaks about President Trump’s young
administration has led some to speculate about the beginnings of an
American deep state. [...]

But soon after the possibility of the beginnings of an American deep
state was first raised by the mainstream media, the idea took hold of
the far-right media, quickly reaching a fever pitch.

"The Deep State Bumps off General Flynn. Who’s Next?" blared a February
Breitbart headline after the resignation of Flynn. The article pointed
to the mainstream media as an arm of the deep state, saying that the
"ultimate target, of course, is Trump himself."

InfoWars editor at large Paul Joseph Watson recorded a segment posted to
YouTube in early March titled "The Deep State War on Trump."

"Purge your administration of this globalist fifth column. There can be
no compromise. These people literally want to overthrow a democratically
elected government," Watson said.

 From the fringe, the idea of a deep state working against the Trump
administration made its way to the mainstream conservative media.

Fox News host and ardent Trump supporter Sean Hannity reiterated
Watson’s words during a segment that aired a week after Watson’s video
was posted on YouTube. "Tonight, it’s time for the Trump administration
to purge these saboteurs before it’s too late," Hannity said, referring
to "deep-state Obama-holdover government bureaucrats who are hell bent
on destroying this president."

And from there, the fears of an American deep state powered by
intelligence leaks, which started out as mild speculation and reached
the heights of conspiracy theory, made their way to the halls of Washington.

Trump has repeatedly and emphatically expressed his belief that there
has been a concerted effort, fuelled by politicians, those within the
intelligence community, and the "fake news" media, to undermine his
presidency and policy agenda.

He notably accused the former president, without evidence, of personally
ordering the surveillance of phones at Trump Tower. Trump likely made
the accusation based on a monologue by far-right radio talk-show host
Mark Levin and a Breitbart write-up of Levin’s belief that there is a
"silent coup" underway to overthrow Trump. Trump’s cold war with the
intelligence community

The president has also publicly castigated the media and the
intelligence community.

"Leaking, and even illegal classified leaking, has been a big problem in
Washington for years. Failing @nytimes (and others) must apologise!"
Trump tweeted in February, shortly after Flynn resigned. "The spotlight
has finally been put on the low-life leakers! They will be caught!" he said.

In a meeting later with several members of Congress, he added: "We’re
going to find the leakers, and they’re going to pay a big price."

As the media continued publishing classified information, Trump tweeted
that "information is being illegally given to the failing @nytimes &
@washingtonpost by the intelligence community (NSA and FBI?). Just like

"The real scandal here is that classified information is illegally given
out by ‘intelligence’ like candy," he continued. "Very un-American!"

Trump’s loyalists quickly followed his lead, pointing to the
intelligence leaks as a key piece of evidence they say supports the
existence of an American deep state. They have also consistently singled
out Trump’s chief White House strategist, Steve Bannon, as a source of
knowledge on the American deep state.

Bannon is the former head of Breitbart, a largely Trump-friendly outlet
that has published a slew of articles asserting the existence of an
American deep state.

"We are talking about the emergence of a deep state led by Barack Obama,
and that is something that we should prevent," Iowa Rep. Steve King told
The New York Times. "The person who understands this best is Steve
Bannon, and I would think that he’s advocating to make some moves to fix

Echoing Hannity’s and Watson’s words, King later said that Trump "needs
to purge the leftists within the administration that are holdovers from
the Obama administration, because it appears that they are undermining
his administration and his chances of success."

Trump adviser and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich also believes in
the deep state and said he discussed the concept with Bannon. "Of
course, the deep state exists. There’s a permanent state of massive
bureaucracies that do whatever they want and set up deliberate leaks to
attack the president," Gingrich told the Associated Press in March.

"This is what the deep state does: They create a lie, spread a lie, fail
to check the lie and then deny that they were behind the lie," Gingrich
said. [...]

(5) Far-left Green groups invited to advise EPA on scientific integrity

Far-left green groups invited to advise EPA on scientific integrity

by Philip Wegmann | May 18, 2017, 2:14 PM

The leadership of the Environmental Protection Agency changed when Trump
took office, but much of the old guard remains at their posts. And many
of those Obama-era public employees have fervently resisted the efforts
of EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt to depoliticize the agency.

One of those employees seems to be Francesca Grifo. As the EPA's
scientific integrity official, she's responsible for keeping politics
from polluting environmental research. Recently, though, Grifo seems to
be going in a different direction, inviting numerous far-left political
groups to advise the EPA on its scientific standards.

"It is my pleasure to invite you to the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's Scientific Integrity Annual Stakeholder Meeting," Grifo wrote
in an email obtained by the Washington Examiner.

"At this meeting, as the EPA Scientific Integrity Official," she
continued, "I will answer your questions, share current scientific
integrity initiatives, and discuss future plans for scientific integrity
at EPA."

Clearly an exclusive invite, the list includes academic institutions
such as George Washington University and research leaders such as the
American Chemical Society. Their acknowledged authority earns them a
seat at the table. But progressive political groups seem like they're
crashing the party by comparison.

For instance, what can the EPA hope to learn from a dark-money group
such as Demos, whose president recently testified against Judge Gorsuch
during his confirmation hearings? How could Public Citizen, the
brainchild of Ralph Nader, be considered an authority? And why would the
Natural Resources Defense Council, which is actively suing President
Trump, even be invited?

An incredulous Grifo wouldn't offer any answers when reached by phone,
referring the Washington Examiner to the agency's public relations
office instead. "Good luck with that," Grifo said before hanging up. An
EPA spokesman later followed up but didn't respond to questions.

It's still not known why those political groups were invited to EPA
headquarters or on whose authority the stakeholder meeting was called.
But it's obvious that their missions run counter to the efforts of Pruitt.

The conservative environmental administrator has turned his focus back
to conservation, specifically toward enforcing the agency's original
clean air and water standards. "It's so important to focus on the core
of our mission," he told Fox News on Wednesday, reiterating that his
goal was "actually doing things to clean up the environment."

Sadly, it seems that some in the EPA would rather play politics than
join with Pruitt to fight pollution.

(6) Unelected members of US security agencies & bureaucracy are pulling
the strings

Donald Trump: Is there a 'deep state' in America and is it trying to
take down the President?

By Michael Collett

Updated 11 Mar 2017, 8:29am

If you've been following US politics (and who hasn't been over the past
few months) you may have come across the term "deep state".

The idea is that unelected members of America's security agencies (the
intelligence community or IC) and bureaucracy are secretly pulling the
strings of government.

And according to Washington Post political reporter Robert Costa, it's
an idea that has become popular within the Trump camp: External Link:
Robert Costa tweet: "A phrase I keep hearing from Trump ally after Trump
ally: 'deep state.' Growing belief inside WH that elements of I.C.
aligned against them."

Some of the President's political enemies have also alluded to the
existence of a deep state, including influential neoconservative Bill

The question is whether the conspiracy is real or just an
unsubstantiated theory.

Where does the term 'deep state' come from?

The Oxford Dictionary says the term was first used in reference to Turkey.

And there was good reason to believe a deep state really did exist there.

While it's not fully understood what the Turkish deep state was and how
it operated, King's College London lecturer Simon Waldman says people
were given a glimpse of it in the aftermath of a car crash in 1996.

The bodies of a senior police official, a former leader of a
ultra-nationalist paramilitary group and a hit woman were found in the
wreckage, while the lone survivor was a state-supported Kurdish warlord.

As Dr Waldman wrote for The Conversation:

     "The question on everyone's lips was, no doubt: 'What were these
people doing together?'"

However, he says it's likely Turkey's deep state apparatus was dissolved
or became inactive after this scandal.

Many also believe a deep state exists in Egypt and this can be seen in
the vast power wielded by its military, which has produced many of that
country's leaders and which was also responsible for the 2013 coup.

Why do people think there's a deep state in America?

Breitbart News is one media organisation that's giving a voice to what
it calls "deep state-gate".

If that name sounds familiar to you, it's probably because Breitbart is
the far-right website where Steve Bannon was executive chairman before
he became Donald Trump's chief strategist.

Breitbart commentators point to the leaks of national security
information to the media in order to damage the White House as evidence.

The resignation of national security adviser Mike Flynn was the "first
great success" of this campaign of destabilisation, according to
"several intelligence insiders" who were cited in an article published
in February under the headline "Insiders: Obama Holdover 'Shadow
Government' Plotting to Undermine Trump".

The idea that government officials are working against the White House,
and that Barack Obama is encouraging this, has gathered pace since then.

LA attorney Robert Barnes told Breitbart News Daily on March 3:

     "This is an effective de facto coup attempt by elements of the deep

Last week, Breitbart's senior editor-at-large Joel B Pollak laid out
conservative radio host Mark Levin's case that a "silent coup" was
taking place.

The article claimed the Obama administration ordered surveillance on Mr
Trump prior to the election:

     In summary: the Obama administration sought, and eventually
obtained, authorisation to eavesdrop on the Trump campaign; continued
monitoring the Trump team even when no evidence of wrongdoing was found;
then relaxed the NSA rules to allow evidence to be shared widely within
the government, virtually ensuring that the information, including the
conversations of private citizens, would be leaked to the media.

Soon after Levin made his claims, Mr Trump himself stated as fact that
Mr Obama wiretapped Trump Tower during the election campaign.

The White House has also called for a congressional investigation into
whether the Obama administration abused its investigative powers in 2016.

However, the claims regarding surveillance by the Obama administration
remain unverified and unsubstantiated. Is there anything in the idea of
a deep state?

Nicole Hemmer, an academic at the University of Virginia and the
University of Sydney's US Studies Centre, says the use of the phrase
"deep state" has been more rhetorical than descriptive:

     "Are there ways people within the intelligence community and
federal bureaucracy are trying to slow down the Trump administration?
Sure. Is that some shadowy government that secretly runs the country?
Not at all."

She says the idea of there being a "shadow government" suggests a level
of autonomy, secrecy and coordination that doesn't exist.

But that's not to say a deep state like those found in Turkey and Egypt
couldn't exist in America.

"The current threat to American democracy resides in the Oval Office,
not a deep state," Ms Hemmer said.

"One could imagine a scenario where the executive grows so out of
control that the intelligence community and bureaucracy more fully moves
against him and takes the reins of power, but there would have to be a
much deeper crisis in democracy for that to happen."

And even then, Ms Hemmer argues "the longer history of American
democratic institutions, coupled with the relative weakness of the US
federal government, comes into play here, as does the fact that there is
a significant portion of the intelligence community and bureaucracy that
are fine with Trump".

Meanwhile, it's not just Trump supporters who have talked about there
being a deep state.

A recent article in the London Review of Books referred to "the
dangerous fantasy" among liberals that "the deep state might rescue us"
from the Trump presidency.

Ms Hemmer says these people should be careful what they wish for if
they're hoping the deep state will remove Mr Trump from power or
otherwise thwart his agenda.

"It would be a disturbing state of affairs if FBI influence (via Jim
Comey's letter in the closing weeks of the campaign) helped swing the
election toward Trump, and then members of the intelligence community
helped bring down the Trump administration," she said.

     "That's not democracy — it's something much more troubling."

First posted 9 Mar 2017, 8:14am

(7) Edward Snowden: NSA's "dangerous attack tools" now threaten lives of
  hospital patients

Edward Snowden, who in 2013 leaked documents exposing US surveillance
programs, said on Twitter NSA's "dangerous attack tools" now threatened
lives of hospital patients.

In March, WikiLeaks released thousands of "Vault 7" documents that
revealed the CIA knew about several flaws in Apple, Google and Samsung
software but did not tell the companies about them because it wanted to
use them for spying.

Across the US Federal Government, about 90 per cent of all spending on
cyber programs is dedicated to offensive efforts, including penetrating
the computer systems of adversaries, listening to communications and
developing the means to disable or degrade infrastructure, senior
intelligence officials told Reuters in March.

(8) Cyberattack Hackers use flaws NSA knew about, but used for spying

Cyber expert warns against supporting criminal syndicates amid global

By Katri Uibu, wires

Updated yesterday at 4:14pm

Companies affected by global ransomware attacks should not pay the
ransom so as not to feed into the growing business of organised cyber
crime, a security expert warns.

Key points:

     Over 57,000 infections in 99 countries have been detected;
Ransomware attacks happen every day in Australia, they just don't get
reported, expert says;     UK doctors have turned away chemotherapy
patients due to not being unable to access medical records

Attackers have used encryption algorithms to lock files, which owners
cannot access unless they pay a ransom.

Over 57,000 infections in 99 countries have been detected, with Russia,
Ukraine and Taiwan being top targets, security software maker Avast said.

The attacks have led to hospitals and doctors in England turning away
patients after they were unable to view their medical files.

But director for Centre for Cyber Security Research at Deakin
University, Professor Yang Xiang, has strictly warned against giving in
to criminal syndicates in order to have data unlocked. [...]

Professor Yang, who daily works on detecting possible ransomware, said
cyber security had been a "number one problem" in Australia for years,
and urged government agencies, companies and individuals to prepare for
future attacks.

     "Australia has a very similar situation because it heavily relies
on internet," he said.

"We have seen a lot of ransomware attacks in companies and government

"It actually happens every day, it just didn't get reported."

While he could not say which specific institutions had been targeted, he
did reveal the mining industry was under attack.

Ransomware encryptions are strong. Once the data has been locked, it is
extremely difficult to regain access to it.

Professor Yang calls for the Federal Government not to downplay the
threat of cyber attacks and to treat this as a priority.

"We just got some news that Government is cutting funding for
universities. I think it is important to keep supporting research,
support cyber security industry and provide more funding to innovation
and research in this area," he said.

Companies leave themselves open to attacks

One of the more reported victims of the latest attack has been Britain's
National Health Service.

Doctors in the UK have been forced to turn away even chemotherapy
patients due to being unable to access their medical records. External
Link: Edward Snowden: "If NSA had privately disclosed the flaw used to
attack hospitals when they found it, not when they lost it, this may not
have happened"

But just days before the attack, a UK doctor warned about hospitals'
software being targeted, saying "more hospitals will almost certainly be
shut down by ransomware this year".

Dr Krishna Chinthapalli, a neurology registrar at the National Hospital
for Neurology and Neurosurgery in London, said in the British Media
Journal health facilities left themselves open to hacks by using ancient
operating systems.

But some have cast blame on the United States' National Security Agency
(NSA) and other countries' intelligence services for hoarding software
vulnerabilities for offensive purposes, rather than quickly alerting
technology companies to such flaws. Cyber security incidents increasing

The nation's top spy agencies warn that the number of cyber security
threats facing Australia is growing by the day.

Edward Snowden, who in 2013 leaked documents exposing US surveillance
programs, said on Twitter NSA's "dangerous attack tools" now threatened
lives of hospital patients.

In March, WikiLeaks released thousands of "Vault 7" documents that
revealed the CIA knew about several flaws in Apple, Google and Samsung
software but did not tell the companies about them because it wanted to
use them for spying.

Across the US Federal Government, about 90 per cent of all spending on
cyber programs is dedicated to offensive efforts, including penetrating
the computer systems of adversaries, listening to communications and
developing the means to disable or degrade infrastructure, senior
intelligence officials told Reuters in March.

     "These attacks underscore the fact that vulnerabilities will be
exploited not just by our security agencies, but by hackers and
criminals around the world," Patrick Toomey, a staff attorney with the
American Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement.

The NSA did not respond to a request for comment.