Man raised from birth as a female is calling out the evil of ‘transing’ kids

So now we find out that THERE ARE differences between men and women that can not be overcome just as the CREATOR designed it. This is a vital lesson in ignoring the many hare brains through out the medical profession.

(LifeSiteNews) — Earlier this week, The Daily Wire published a gut-wrenching editorial penned by Sophie Ottaway titled “Doctors Performed A Sex Change Operation On Me At Two-Days-Old. I Found Out Decades Later.” It is yet another cautionary tale detailing the folly of gender ideology and the suffering borne by its victims.

When Sophie was 22, Ottaway discovered something stunning during a “routine trip to the doctor’s office” – that Ottaway was born male. Two days after birth, doctors had decided to remove “my split penis and testes” and “directed my parents to raise me as a female,” ordering them to keep this fact from Sophie “under the guise of psychological protection.” Ottaway is now 37 and decided to pen the editorial to lay out “the journey I undertook to make peace with myself and my body.” 

And that’s when a switch flipped in my brain – enough was enough. Not only had surgeons conducted unnecessary gender reassignment surgeries on my childhood body – I’d spent a whole lifetime without a vagina only to land in hospital with sepsis caused by a failed fake vagina that I never knew existed.

If those birth surgeries were legitimately conducted to help me, then why would I be facing a critical illness due to a vagina a baby boy should never have had? What value could a pseudo vagina ever have been to a two-day-old baby? Was I part of a medical experiment?


You are correct. This experiment was intended first to show an evolutinary background and further to show there is NO difference between the sexes as both are fully interchangeable. This is a MEDICAL practitioner lie from the beginning.

Related: Transgender activists are using this classic strategy to numb the public to their radical agenda 

If this isn’t child abuse of the highest order, I don’t know what could ever qualify. Where is it written that doctors are permitted to make life altering decisions that involve sex change rather than repair of birth defects? The answer is that these people believe they are smarter than everyone else and uniquely qualified to do so by their own dictates. These are the type of people that will make up the New World order in the last days.

This is an existential threat to the continuance of the two gender system, very necessary to cause the populace to believe there are multiple possibilities. However, inconvenient as it may be, Sophie;s experience demonstrates that there is order and purpose to mankind from creation onwards. A man cannot be turned into a woman nor a woman into a man as physical functionality is reduced and decay accelerated according to the second law of thermodynamics.

As it is written in Genesis 1:27: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”

U.S. Supreme Court Gives Police the Green Light To Pre-emptively Shoot and Kill Drivers They Fear Could Pose a Danger to Others With Their Car

by Patriots Staff

The Supreme Court has let stand the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling that granted qualified immunity to a Michigan police officer who shot and killed a man in a drive-thru lane at a White Castle after observing the driver make a series of traffic violations that nearly caused collisions. Although Antonino Gordon had not caused an accident or injured anyone while being observed or followed in his car by the police officer for almost 30 minutes, the Sixth Circuit concluded that police can use excessive force preemptively against a driver if they fear he might endanger others.

Cops who feel empowered to act as judge, jury and executioner are not making America any safer,” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People. “This is yet another chilling reminder that in the American police state, ‘we the people’ are at the mercy of police officers who have almost absolute discretion to decide who is a threat, what constitutes resistance, and how harshly they can deal with those they were appointed to protect.”

We are now entering a very dangerous era in American Law Enforcement. The police may kill you if they believe you pose a danger to other Drivers. WHAT? Killed for a Potential Thought crime?. So if the guy the cops just shot kills another innocent motorist by crashing into his or her car after being shot what has the decision prevented? This is depopulation ! If this isn’t a license for the cops to kill anyone for any reason, what could ever qualify?  This policy WILL BE ABUSED, you can bank on it! This is both unconstitutional and CRAZY !!  And this is a what a police state looks like

U.S. Supreme Court Gives Police the Green Light To Preemptively Shoot and Kill Drivers They Fear Could Pose a Danger to Others With Their Car


Tennessee Citizens Left Homeless by 'Environmental Court'

Bob Unruh By Bob Unruh

video screenshot
                                       (video Screenshot)

The fight isn't over for residents of Memphis, Tennessee, who were left homeless after they were attacked by the city's "Environmental Court.'

Officials with the Institute for Justice have confirmed an appeal is being prepared for the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The issue is the "court" is given by the city authority to rule against homeowners regarding the condition of their homes.

The IJ reported, "In one case, the Shelby County Environmental Court left Sarah Hohenberg bankrupt, homeless and with her possessions tossed onto the street. After a tree fell on her home in 2009, her neighbors sued her in the Environmental Court while Ms. Hohenberg tried to get insurance to pay for the repairs. In the other case, Joseph Hanson’s home was demolished after it too was damaged in a storm."

In the fight against the confiscation of their properties, a federal court recently dismissed a complaint, citing a rarely used standard that says federal courts cannot hear appeals from those who lose state court judgments.

However, the IJ reported, "neither Sarah nor Joseph lost in state court—the Environmental Court simply dismissed the cases against them—and the Environmental Court never issued a judgment in either case."

The problem is that while Shelby County set up the Environmental Court to clean up abandoned properties, it now issues rulings on residences occupied by taxpayers.

"Worse yet, it does not function like a court at all; its ever-changing goalposts and multiyear proceedings left both Sarah and Joseph homeless and without anything to their names. In Sarah’s case, when she refused to sign over her home to a 'receiver,' the court issued a warrant for her arrest and she became a fugitive from the law," the IJ reported. [Yes, I believe the Hitler Reich did the same thing to the jewish population back in the 1930s -ED]

Bill Maurer, a lawyer for the IJ, said he looks forward to having the decision corrected on appeal.

"This saga demonstrates the need to have fair and accurate proceedings in the first instance. Courts should act like courts instead of forcing people to go through years-long federal litigation to rectify the fact that they did not get the fair hearing to which they are entitled under the U.S. Constitution," he said.

In the Environmental Court, individuals, or city employees, present "unsworn, unauthenticated" complaints.

Neighbors in the audience are allowed to stand and testify.

"Anyone wishing to review what happened in a case against them is typically out of luck—the court does not create any meaningful records of their proceedings. While defendants are technically able to appeal Environmental Court decisions, there is no record, evidence or transcripts for an appellate court to examine. Put another way, defendants have the right to appeal in name only," the IJ reported.

The targets of the court's actions describe it as "torture," and a deprivation of "due process."

"The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires that all courts provide meaningful procedural guardrails in cases involving occupied homes. The Environmental Court simply does not do that," IJ lawyer Rob Peccola said.

Source:  https://www.wnd.com/2022/08/appeal-promised-fight-behalf-citizens-left-homeless-environmental-court/












Kansas Teacher in Unified School District 475 suspended for not using trans pronouns secures temporary court order

by Michael Gryboski

A federal judge has granted a temporary order in the case of a Kansas teacher suing her school district over policies requiring teachers to use the preferred names and pronouns of trans-identified students and hide those preferences from parents. 

U.S. District Judge Holly Teeter partially granted a preliminary injunction on behalf of Fort Riley Middle School teacher Pamela Ricard preventing Geary County Schools Unified School District 475 from disciplining her for not referring to a student’s preferred name and pronouns in her communications with a trans-identified student’s parents "within the regular course of her duties."

The injunction lasts until next Wednesday or “at the conclusion of Plaintiff’s contractual responsibilities to the District, whichever is later." The court stated that the motion was issued in light of the fact that the teacher doesn't plan to communicate with a parent to disclose a student’s preferred name and pronouns.

Ricard sued Geary County Schools Unified School District 475 after being suspended in April 2021 for three days and given a reprimand because she called a biologically female student by her legal name and used female pronouns.

Ricard's lawsuit names school district board members, Superintendent Reginald Eggleston and Fort Riley Principal Kathleen Brennan.

Teeter, a Trump appointee, found that Ricard "is likely to succeed on her free exercise claim for the Communication with Parent Policy" but denied a preliminary injunction to Ricard's claims against the school district policy requiring teachers to use preferred names and pronouns in class. 

Teeter concluded that Ricard could still be punished under the Communication with Parents Policy, which “prohibits employees from revealing to parents that a student has requested use of a preferred name or different set of pronouns at school” except under certain circumstances.

She wrote that while both parties reached a "détente" regarding the Preferred Names and Pronouns Policy, they are "very much at odds over the Communication with Parents Policy and the potential for disciplinary action should Plaintiff violate it." The policy prohibits employees from revealing to parents that a student has requested use of a preferred name or different set of pronouns at school “unless the student requests the administration or a counselor to do so, per Federal FERPA guidance.”

“Defendants are ENJOINED from disciplining Plaintiff for referring to a student by the student’s preferred name and pronouns in her communications with the student’s parents within the regular course of her duties,” ruled Teeter.

“The Court relies on Plaintiff’s statements that she does not intend to communicate with a parent for the sole purpose of disclosing a student’s preferred name and pronouns.”

Ricard is represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal nonprofit based in Arizona that has argued several high-profile religious liberty cases before the U.S. Supreme Court.

ADF Senior Counsel Tyson Langhofer said in a statement Tuesday that he believes the government cannot “force someone to speak contrary to their deeply held religious beliefs and convictions.”[NOTE to Parents:Take your heads out of the sand and LOOK at what public education is making YOU pay for.. why keep your kid in that kind of environmentl? - ED]

“Pam has a distinguished teaching career and treats all her students with dignity and respect," the attorney said. "We’re pleased the court has freed her to exercise her constitutionally protected freedom to teach and communicate honestly with parents while this case moves forward."

The lawsuit claims that neither the school district nor the school had a "formal policy" in place dictating that teachers use the preferred name and pronouns at the time Ricard was suspended. 

“Instead, Ms. Ricard was suspended and reprimanded under generic school district policies related to Bullying by Staff; Diversity and Inclusion; and Staff-Student Relations prohibiting ‘harassment’ and ‘bullying’ of students by staff," the complaint claims. [Oh, Bullshit! ! This is nothing but LGBTQ propaganda aimed at compromising your child's social beliefs and leading them down the wrong path in life. THIS is indoctrination NOT education. - ED]

Will Rapp of the Kansas chapter of the LGBT advocacy group GLSEN believes that not affirming the gender identity of trans-identified children is harmful to trans-identified youth. [How stupid is this? Simple gender dysphoria is NOT a life changinne experience. Most kids will out gwow it. if left alone. -ED]

“This incident isn’t an isolated issue," Rapp told CNN. "According to GLSEN research, more than 40% of transgender students in Kansas report being unable to use their chosen name and correct pronouns in school."

“When educators express this kind of anti-LGBTQ+ sentiment it sends a message that school is not a safe place and many LGBTQ+ youth and especially transgender youth feel unable to approach trusted educators for support.”
[Oh, really?! And what do you suppose taking away the teacher's 1st Amendment rights are...?

Rapp also argues that educators “must be held accountable for creating a safe and affirming environment for all students, regardless of gender identity.”

The school district argued that a preliminary injunction would hinder its “obligations to protect young persons entrusted to its care." 

"The Court recognizes that the District is trying to create a stable learning environment for children. But the District fails to articulate any specific, concrete harms sufficient to outweigh Plaintiff’s weighty interest in preliminary relief," Teeter wrote. "Therefore, the balance of harms favors Plaintiff."