844 Hillary scrubs sexual assault pledge after allegations against Bill resurface

Hillary scrubs sexual assault pledge after allegations against Bill
resurface

Newsletter published on 30 August 2016

(1) Hillary scrubs sexual assault pledge after allegations against Bill
resurface
(2) Tell them you’re Trans, you can sleep in the Women’s dorm and even
shower with them
(3) Federal anti-father anti-family incentives
(4) LGBT change birth certificates
(5) Court: Transgender can't force his lifestyle on an employer
(6) FACT CHECK – Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ Won’t affect Anyone

(1) Hillary scrubs sexual assault pledge after allegations against Bill
resurface

http://nypost.com/2016/08/15/hillarys-site-edits-sexual-assault-pledge-after-rape-claims-against-bill-resurface/

By Daniel Halper

August 15, 2016 | 6:49am | Updated

The Clinton campaign has removed a statement from its Web site declaring
that all survivors of sexual assault "have the right to be believed" —
after being reminded that Bill Clinton was accused of rape decades ago.

The passage had been prominently featured on a page dedicated to "campus
sexual assault" on HillaryClinton.com.

"I want to send a message to every survivor of sexual assault: Don’t let
anyone silence your voice. You have the right to be heard. You have the
right to be believed, and we’re with you," it read.

But by February, the sentence "You have the right to be believed, and
we’re with you" was deleted, BuzzFeed News found.

The deletion came after new attention was focused on Juanita Broaddrick,
who has accused Bill Clinton of raping her in 1978, when he was the
attorney general of Arkansas.

She was 35 at the time and a volunteer in his campaign. He was 31 and
married for less than three years.

The incident allegedly occurred in Broaddrick’s hotel room near Little
Rock after Bill Clinton invited himself to her room, rather than meet
her in the lobby, where he claimed reporters were waiting.

The future president forcibly tried to kiss her, but ended up biting her
lip, according to Broaddrick.

Clinton ignored her protests, forcibly moving her onto the bed, where he
raped her, she alleges.

"There was no remorse," Broaddrick told BuzzFeed. "He acted like it was
an everyday occurrence. He was not the least bit apologetic. It was just
unreal."

Hillary Clinton tweeted in September that every sex-assault survivor has
"the right to be believed."

In November, she reiterated that "every survivor of sexual assault
deserves to be heard, believed, and supported."

The phrase was also added to her campaign’s Web site.

At a December campaign rally in New Hampshire, a woman asked Hillary
Clinton if the women who had accused her husband of sexual harassment
and assault, including Broaddrick, deserved to be "believed" also.

"Well, I would say that everybody should be believed at first until they
are disbelieved based on evidence," Clinton responded.

It was in the weeks after that event that the site was scrubbed.

Broaddrick, now 73, has accused Hillary Clinton of enabling her husband
and of threatening her to keep her allegations against Bill Clinton silent.

"It’s important for everyone to know that Hillary Clinton is not
innocent in all of the coverup and the attempted attacks on all of the
women that Bill Clinton abused," Broaddrick told Boston radio station
WRKO in May.

Donald Trump has repeated Broaddrick’s rape allegations and has even
released video of Broaddrick and Kathleen Willey, another woman who has
accused Bill Clinton of sexual harassment.

(2) Tell them you’re Trans, you can sleep in the Women’s dorm and even
shower with them

http://thehill.com/regulation/pending-regs/291522-transgender-rules-for-homeless-shelters-spark-firestorm

Transgender rules for homeless shelters spark firestorm

1243

By Tim Devaney - 08/16/16 06:00 AM EDT

Homeless shelters have become the latest battleground in the national
debate over transgender rights.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is expected in
September to finalize regulations that would allow people to stay in
homeless shelters based on the gender they identify with.

The proposal has set off a firestorm, pitting LGBT groups against
religious organizations that operate many homeless shelters.

"Transgender women are women regardless of whether they were born male,"
said David Stacy, government affairs director at the Human Rights Campaign.

"If you’re a transgender woman and you walk into a homeless shelter and
they treat you like a man, it’s traumatizing," he added. "These people
are already vulnerable, they’re homeless, they don’t have a job. To face
discrimination the entire time they’re there is a real problem."

Religious organizations see things differently.

Tim Wildmon, president of the conservative American Family Association,
lamented having to "make room for people who are sexually confused at
the expense of everyone else."

"No one is in favor of beating up transgender people," Wildmon told The
Hill, "but why do you have to force other people to feel really
uncomfortable, and in some cases unsafe, just to make your political point?"

"What if I self-identify as a woman today, and tomorrow I want to
self-identify as a man?" he asked. "Why not self identify as a minority?
Today, I’m white. Tomorrow, I’m black."

The controversy comes on the heels of a contentious North Carolina law
that requires people to use public bathrooms that match their assigned
gender at birth. The Department of Justice has sued to stop the law,
putting transgender issues at the forefront of the 2016 campaign.

HUD’s proposed regulation instructs homeless shelters to disregard the
"complaints of other shelter residents" who feel uncomfortable living
with someone who is transgender.

"It is likewise prohibited to deny appropriate placement based on a
perceived threat to health or safety that can be mitigated some other
less burdensome way," the proposal says.

The agency declined to comment on the rule until after it is finalized.

According to a 2011 survey from the National Center for Transgender
Equality, 29 percent of transgender people who sought emergency shelter
had been rejected at some point in their lives, while another 42 percent
were forced to stay in shelters for the gender they were assigned at birth.

The Center for American Progress and Equal Rights Center conducted a
more recent 2016 study that found only 30 percent of homeless shelters
in Virginia, Connecticut, Tennessee and Washington state accommodate
transgender women.

The Fair Housing Act prohibits homeowners from refusing to sell or rent
to people because of their race, religion or gender, but HUD is looking
to extend similar protections to homeless shelters that provide
short-term housing.

Congress has not passed discrimination protections for transgender
people at homeless shelters, so the rules would only apply to those
shelters that receive financial assistance from the federal government.

"It makes no sense at all," Wildmon said. "Good, Christian organizations
that are trying to help people do not need Washington dictating their
bathroom or bedding policies."

Catholic Charities USA, which did not respond to requests for comment,
and the Association of Gospel Rescue Missions both raised concerns about
the transgender policy in comments filed with HUD.

Opponents of the regulation say homeless shelters should be a safe haven
for women who have been abused by their husbands and boyfriends. They
say those women may feel that they are in danger living with a
transgender woman who was born a man.

LGBT advocates say those fears are overblown.

"We, obviously, need to protect women who have been sexually abused,"
Stacy said. "But if we don’t treat people consistently with their gender
identity, then a woman who was abused by her boyfriend could be housed
with a transgender man who looks like a man and has a beard."

LGBT advocates say they are more concerned about protecting transgender
women who are vulnerable when being housed with homeless men.

The National Center for Transgender Equality survey found that 55
percent of transgender people who stayed in homeless shelters claim they
were harassed by staff, while 1 in 4 say they were physically abused and
22 percent say they were sexually assaulted.

"If you view someone as less human, it’s easier to have a higher level
of violence against them," Stacy said.

Critics of the regulation have also raise the potential for men to pose
as transgender women.

"One of the guests at a rescue mission overheard someone on the street
saying, ‘Dude, if you go down to the rescue mission and tell them you’re
transgender, you can sleep in the women’s dorm and even shower with
them,’" said John Ashmen, president of the Association of Gospel Rescue
Missions. "So that idea is out there, but I don’t know of any missions
that have called the police because of it."

"No one is trying to make transgender people feel awkward, but we’re
concerned about the well-being and safety of everyone in our rescue
missions," Ashmen said.

HUD’s transgender policy would not provide a "get-out-of-jail-free card"
for men who take advantage of the rules to prey on homeless women, Stacy
said.

"Nothing in this proposed rule is meant to prevent necessary and
appropriate steps to address any fraudulent attempts to access services
or legitimate safety concerns that may arise in any shelter," HUD wrote
in its proposal.

(3) Federal anti-father anti-family incentives
http://libertybuzz.us/story/gary-johnson-will-supports-fathers-rights/2016/08/17/808/

Gary Johnson Will Fight for Fathers’ Rights

August 17, 2016 by Aya Katz

Gary Johnson Wants to Repeal Federal Law that Bribes the States to Take
Action Against Fathers

Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party presidential candidate, has made a
commitment to fight for fathers’ rights. He is aware of provisions in
the Social Security Act that financially reward the States to go after
the income of non-custodial parents, who are in most cases, fathers.
Johnson says he will work to change this situation, not by interfering
with States’s rights to conduct Family Court hearings, but by keeping
the Federal government entirely out of that process.

In an interview with a fathers’ rights group, Gary Johnson stated that
he is a strong supporter of the rights of fathers.  He wants to do away
with Federal anti-family incentives that impinge on decisions in
domestic cases. He does not want to interfere with the right of the
state judges to make rulings in state court, but he thinks the process
would be much more fair if the Federal government did not offer
incentives for the breakup of the family.

     It’s a huge issue. It’s a gigantic issue. The courts rule, and they
rule, in this case, usually always against the fathers, and in doing
that the rulings stand, and there is no recourse whatsoever. ..
[Fathers] are obliterated.

When asked what could be done to remedy the situation, Johnson did not
offer to pass new legislation. Instead, he suggested that repealing the
current Federal financial incentive to go after fathers, as well as
other non-custodial parents. "… You could just give that back to the
states as opposed to actually incentivizing the states to do what the
Federal government wants done," Johnson said.

In 1975 the Social Security Act was amended to create Title IV-D, under
which the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare — now called the
Secretary of Health and Human Services  — was to establish a separate
organization to oversee  Child Support Enforcement. State governments
were deputized to do the dirty work of the Federal government, and they
were given a financial incentive of up to 90% of child support collected
under AFDC cases. The result of this was an acceleration in divorce
cases, where mothers were encouraged by social workers to divorce
fathers, get custody of the children, and go on welfare. Once they did
this,  Child Support Enforcement went after the fathers, and most of
what they collected in child support did not go to the mother or the
children but went directly to the child support enforcement wing of
State and Federal governments. By this scheme, families were broken up
using Federal incentives. Fathers lost. Mothers lost. And most of all
the children lost out on the intact, self-sufficient family they might
have had, if it were not for the Federal incentive to break up families.

In the 1980s I practiced family law in the State of Texas. I saw with my
own eyes how this program worked to the detriment of families and
children, by targeting fathers. In many cases, the child support
payments were being made to the government, while the mothers were on
AFDC, but the children were living with their grandparents and not the
mothers. I have written about these problems in The Debt Collector, a
libertarian musical. Gary Johnson has experience with the same issues
from his tenure as Governor of New Mexico. When he spoke to citizens of
the state, hundreds of fathers came to ask him for help over child
support enforcement. As governor, there was not much he could do to
change the law, but he is hopeful that as President of the United States
he will have better opportunities to rein back the Federal government.

It is good to know that in Gary Johnson we have a presidential candidate
who deeply cares about the problems caused by Title IV-D of the Social
Security Act.  As a libertarian, he understands that social problems are
created by Federal Laws that meddle in the family, and he knows that the
solution is not more legislation,  but rather the repeal of the
offending law. In this sense, Gary Johnson is a true libertarian.

(4) LGBT change birth certificates

Q: Does a prospective partner have a right to know a person's birth sex?
- Peter Myers

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/aug/18/gender-diverse-victorians-to-be-given-greater-freedom-to-change-birth-certificates

Gender-diverse Victorians to be given greater freedom to change birth
certificates

Couples will no longer be forced to divorce if one partner wishes to
change the sex recorded on his or her official documents

Melissa Davey

Thursday 18 August 2016 16.38 AEST
Last modified on Thursday 18 August 2016 16.39 AEST

The Victorian government has introduced legislation to make it easier
for transexual, gender diverse and intersex people to get new birth
certificates that accurately record their gender.

Currently, if a person in a heterosexual marriage changes gender and
wants a new birth certificate to reflect that, he or she will need a
divorce first because same-sex marriage is illegal.

But under an amendment to Victoria’s Births, Deaths and Marriages Act
introduced to the parliament on Thursday, couples will no longer be
forced to divorce if one partner wishes to apply to change the sex
recorded on his or her birth registration. Australians divided on
teaching transgender awareness in primary schools Read more

While the Federal Marriage Act does not allow same-sex marriage, it does
not stipulate that sex cannot be changed after the marriage.

Adults would be able to apply to alter the sex recorded on their
Victorian birth registration and birth certificate and would be able to
nominate their sex descriptor as male, female or specify a gender
diverse or non-binary descriptor.

The bill also introduces a new process enabling parents or a guardian to
apply to alter the sex recorded on their child’s birth registration, so
long as the child’s consent has been given and there is a supporting
statement from a doctor or registered psychologist. Children over the
age of 16 will be assumed to have capacity to consent.

The bill introduced to parliament on Thursday also removed the need for
applicants to have undergone sex affirmation surgery before being able
to apply for new birth certificates.

Victoria’s attorney general, Martin Pakula, said: "Nobody should be
forced to undergo major surgery or choose between maintaining a legal
relationship with their spouse just to get a birth certificate that
reflects who they are.

"We’ve also put strong measures in place to safeguard the interests of
children, and limits to ensure people don’t misuse the system."

Parliament will debate the proposed reforms at the end of the month.

The executive director of Transgender Victoria, Sally Goldner, said
without a birth certificate that accurately reflected someone’s gender,
opening bank accounts, obtaining passports and applying for working with
children checks were all made more difficult.

"Birth certificates are an important, big-ticket document," Goldner
said. "Everyone is saying this is about time." We’re all a bit
non-binary inside. So why do we segregate by gender? Jack Monroe Read more

The Greens senator Janet Rice, who lives in Victoria, agreed. Her
husband, Peter Whetton, underwent a gender transition almost 15 years
ago, and changed her name to Penny. Rice said Whetton had never
attempted to change her birth certificate to accurately reflect her sex
because it would have meant first obtaining a divorce.

"We’ve had an initial discussion today about this legislation and I said
to her, ‘You can change your birth certificate now,’" Rice said.

"It is something that now at least is available to her as an option.
People are every pleased. But now it’s time to see the legislation pass,
and to continue pushing for similar reforms around the country.

"I certainly congratulate the Victorian government on this, but let’s
hope it gets across the line."

The Australian Capital Territory parliament passed similar reforms in 2014.

(5) Court: Transgender can't force his lifestyle on an employer

http://www.wnd.com/2016/08/court-transgender-cant-force-lifestyle-on-employer/

Court: Transgender can't force lifestyle on employer

'Feds shouldn’t strong-arm private business owners into violating their
religious beliefs'

Published: 08/19/2016 at 8:26 PM

A federal judge has ruled that a man who wanted to dress as a woman
while working as a funeral director cannot impose his lifestyle choice
on his employer, because it would conflict with the religious standards
the company advocates.

U.S. District Judge Sean Cox granted a summary judgment to the Michigan
funeral home, explaining it is entitled to an exemption from Title VII
employment nondiscrimination requirements because of the Religious
Freedom Restoration Act.

The claim had been brought by the federal Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission on behalf of Anthony Stephens, who informed his employer,
R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, that he would be known as Aimee
Australia Stephens when he returned from his vacation.

Stephens also told Harris he would be dressing as a woman. Harris owner
Thomas Rost replied that his services no longer were needed, noting the
funeral home requires men to dress in suits and ties, and women to dress
in skirts and coats.

The EEOC first tried convincing the judge that Rost’s response was
illegal discrimination against a transgender, but the judge ruled the
argument was rejected "because those are not protected classes."

Regarding the claim of discrimination based on sex/gender stereotypes
with respect to clothing, the judge ruled that the EEOC failed to show
that allowing Stephens to dress as a woman on the job would create the
least violation of the company owner’s religious rights.

"Outlasting the Gay Revolution" spells out eight principles to help
Americans with conservative moral values counter attacks on our freedoms
of religion, speech and conscience by homosexual activists

"The feds shouldn’t strong-arm private business owners into violating
their religious beliefs, and the court has affirmed that here," said
Alliance Defending Freedom Legal Counsel Doug Wardlow, who argued before
the court on Aug. 11. "The government must respect the freedom of those
who are seeking to serve the grieving and vulnerable. They shouldn’t be
forced into violating their deepest convictions."

ADF explained the background: "The funeral home hired the biologically
male employee as a funeral director and embalmer at its Garden City
location in 2007. Funeral directors at the company regularly interact
with the public, including grieving family members and friends. After
informing the funeral home of an intention to begin dressing as a female
at work, the employee was dismissed for refusing to comply with the
dress code. The employee was at all times free to dress as desired
outside of work but was required to abide by the same dress policy that
all employees are required to follow while on the job."

The court acknowledged Rost is a Christian whose "faith informs the way
he operates his business and how he presents it to the public."

ADF said, "Not only would Rost be violating his faith if he were to pay
for and otherwise permit his employees to dress as members of the
opposite sex while at work, the employee dress policy is also designed
to be sensitive to interaction with customers at an especially delicate
time of their lives."

The judge said the court "finds that the funeral home has met its
initial burden of showing that enforcement of Title VII, and the body of
sex-stereotyping case law that has developed under it, would impose a
substantial burden on its ability to conduct business in accordance with
its sincerely held religious beliefs."

"Rost sincerely believes that it would be violating God’s commands if he
were to permit an employee who was born a biological male to dress in a
traditionally female skirt-suit at the funeral home because doing so
would support the idea that sex is a changeable social construct rather
than an immutable God-given gift. The Supreme Court has directed that it
is not this court’s role to decide whether those ‘religious beliefs are
mistaken or insubstantial.’ … Instead, this court’s ‘narrow function’ is
to determine if this is ‘an honest conviction’ and, as in Hobby Lobby,
there is no dispute that it is."

The judge pointed out it was actually the EEOC that was "stereotyping"
male and female, since it was insisting Stephens be allowed to wear
"women’s" clothing.

"The EEOC claims the funeral home fired Stephens for failing to conform
to the masculine gender stereotypes expected as to work clothing and
that Stephens has a Title VII right not to be subject to gender
stereotypes in the workplace.

"Yet the EEOC has not challenged the funeral home’s sex-specific dress
code, that requires female employees to wear a skirt-suit and requires
males to wear a pants-suit with a neck tie," the judge said.

"Rather, the EEOC takes the position that Stephens as a Title VII right
to ‘dress as a woman’ (ie., dress in a stereotypical feminine manner)
while working at the funeral home, in order to express Stephens’ gender
identity."

He continued, "If the compelling interest is truly in eliminating gender
stereotypes, the court fails to see why the EEOC couldn’t propose a
gender-neutral dress code as a reasonable accommodation that would be a
less restrictive means of furthering that goal under the facts presented
here.

"But the EEOC has not even discussed such an option, maintaining that
Stephens must be allowed to wear a skirt-suit in order to express
Stephens’ gender identity. If the compelling governmental interest is
truly in removing or eliminating gender stereotypes in the workplace in
terms of clothing (i.e., making gender ‘irrelevant’), the EEOC’s chosen
manner of enforcement in this action does not accomplish that goal."

Stephens had written to the funeral home employees about his internal
turmoil.

Calling his mental state a "birth defect that needs to be fixed," he
told the workers he planned to have sex reassignment surgery, and before
that would live and work "fulltime as a woman for one year."

"At the end of my vacation on August 26, 2013, I will return to work as
my true self, Aimee Australia Stephens, in appropriate business attire,"
he wrote, adding, "I realize that some of you may have trouble
understanding this."

"Outlasting the Gay Revolution" spells out eight principles to help
Americans with conservative moral values counter attacks on our freedoms
of religion, speech and conscience by homosexual activists.

(6) FACT CHECK – Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ Won’t affect Anyone
http://australianmarriage.org/fact-check-sex-marriage-wont-affect-anyone/

On Tuesday 2 August, ABC's The Drum showed their bias by presenting a
half hour debate on same-sex "marriage" with just one supporter of
traditional marriage, ACL's Lyle Shelton, up against a stacked panel of
four SSM advocates. Hardly what any reasonable person would call a fair
debate.

Regardless, Lyle presented a strong case for maintaining the current
definition of marriage, despite constant interruptions from fellow
panellists and the host.

Tiernan Brady, Irish same-sex "marriage" campaign director, made a
startling claim about the few countries who have legalised same-sex
"marriage":

"All those predictions of terrible, unforeseen circumstances never came
through… All that happened was that nobody lost anything and one small
group of people in society – our lesbian and gay friends and family
members – were allowed to get married."

Let's take a closer look at what's really been happening in those
countries...

Oregan, USA | A Christian baker was forced to pay $135,000 to a gay
couple after refusing to bake a cake for their wedding. Aaron Klein and
his wife Melissa have been forced to close their cake shop following the
drawn out legal battle. They said they happily served gay customers to
make birthday cakes but for religious reasons, could not bake a cake for
a gay wedding.  This was deemed to violate civil rights.

Denver, USA | Another bakery suffered a similar fate after refusing to
bake a cake for a cake wedding. This article from LGBTQ Nation also
links to a story about a florist and a photographer facing legal action
for refusing to participate in a gay wedding.

Coeur d‘Alene, Idaho | City officials laid down the law to Christian
pastors within their community, telling them bluntly via an ordinance
that if they refuse to marry homosexuals, they will face jail time and
fines.

USA | Brendan Eich, founcer of Mozilla was forced to resign following
relentless bullying from gay rights campaigners because he donated to
the 2008 Plebiscite in which Americans voted 'No' to Genderless Marriage.

Denmark | Homosexual couples in Denmark won the right to get married in
any church they choose, even though nearly one third of the country's
priests have said they will refuse to carry out the ceremonies.

Vancouver, Canada | Now that SSM is done and dusted in Canada, the
message is clear: "[T]he gay rights movement is shifting norms in
Canada. And with that comes a message  to those who won't evolve: your
outdated morals are no longer acceptable, and we will teach your kids
the new norms." ~ Robin Perelle, Xtra Vancouver.

Ontario, Canada | Ontario -Superior Court of Justice upheld the Ontario
Law Society’s decision (Trinity Western University v The Law Society of
Upper -Canada) to deny accreditation to the law school at Trinity
Western University. The society did so -because of this Christian
university’s requirement that staff and students sign a covenant that
forbids all sexual activity unless it is between a husband and a wife.
The Ontario court ruled that though the decision by the Law Society
infringed the right to -religious freedom, the university’s covenant on
sexual behaviour discriminated against homosexual marriage, which is
legal in Canada. The judgment described the essential issue as
"involving a clash between religious freedom and equality".

United Kingdom | In the lead-up to legalising same-sex "marriage":
Mothers and fathers disappeared from birth certificates of surrogate
children to allow homosexual couples to be named as parents.

Ireland | In Tiernan's homeland, a bakery owner was subjected to a
lengthy legal battle for refusing to write the words "Support Gay
Marriage" on a cake.

Victoria, Australia | Genderless Marriage isn't even legal here yet and
already it's begun. Say that you support traditional marriage and you
will be dragged before the courts, like Archbishop Porteous.

Tiernan also claimed their was no link whatsoever between the Safe
Schools Coalition and same-sex "marriage", but that's not what Safe
Schools co-founder Roz Ward told a rally in Melbourne: "It is a total
contradiction to say we want (the) Safe Schools Coalition, but you can’t
get married to the person that you love,"

He also claimed that SSM advocates maintained respectful debate. We have
never seen the word "bigot" used with such reckless abandon as in the
last 12 months of debate by SSM advocates in Parliament. If it's not the
Greens, it's Bill Shorten himself and even Penny Wong using words like
'bigot'and 'homophobe' to describe anyone who supports traditional
marriage or who doesn't agree with their children, as young as 4, being
told that their gender is fluid. There have even been cover ups for the
real agenda of the Safe Schools Program and Senator Cory Bernardi's
office AND HIS CHILDREN'S SCHOOL were targeted by protesters. Tom
Gilchrist, Adelaide University’s Student Representative Council
president, and several other SRC members from the socialist group
Student Voice were among the protesters.

Sure, there will always be unsolicited, unpleasant comments on social
media from both sides of the debate, no matter the issue, but surely we
should be able to expect better behaviour from our elected
representatives... right?

So, Tiernan, we give you a FACT CHECK: FAIL