Rabbi Sacks Foretells Jewish Exodus from UK

(Editors Note- Just as I foretold in my book “Winds of Megiddo” the takeover of the 2  nations that hold veto power and have supported Israel is eroding as the Muslims, liberals, and far left invade and eventually take control of our nations. The following is a good example of what is occurring now. The battle of Armagedden is nearer than we can imagine. The rapture of the Sons of God will occur before the battle and we will join the Lord in defeating these nations that come to destroy Israel. GET YOUR BOOK TODAY FROM AMAZON.COM)

Baron Sacks of Aldgate in the City of London, a.k.a. Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks, on Sunday warned that many of the estimated 300,000 Jews living in the UK today are contemplating a mass exodus as their trust is waning in the country’s ability to protect them against a rising tide of anti-Semitism.

Sacks the BBC’s Andrew Marr he knows of Jewish families that are already planning to leave Great Britain because of their fear that the Labour leader—should he become prime minister—would unleash a new wave of anti-Semitism.

Sacks, who is a member of the House of Lords, told BBC that Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn must “recant and repent” because his public views regarding British Jews, combined with his friendly ties with the terror group Hamas, are sure to engulf the country “in the flames of hatred.”

“Jews have been in Britain since 1656 – I know of no other occasion in these 362 years when Jews, the majority of our community, are worrying, ‘Is this country safe to bring up our children?’” Sacks said, stressing that “Corbyn poses a danger as prime minister unless he expresses clear remorse for past statements.”

“Now this is very, very worrying and there is only one word for this, that is anti-Semitism,” Sacks said, adding, “When people hear the kind of language that’s been coming out of Labour, they cannot but feel an existential threat.”

Sacks defended his comparison of Corbyn’s comment which was insensitive to British Zionists’ feelings, with Enoch Powell’s racist “River of blood” speech against immigration in the 1960s. “I had to issue a warning – anti-Semitism has returned to mainland Europe within living memory of the Holocaust,” Sacks explained.

“Anyone who befriends Hamas and Hezbollah, anyone who uses the term ‘Zionist’ loosely without great care, is in danger of engulfing Britain in the kind of flames of hatred that have reappeared throughout Europe and is massively irresponsible,” he pressed. “Until he expresses clear remorse for what he’s said and what his party has done, then he is as great a danger as Enoch Powell was.”

Lord Sacks announced he would not meet with Corbyn until he sees evidence that the latter had sincerely repented.

Hey, Yom Kippur is just around the corner, Mr. Corbyn…

 

Top US university ditches report linking transgenderism to peer pressure after activists complain

An Ivy League college has censored research into how the spread of teenage gender dysphoria is linked to peer pressure after trans activists complained.

Brown University, Rhode Island, had published research into ‘rapid-onset gender dysphoria’ (ROGD), indicating that teenagers who come out as transgender were more likely to already have transgender friends.

It also suggested that many teenagers identifying as transgender were often influenced by YouTube videos and social media.

Peer pressure

The paper concluded that “social and peer contagion” was a plausible explanation for the high number of cases where a majority of children in a friendship group begin identifying as transgender.

Lead author Dr Lisa Littman, an assistant professor in Behavioural and Social Sciences at Brown’s School of Public Health, said this phenomenon often occurred in “cluster outbreaks”.

The university pulled the research from its website, citing concerns about the methodology, while a statement added that members of the university had complained.

Wrong groups

The study was attacked by activists, who complained that the parents participating in the study had been sourced from online discussion groups Transgender Trend and 4thwavenow.

They said the research was invalid because the websites were “gender-critical”.

“social and peer contagion” was a plausible explanation for the high number of cases where a majority of children in a friendship group begin identifying as transgender

However, survey questions in Dr Littman’s paper indicated that the participating parents had almost identical level of support for the rights of transgender people as the rest of the population.

Contrary to claims of bias, those viewing the survey were encouraged to distribute it further, ensuring ‘snowball sampling’ likely involved many other parents, irrespective of any connection to either website.

Censorship

In a statement Transgender Trend responded: “Desperate attempts to undermine Lisa Littman’s important #ROGD study include defamation of the websites where parents were recruited, including the ridiculous claim that Transgender Trend is ‘far right’ and wants to ‘criminalise’ medical transition.

“We are not and we don’t.”

James Caspian, a psychotherapist whose research into people who want to ‘detransition’ was blocked by Bath Spa University, noted the similarity between this case and his own.

“In a way mine was censored in anticipation of being criticised, it would appear that this has been attacked after it’s been done, by people whose agenda it doesn’t suit”, he said.

Shut down debate

Social commentator Ben Shapiro accused Brown University of turning against the study “because it offended politically correct sensibilities about transgenderism”.

He said: “Raising questions about study methodology is normal. Pulling down articles about scientific studies thanks to public pressure isn’t.”

He concluded that it was an attempt to shut down a discussion that trans activists do not want to have: that some experiences of gender dysphoria are learned rather than innate.

 

            

16 States Tell Supreme Court: Congressional Intent of Title VII Was Birth Sex, Not ‘Gender Identity’

WASHINGTON — 13 attorneys general and 3 governors, representing 16 states, have joined together in an amicus brief submitted to the United States Supreme Court surrounding an appeal of a ruling out of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which found it “illegal” under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act for a Michigan funeral home to fire a man who wanted to dress as a woman.

“The Sixth Circuit’s opinion … erases all common, ordinary understandings of the term ‘sex” in Title VII and expands it to include ‘gender identity’ and ‘transgender’ status. In doing so, the lower court rewrites Title VII in a way never intended or implemented
by Congress in the Civil Rights Act of 1964,” the brief states.

It provides several examples to show that the Congressional intent of the statute related to birth sex and not “gender identity,” as it was meant to combat inequitable treatment of women.

“In the one instance when Congress actually amended ‘sex’ in Title VII to cover discrimination ‘on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related conditions,’ it did so to ensure that pregnant and post-partum women face the same opportunities for advancement as men,” the document outlines.

Those who joined the legal brief, led by Nebraska Attorney General David Bydalek, include attorneys general Steve Marshall of Alabama, Derek Schmidt of Kansas, Mike Hunter of Oklahoma, Marty Jackley of South Dakota, Ken Paxton of Texas, Patrick Morrisey of West Virginia, and Peter Michael of Wyoming, along with governors Matt Bevin of Kentucky, Paul LePage of Maine and Phil Bryant of Mississippi.

As previously reported, the case at hand, R.G. and G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, centers around Anthony Stephens, who now goes by the name Aimee Stephens. He was hired as the funeral director and embalmer for the Detroit-based funeral home in 2007.

In 2013, Stephens informed his employer that he had been diagnosed with gender dysphoria and would therefore desire to wear a woman’s suit for work.

Owner Thomas Rost, who identifies as a Christian and serves on the board of directors for Salvation Army of Metro Detroit, has a company dress code in place, which states that males must wear dark suits and white shirts. Rost reportedly provides two suits for male employees in accordance with the dress code, and would also provide the business jacket and skirt should a woman be hired as well.

Because Stephens sought to wear female clothing, which is a violation of the dress code, and because Rost did not feel comfortable with providing a skirt suit due to his Christian convictions, Stephens was let go. He consequently took the matter to the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which sued Rost with the aid of the ACLU in alleging gender discrimination.

“R.G. employees understand that the dress code requires funeral directors to wear company-provided suits,” attorneys for Rost outlined in a legal brief. “Rost sincerely believes that he would be violating God’s commands if he were to pay for or otherwise permit one of RG’s funeral directors to wear the uniform for members of the opposite sex while at work.”

The EEOC argued in court that since Rost would not otherwise fire an employee for living in sin, his actions to fire Stephens were unbalanced and selective. But ADF asserted that the dress code served an important purpose: to provide a respectful image to the clients with which employees interact.

In August 2016, U.S. District Judge Sean Cox sided with the funeral home and dismissed the EEOC’s legal challenge.

“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,” he wrote.

“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,” Cox said.

He pointed to the U.S. Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby Ruling and the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) as the basis of his decision. The RFRA states that the government cannot force any entity to violate their religious convictions unless they use the “least restrictive means” of furthering a “compelling government interest.”

“The Supreme Court has directed that it is not this Court’s role to decide whether those ‘religious beliefs are mistaken or insubstantial,’ Cox explained. “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….”

“Significantly, neither transgender status nor gender identity are protected classes under Title VII,” he also concluded.

However, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed with Cox’s ruling and overturned the decision in March.

“Discrimination against employees, either because of their failure to conform to sex stereotypes or their transgender and transitioning status, is illegal under Title VII. The unrefuted facts show that the funeral home fired Stephens because [he] refused to abide by [his] employer’s stereotypical conception of [his] sex, and therefore the EEOC is entitled to summary judgment as to its unlawful-termination claim,” wrote Judge Karen Nelson Moore on behalf of the unanimous panel.

“[I]t is analytically impossible to fire an employee based on that employee’s status as a transgender person without being motivated, at least in part, by the employee’s sex,” she asserted. “[A]n employer cannot discriminate on the basis of transgender status without imposing its stereotypical notions of how sexual organs and gender identity ought to align. There is no way to disaggregate discrimination on the basis of transgender status from discrimination on the basis of gender non-conformity, and we see no reason to try.”

The panel also concluded that “simply permitting Stephens to wear attire that reflects a conception of gender that is at odds with Rost’s religious beliefs is not a substantial burden under RFRA.”

Rost consequently appealed the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court and is waiting to hear whether or not his case will be heard. The high court accepts very few cases out of the many appeals it receives.