11 Myths About the Transgender ‘Equality Act’

The Heritage Foundation exposed 11 of the most revolutionary demands in the Democrats’ so-called Equality Act, which would force Americans to accept the transgender ideology’s far-reaching claim that each person’s legal sex is determined by their inner feelings of “gender identity,” not by their measurable biology.

Heritage reported:

The proposed Equality Act of 2021 (H.R. 5) would make mainstream beliefs about marriage, biological facts about sex differences, and many sincerely held beliefs punishable under the law. The Equality Act makes discrimination the law of the land by forcing Americans to conform to government-mandated beliefs under the threat of life-ruining financial and criminal penalties. Presented as a bill with commonsense and decent protections against discrimination, H.R. 5 is anything but. The Equality Act politicizes medicine and education and demolishes existing civil rights and constitutional freedoms.

The paper describes the 11 myths pushed by its progressive supporters — and then details the reality behind the progressive myths.

Keep reading

REVEALED: Parler’s New CEO Wants Convention That Would Let George Soros Rewrite The Constitution

Mark Meckler, the new interim CEO of Parler, currently supports a Convention of States that could give George Soros and other interests the power to rewrite the Constitution.

Meckler, who was appointed as interim CEO of Parler following the removal of founder John Matze, currently runs the Convention of States Project, a supposed “grassroots” organization pushing for a convention under Article V of the Constitution.

The project describes itself as a “national effort to call a convention under Article V of the United States Constitution, restricted to proposing amendments that will impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit its power and jurisdiction, and impose term limits on its officials and members of Congress,” which initially sounds appealing.

However, a report by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities argued that such a restriction on an Article V convention would be impossible, with states unable to control what a convention could and could not discuss, and nobody else having clear constitutional control over the convention.

Keep reading