Tuesday in Baltimore, U.S. District Judge Marvin Garbis, an activist judge from the Bush administration, ruled that President Donald Trump could not bar transgenders from serving the military forces of the United States. Do you want to know why? Apparently, he did not like the President tweeting about his policy. Read the whole thing here.
As Written By Allen B. West:
Howdy folks, I pray y’all had an awesome Thanksgiving Day and reflected with family and that for which you are most thankful. I fried two turkeys and a honey spiral ham — there was nothing left of the turkeys but bone. One was Cajun seasoned and the other a mixture of Latino seasonings. We had some friends over who’d never had fried turkey — needless to say, they loved it. Well, I will not belabor you for too long since I know y’all may be out doing “Black Friday” shopping. Hmm, do the folks at Black Lives Matter consider that racist? Me? Well, I had a nice early morning run and gonna eat leftovers as I watch college football. But, it’s not just leftover turkey some of you will be eating today…there are two-legged “turkeys” walking amongst us.
As reported by NBC News.com, “Another federal judge has halted a proposed transgender military ban, expanding on an initial ruling issued last month against the plan by President Donald Trump’s administration.
In a preliminary injunction issued Tuesday in Baltimore, U.S. District Judge Marvin Garbis ruled that transgender service members have “demonstrated that they are already suffering harmful consequences” due to the proposed ban including threat of discharge, stigma and the cancellation or delay of surgeries related to their gender transitions.
The six plaintiffs in the lawsuit he reviewed have all been receiving hormone therapy. Trump had announced on Twitter in July that the government would not allow transgender individuals to serve in the military in any capacity. The order was a proposed reinstatement of a longstanding policy that barred transgender people from joining the military and also subjected service members to discharge if they were revealed to be transgender. That policy was changed last year under President Barack Obama. But in a strongly-worded passage from his 53-page decision, Garbis wrote that the “capricious, arbitrary, and unqualified tweet of new policy does not trump the methodical and systematic review by military stakeholders qualified to understand the ramifications of policy change.”
We previously shared with you the first lower court judge, out of DC, who weighed in on this policy. What I find interesting is that this Judge Garbis, a walking turkey, makes reference to an “unqualified tweet.” but he doesn’t refer to the policy directive issued by the commander in chief of our armed forces. I will admit, this is why here on these pages we’ve advised against President Trump doing policy by Twitter…never give your adversary ammunition. But what really caught my eye was the words of Judge Garbis ruling, “transgender service members have “demonstrated that they are already suffering harmful consequences” due to the proposed ban including threat of discharge, stigma and the cancellation or delay of surgeries related to their gender transitions.”
When was it the mission and responsibility of the U.S. armed forces to provide gender transitions? And again, let’s stop with the soft language of the progressive socialist left. We’re talking about a mental condition called gender dysphoria, and there are some very serious dysfunctions and consequences associated with this illness, such as massive psychiatric counseling and suicide.
Once again, we’re falling into the abyss of believing that the military must reflect civilian culture and accommodate individual sexual behaviors. Let me remind Judge Marvin Garbis that the U.S. armed services is a voluntary organization, and that means it’s discriminatory based on standards for its good order and discipline that it implements.
Are we to now believe that Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen who are overweight must now receive liposuction instead of being separated for failing to meet weight standards? Can we expect those who fail to meet physical fitness criteria and standards now to run to a civilian court and petition for a halt to any actions against them? After all, we don’t want them to suffer harmful consequences with the threat of discharge.
Can I ask a really simple question? Where were all these judges when Barack Obama unilaterally changed this policy? Hmm, yep, now we know why Obama and Harry Reid sought to stack those lower court judges, they would be the ultimate gatekeepers of the progressive socialist turkey trot mess that Obama would implement…and ……..
THERE IS EVEN MORE HERE KEEP READING: