Individual Claiming To Be Juror's Cousin Posted About Trump Conviction On Social Page Before Verdict, Judge Says

'I know that I’ll lose friends for this'

Nearly 14 months after the first of four unprecedented criminal prosecutions against former President Donald Trump commenced in earnest, the Democrat-lawfare complex got its man: The Soviet show trial in “Justice” Juan Merchan’s dingy New York City courtroom produced its preordained “guilty” verdict. It is perhaps hackneyed to observe that, in convicting and seeking to incarcerate a former president and current leading presidential candidate, we have “crossed the Rubicon.” Well … Did we not cross a Rubicon when the demonic Obama administration sued the nuns—yes, literal nuns—of the Little Sisters of the Poor to try to force them to subsidize abortifacients? Did we not cross a Rubicon when Democrats threw out 4,000 to 5,000 years of “innocent until proven guilty” civilizational norms to try to derail the U.S. Supreme Court confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh? Did we not cross a Rubicon when then-vice presidential candidate Kamala Harris solicited funds to bail out anarchic Antifa-Black Lives Matter street hooligans? Did we not cross a Rubicon when the American Stasi—sorry, the FBI—raided Mar-a-Lago over a document dispute? Did we not cross a Rubicon when myriad Trump attorneys, including the renowned scholar John Eastman, were prosecuted for practicing the legal profession? Did we not cross a Rubicon when Peter Navarro or Steve Bannon (just now) were ordered to jail? The Rubicon, truthfully, is a shallow, inconsequential river in Italy. That it is so shallow helps explain why Julius Caesar was able to cross it so easily. At this juncture in American history, it no longer suffices to speak of crossing a Rubicon. We are now rapidly crossing great seas—perhaps even circumnavigating the globe. You might call President Joe Biden and the rest of the Democrat-lawfare complex our modern-day Magellans. Ruinous or not, however, their precedent has now been set. And that raises the obvious question: For Democrats, will all of this, and especially their multifront anti-Trump lawfare, prove to be worth it? That obvious question, in turn, has an equally obvious answer: absolutely, positively not. First, Democrats do not seem to be getting much of a bump in the early polls after last week’s verdict. In each of the two major national polls that have been conducted exclusively after the verdict, from pollsters Emerson College and Morning Consult, Trump leads by 1 point. As even the liberal Washington Post conceded on Thursday, “Other polls conducted before and after the verdict suggest between no change and a two-point shift toward Biden. The shifts are quite a bit smaller than pretrial polls suggested they could be.” Considering that Trump was already leading in most national horse race polling and that the Republican Party currently has a built-in Electoral College advantage wherein its presidential candidate can slightly lose the popular vote while still prevailing in the electoral vote, the Biden-Harris campaign ought to be worried. Democrats’ lawfare isn’t winning over many swing voters. Former President Donald Trump sits in the courtroom May 30 during his since-ended “hush money” trial in New York City. Democrats got their preordained “guilty” verdict, but there’s no evidence it gave them the polling bump they hoped for. (Photo: Michael Santiago/Getty Images) Second, the damage the Democrat-lawfare complex has caused to the American public’s faith and trust in the justice system is simply astronomical—and likely irreparable. Even prior to the onslaught of Trump indictments filed last year, many of us “deplorables” were already convinced we have a two-tier system of justice in this country: Consider the wholly disparate prosecutorial treatment of the BLM-Antifa rioters and the “J6-ers” present during the Jan. 6 U.S. Capitol jamboree, for instance. But the Democrat-lawfare complex’s serial overreaches have now removed any doubt as to the blatant impartiality and patent unfairness of our regnant legal order. It is impossible not to be jaded or cynical. Leviticus 19:15 commands: “You shall commit no injustice in judgment; you shall not favor a poor person or respect a great man; you shall judge your fellow with righteousness.” Does anyone think this describes America today? Third, the Right finally seems to be snapping out of its long lull and beginning to gear itself for pitched battle against a domestic foe that wants to punish us, prosecute us, subjugate us, and remove us from the entirety of American public life. That portends poorly for leftists. My friend John Yoo, the Bush-era Justice Department official and law professor normally a bit less pugnacious than yours truly, opined: “Repairing this breach of constitutional norms will require Republicans to follow the age-old maxim: Do unto others as they have done unto you.” Megyn Kelly, the influential broadcaster who has had a complex relationship with Trump going back to the 2016 GOP presidential primary, said after the verdict: “I’m going to utter words I never thought I would utter in my life: We need Steve Bannon.” The famously combative Bannon appears headed for an unjust four-month prison sentence in a few weeks, but her point stands. Democrats have no idea what they have unleashed. Perhaps worse, they don’t even care. COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Democrats’ Lawfare Proves Politically Impotent, Likely to Come Back to Haunt Them appeared first on The Daily Signal.

How Far Have Medical Journals Fallen? This Far

Dogs have long been known as man’s best friend, but it turns out this friendship goes even deeper than we might have realized. Recent research indicates that dogs and their owners often develop similar personalities, mirroring each other in ways that are fascinating and complex. The study, published in the Journal of Research in Personality,... The post Experts say dogs share the same personality as their owners, here’s why appeared first on Animal Channel.

You'd have to be some sort of hick from the sticks to take a Hunter Biden criminal conviction into account in deciding on your 2024 presidential vote. That was Molly Jong-Fast's gist on today's Way Too Early, the Morning Joe pregame show. When host Jonathan Lemire asked the MSNBC political analyst whether there could be a negative political impact for Joe Biden stemming from a Hunter conviction, she suggested only hayseeds who can't make fine moral distinctions could be misled: "Yeah, I mean, I think, look, you know, there are low-information voters who are like, oh, they're both in trouble with the law.." Oh, those déclassé low-information voters! The kind who, unlike Jong-Fast, didn't attend the Riverdale Country School and Barnard, and score a Master of Fine Arts from Bennington College. And whose mother isn't the best-selling feminist novelist Erica Jong. Jong-Fast also claimed that the evidence was "convoluted" of Hunter having lied in denying using illegal drugs on his application for a firearm. Really? What's convoluted about this, Molly [emphasis added]? "The first evidence a Delaware jury heard on Tuesday was Biden reading from his audiobook memoir in which he talks about being addicted to crack cocaine for four years. His addiction years include the time he purchased a pistol in Delaware and filled out a form declaring that he was not addicted to drugs." And then there was this: "Two days after Hunter Biden purchased the gun — he texted Hallie Biden after she had frantically tried to reach him: “I was sleeping on a car smoking crack on 4th street and Rodney,” the message said." Jong-Fast cooed about Dr. Jill returning from Normandy to attend the trial, that "they're a close family. And I think that speaks well of them." We don't know the current relationship between Hunter and Dr. Jill, but in 2018 he reportedly described her as an "entitled c-word" and an "f---ing moron." And yes, a family so "close" that Joe Biden's daughter Ashley's diary described "showers with my dad (probably not appropriate)." Who needs to ask any questions about that? Note: Having viewed numerous MSNBC appearances by Jong-Fast, I've found myself bewildered by just what she is doing on national TV. Her diction is muddled, and the insights of this "political analyst" are pedestrian—at best. This 2022 New York Times article provides insights on the matter. Entitled, "How Molly Jong-Fast Tweeted Her Way to Liberal Media Stardom," it paints a picture of Jong-Fast that is admiring of her moxie in making the most of her connections, but not very flattering about her analytical chops.  Here's the transcript. MSNBC Way Too Early 6/7/24 6:00 am EDT MOLLY JONG-FAST: I think this Hunter Biden case, even though, you know, the idea that they're charging him because he said he was an addict in the text message, and I mean, that stuff is pretty convoluted.  But, you know, it does make the case that the law is the law for everyone. And they really are. These charges are pretty unusual, and they're doing it. So, there really is a sign that they're just going after everyone left, right, center. JONATHAN LEMIRE: Yeah, follow-up on the Hunter Biden case. You're right, and you make a good point here. The president did not interfere with the investigation. In fact, he said yesterday in an interview he would not pardon his son, even if Hunter were to be convicted. JONG-FAST: Right. LEMIRE: So, I think those are good things in his column. Do you think there would be any, any downside here for President Biden were Hunter to be convicted? Of course, as the personal toll, of course. Do we think there is any political impact? JONG-FAST: Yeah, I mean, I think, look, you know, there are low-information voters who are like, oh, they're both in trouble with the law. I mean, I would say Hunter Biden is very different than Donald Trump -- LEMIRE: Yes. JONG-FAST: -- and being a crack addict because you have an addiction is very different than a myriad of criminal charges, many cases which you've been able to punt. And then you have these fraud cases. So I don't think they're the same at all, but I do think, you know, everything can be a problem, especially in politics. LEMIRE: And certainly, those close to President Biden worry about just how he will receive this news. We know he is deeply worried about his son. JONG-FAST: And also, the First Lady coming back from France to go to the trial. I mean, the sister has been there. Everyone in Biden world, they're a close family. And I think that speaks well of them, but I think it is a huge stressor.   LEMIRE: And a lot of Americans can relate to the trouble with addiction.

Google just escalated its censorship of PragerU when it banned the organization’s app from the Google Play store Friday.  Google accused PragerU of being a purveyor of so-called “hate speech” reportedly due to its recent documentary warning about radical Islam. “After a recent review, we found that your app PragerU [redacted] is not compliant with one or more of our Developer Program Policies,” Google claimed, according to screenshots posted by PragerU. The Big Tech giant cited “Content or speech asserting that a protected group is inhuman, inferior or worthy of being hated.” What was so terrible about that video that Google had to ban PragerU from its entire app store? PragerU created a documentary called “Dear Infidels,” which gave those who have experienced the horrors of radical Islam the opportunity to tell their stories.  “This is a warning about the significant threat that Radical Islam poses to the West. Watch first-hand accounts from those who escaped Islamic rule and have come to warn America,” PragerU founder and radio host Dennis Prager wrote in an X post.    Google, however, did not take kindly to the exposé. “We don't allow apps that promote violence, or incite hatred against individuals or groups based on race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, age, nationality, veteran status, sexual orientation gender, gender identity or any other characteristic that is associated with systemic discrimination or marginalization,” Google claimed in its removal notification to PragerU, according to screenshots. Strangely, YouTube is allowing the video and its trailers to remain on its platform for now. BREAKING: @Google removes PragerU app from Play Store for "Hate Speech." Help us fight back: https://t.co/LLsc0JruVL pic.twitter.com/R4o1haL2CL — PragerU (@prageru) June 7, 2024 The social media giant has repeatedly shown a tacit affinity for radical Islam. For example, last October MRC Free Speech America Vice President Dan Schneider asked Google’s AI chatbot Bard (now Gemini) “What is Hamas?” and the platform refused to offer an answer. “I’m a text-based AI, and that is outside of my capabilities,” the chatbot responded. Bard gave a similar answer when asked about Hezbollah, and whether Hamas was a terrorist organization. In March, MRC Free Speech America caught Google’s AI chatbot Gemini downplaying the fact that members of Hamas brutally raped Israeli women. The platform claimed that “these allegations have not been independently verified” and that some people “believe [the allegations] are politically motivated. When researchers called Google out on its ridiculous answer.  “Gemini got this wrong and missed the mark on this important and sensitive topic,” the spokesperson told MRC at the time. “We’ll aim to point people to Google Search for the most-up-to-date information. We are constantly working on improving and when the AI provides offensive or low quality responses, we will work quickly to address the issue.” Google even argued in Gonzalez v. Google that it could not be held liable for its YouTube algorithms promoting content from Islamic terrorists because of Section 230 immunity. The tech platform however was not willing to use that same immunity to defend PragerU’s free speech to criticize radical Islam. PragerU is a member of the MRC Free Speech Alliance.  Google did not immediately respond to MRC Free Speech America’s request for comment. Conservatives are under attack. Contact Google at 650-253-0000 and demand it be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on so-called hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

Former State Department official and free speech advocate Mike Benz exposed the nefarious agenda behind the legal assault that the Biden administration is waging against Elon Musk. Benz talked about the censorship industry’s ongoing war with Elon Musk in a June 6 interview on TNT Radio. During the interview, Benz addressed the long train of legal suits that President Joe Biden’s administration has brought against Musk’s companies. He characterized the suits as retribution for Musk implementing free speech policies on X (formerly Twitter). Benz even went so far as to say that the suits were entirely motivated by politics and that they were of a similar nature to the charges brought against President Donald Trump.  “[T]he Biden administration is doing the same thing to Elon in a more diversified albeit smaller scale you could say,” said Benz, comparing Musk’s lawsuits to Trump’s.  Benz went on to list the various government entities coming after Musk. “I think there’s something like seven different regulatory agencies, none of whom were troubling Musk before he acquired Twitter, that have all descended like a pack of vultures trying to feast on the Elon empire carcass, and in order, I think, to twist and capacity-cripple his operations in order to make him more pliable to negotiations around reinstalling censorship on the platform,” Benz said. Benz explained that it was a common tactic of the censorship industry to use coercion in order to achieve its aims. 20 mins of rock ‘em sock ‘em fire on censorship industry origins & updates, media hit I did today? https://t.co/rRwzezCuk5 — Mike Benz (@MikeBenzCyber) June 6, 2024 “I think they understand how leverage works. I know they do because they talk about this” Benz said. “ You have to raise the cost of saying ‘no’ in order to make people more agreeable.” Benz also explained that Musk’s commitment to free speech was surprising to the government affiliated censors. He contrasted Musk’s behavior with other tech CEOs who were “running their mouth about how much they believe in free speech” while giving in to pressures to censor. “But then as soon as the bayonets come for them, as soon as the advertiser boycotts show up, as soon as the government threats show up, as soon as the bottom line starts tanking, they become ‘reasonable’ to changing their terms of service,” said Benz.   Other critics have also taken aim at the Biden administration’s targeting of Musk. Brendan Carr, Commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission, penned a letter of dissent responding to his own agency’s decision to deny an $885 million award to Musk’s Starlink on December 9, 2023.  Carr’s letter noted that the FCC’s decision appeared to be part of a coordinated lawfare waged in tandem with other agencies to target Elon Musk as “Progressive Enemy No.1.” Carr also quoted Joe Biden to indicate that he was the architect of this legal harassment. During a November 9, 2022 press conference, Biden expressed that “there’s a lot of ways” for the government to look into Elon Musk.  “There certainly are,” wrote Carr. “The Department of Justice, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Federal Trade Commission, the National Labor Relations Board, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have all initiated investigations into Elon Musk or his businesses.” Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

As some Americans celebrated the end of the school year in May, many social media users unfortunately graduated from Big Tech’s school of censorship. Google, Meta, X and TikTok all continued to engage in censorship this month, with election interference as one notable area of anti-free speech activity. Big Tech also went after users bashing terrorist group Hamas or the left’s “transgender” ideology. From famous names like former President Donald Trump down to ordinary users, Big Tech platforms went all in on censorship this past month. Below are some of the worst examples of censorship documented in MRC’s unique CensorTrack database for the month of May. 1) Google and Meta target President Joe Biden’s main election opponents. Big Tech targeted both GOP candidate Trump and Independent candidate Robert Kennedy, Jr. for censorship this month with Google censoring a Trump ad and Instagram censoring those who try to share a link to a “Who is Bobby Kennedy” documentary.  Andrew Arenge, who runs the University of Pennsylvania Program on Opinion Research and Election Studies, posted on X that Google repeatedly censored a Trump ad scheduled to run May 1-3. The ad showed a fictional phone call between a Biden campaign aid and a voter highlighting Biden policies that hurt Americans, including inflation and illegal immigration. “Things were better before Biden, I’m voting for Trump!” the ad’s voter ends. Arenge provided screenshots from the Google Ad libraryshowing that Google removed the Trump ad for an alleged unspecified “policy violation.” After the campaign appealed Google’s decision and several popular X users condemned the election interference, Google reversed its censorship. The company later told MRC Free Speech America, “This enforcement decision was made in error.” Robert F. Kennedy Jr. posted the “Who is Bobby Kennedy” documentary on Facebook after it had previously been released on YouTube and WhoIsBobbyKennedy.com. The documentarytravels through Kennedy's career and family legacy. The presidential candidate uploaded the video directly to Facebook but users who tried to share the video link to WhoIsBobbyKennedy.com on Facebook or on their Instagram stories were not able to. Instagram claimed the link "may be malicious" according to screenshots of error censorship notices included in a video that Kennedy posted on TikTok. Another notice stated, “We restrict certain activity to protect our community.” Users who tried to edit posts were notified that “Posts that look like spam according to our Community Guidelines are blocked on Facebook and can't be edited.”  Facebook users who tried to share the WhoIsBobbyKennedy.com link also had their links flagged for spam and as a result could not post the video. “Your post couldn't be shared, because this link goes against our Community Standards,” screenshots of the error message said.  Meta has since corrected the issues on both of its platforms. 2) X and CCP-tied TikTok censor users decrying Hamas and its supporters. X and TikTok also censored multiple individuals apparently for condemning Islamic terrorist group Hamas, which is engaged in an ongoing conflict with Israel. X user Proper Mike posted a screenshot showing how TikTok removed a comment he had made on a video. “Are you holding hamas to any account?” he wrote under the video. The user appealed the censorship and TikTok replied, “It was determined that your content violates our community standards and cannot be restored.” The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) owns a board seat and maintains a financial stake in TikTok’s parent company ByteDance. Parents Defending Education President Nicki Neily was flagged by X and given limited visibility over alleged “Violent Speech.” She posted an image showing the five Americans being held hostage by Hamas who were featured on the cover of Washington Examiner's May 14 print edition. She captioned the censored post, “Bring them home and destroy Hamas.” X also limited a post from an account with the user name “What?” for a similar reason. “Israel needs to wipe out Hamas. The United States needs to let them do it. End of story,” the user’s post read. X Community Notes fact-checked Donald Trump Jr. when he mocked anti-Israel students who graffitied “FREE PALASTINE” on a flight of stairs. Trump seemed to identify the protestors as being Columbia University students, but they were reportedly from Ottawa, Canada. 3) Google-owned YouTube is still cracking down on Covid-19 information. YouTube removed an episode of The Life Stylist Podcast where host Luke Storey interviewed Dr. Peter McCullough, a world-renowned cardiologist and prominent critic of the COVID-19 vaccines. The episode, “Detoxing Vaccines, Spike Protein Shedding & Ending Medical Tyranny,” featured a discussion of how the COVID-19 pandemic response was mishandled. YouTube removed the video, asserting that “This video has been removed for violating YouTube's Community Guidelines." The platform did not clarify its exact reasoning. 4) Big Tech runs cover for transgender ideology. Several tech platforms targeted users for critiquing transgenderism. TikTok censoredan account called GrassrootsArmy, the same name as user Garrett Soldano's podcast, when it posted a video captioned with the text, “Teacher settles $360,000 lawsuit with school, who fired her for REFUSING to lie to parents when their child wants to be treated as a different gender at school. Jessica Tapia we salute you! #GrassrootsArmy.” TikTok claimed the video violated its “Hate Speech and Hateful Behaviors” policy, according to purported screenshot shared by Soldano on X.  X perpetrated similar censorship yet again against the account with the username “What?”In an X post the user wrote, “I don't self identify as anything. According to facts and biology, I'm a woman. Cis is a stupid, nonsensical slur against people who are heterosexual.” X limited the visibility of her post for alleged “Hateful Conduct.” Not to be outdone, Facebook reportedly removed a post from the user Dan Alex. “'Trans' isn't a thing,” he said. “It's people with mental illness that needs to be addressed. We need to stop treating mental illness like it's a good thing.”  5) YouTube censors speech on globalist plan.Dutch conservative commentator Eva Vlaardingerbroek shared a purported screenshot of a YouTube censorship notice on X. YouTube issued a warning and removed her CPAC Hungary 2024 speech, “The Great Replacement is not a theory - it's reality.” The platform claimed the video violated the its “hate speech policy,” according to Vlaardingerbroek’s screenshot. MRC Free Speech America’s CensorTrack database noted the following day that YouTube had restored Vlaardingerbroek’s video, but added a warning label. The label cautions users about “The Great Replacement.”  Linking to a Wikipedia entry, the label claimed that “The Great Replacement, also known as replacement theory or great replacement theory, is a white nationalist far-right conspiracy theory espoused by French author Renaud Camus.” 6) Chinese-owned TikTok targets Republican candidate. TikTok censored an account called @thepoliticallens that posts video clips from political candidates detailing their stances on key issues, according to screenshots online. TikTok deleted a video taking a look at Indiana State congressional candidate Brian Savilla.  “Brian Savilla, a Republican candidate for Indiana House of Representatives District 69, discusses his efforts to raise awareness about election integrity issues,” the caption on the video read. “He highlights Democratic initiatives aimed at undermining election safeguards, such as same-day voter registration, mail-in ballots, and opposition to voter ID laws. Despite knowing his campaign would likely be unsuccessful, Savilla aimed to inform voters about these concerns, emphasizing the importance of maintaining election safeguards to prevent fraud.” The channel’s operator shared screenshots apparently showing that TikTok removed the video, as it was “Not Public or Deleted.”

Brian Wuoti of Vermont is a Baptist pastor and a high school math teacher. His wife of 14 years, Kaitlyn Wuoti, leads a bi-weekly women's Bible study and homeschools their five children. They first became foster parents in 2014, adopting a pair of brothers who have become an "integral" part of their family. Michael Gantt is the lead pastor of another church, and Rebecca Gantt, his wife of 25 years, raises their seven children. They became foster parents in 2016. Extra to their four biological children, they have adopted three children from the Green Mountain State's foster care system. Both families believe that God created everyone in his image; that sex is binary and fixed by God at conception; and that all people deserve respect and love. These two families unfortunately share something more in common beside their establishment of loving homes, dedication to protecting the vulnerable, sterling records, and Christian faith. According to their lawsuit, filed Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont, the Vermont Department for Children and Families has barred them from continuing to foster children on account of their religious beliefs about sexuality. 'Vermont would prefer children have no home than to place them with families of faith with these views.' "Although the Wuotis and Gantts have adopted five children between them, the Department has determined they are unfit to foster or adopt any child solely due to their religiously inspired and widely held belief that girls cannot become boys or vice versa," said the lawsuit. "And Vermont applies this policy categorically — whether applicants want to adopt their grandchild, provide respite care for an infant for just a few hours, or foster a child who shares all of their religious views," continued the suit. "Vermont would prefer children have no home than to place them with families of faith with these views." The Wuotis discovered that their mainstream Christian beliefs rendered them ineligible to give orphans and other vulnerable minors a supportive home in 2022, when the state was reviewing their application to renew their foster care license. Despite a case worker suggesting that she "probably could not hand pick a more wonderful foster family," and the Wuotis' licensor apparently indicating there was "no doubt" they could welcome another child into their home, everything changed when they indicated they were Christians and would not embrace the ideological fads of the day. Somehow, they instantly ceased to be wonderful. An absence of doubt in their ability to foster another child became an absolute certainty in their inability. They received a "Notice of Decision" from the VDCF recommending the revocation of their license. Last year — a year where the state had 985 children in out-of-home protective custody, 467 in conditional custody, and 150 family support cases — the Gantts heard the call of a child in need. The VDCF apparently asked the couple whether they could take an emergency placement — a baby about to be born to a homeless junkie. Prior to taking another child into their home, the couple received an email "explaining that families must accept the State's orthodoxy about gender fluidity 'even if the foster parents hold divergent personal opinions or beliefs,'" said the lawsuit. The Gantts met with a caseworker about fostering the baby and made clear they would "love and accept any child" but that they would not compromise on their Christian beliefs. Michael Gantt also made clear to a department employee he would not bend the knee to gender ideology — no Pride parades, no incorrect pronouns. The couple received a "Notice of Decision" concerning their license revocation in February. 'The division is committed to making ongoing efforts to recruit, train, support and retain foster families who are LGBTQ affirming and supporting.' While the lawsuit references various indicators that the VDCF is ideologically captive and hostile to traditional views, a number of which are still maintained by the majority of Americans, it highlighted the department's LGBT activist orientation, manifest in Policy 76. The policy states, "When assessing safety and risk in an environment where an LGBTQ child or youth resides, family services workers will determine whether a parent, caregiver, or other family member's attitude and behavior about the child or youth's sexual or gender identity impact the safety and well-being of the child." "The division is committed to making ongoing efforts to recruit, train, support and retain foster families who are LGBTQ affirming and supporting," the policy says in a section on placement considerations. The lawsuit indicated that the VDCF has reinterpreted its existing requirements of foster parents in accordance with Policy 76 and that foster families must demonstrate they can follow the policy's guidance. Extra to the policy, other departmental communications and rules have indicated that devout Christians need not apply. A Sept. 8, 2023, email circulated to all foster families by the VDCF reportedly stated, "Eligibility for licensure is dependent on foster parents and applicants being able to support youth who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, questioning, or another diverse identity (LGBTQI+) even if the foster parents hold divergent personal opinions or beliefs." 'It bears mentioning that this suit was filed at the start of pride month.' A VDCF spokesman relayed a statement from Aryka Radke, deputy commissioner of the Family Services Division, to the Christian Post, saying that while the department does not comment on the details of pending lawsuits, "generally speaking, DCF takes the care and support of youth in our custody seriously, and we work to ensure that youth in foster care are placed in homes that support all aspects of what makes them who they are. This includes their sexual orientation and gender identity." "It bears mentioning that this suit was filed at the start of pride month — a time when we reflect on the achievements and continued struggles of the LGBTQI+ movement," Radke continued, signaling her bias. "The department stands in partnership with the community, and continually works to be a better partner, ally, and support system — rather than a barrier to the children and youth who identify as part of this community." "Providing safe, affirming, accepting and welcoming homes benefits all youth and it has the power to save lives. This is true year-round, and bears underscoring for these youth especially during pride," added Radke. 'They don't need the state pushing its gender ideology on them.' Johannes Widmalm-Delphonse, the Alliance Defending Freedom legal counsel representing the families, highlighted to the Christian Post that contrary to Radke's suggestion, it's the state's polices that "are actually harmful." "I would point people to the Cass review that came out of England showing that pharmacological and surgical intervention likely caused more harm than any good and that the evidence is incredibly weak in this area," said Wildmalm-Delphonse. "Children just need a loving place, someone to care for them while they work out these types of issues. They don't need the state pushing its gender ideology on them." Blaze News previously detailed the extent to which the Cass Review, a multi-year investigation into the pseudoscience of transgenderism, commissioned by England's National Health Service, undermined the ideology that now reigns supreme at the VDCF. Dr. Hilary Cass, a British medical doctor who previously served as president of the Royal College of Pediatrics and Child Health, reached a number of damning conclusions in her final report, such as: the "systematic review showed no clear evidence that social transition in childhood has any positive or negative mental health outcomes, and relatively weak evidence for any effect in adolescence"; puberty blockers compromise bone density and have no apparent impact on "gender dysphoria or body satisfaction"; and the evidence in support of "gender-affirming care" is "weak" and unreliable. Alliance Defending Freedom stated, "By denying people the chance to be foster and adoptive parents because of their religious beliefs and compelling them to speak the government’s preferred message about sexual orientation and gender identity, Vermont is violating the First Amendment." The lawsuit alleges the VDCF has specifically violated the couples' rights to free speech, free association, and free exercise of religion, as well as the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause. The couple seeks a declaration on the part of the department that its LGBT activist mandate encompassing Policy 76 and a handful of rules violated and continues to violated their constitutionally protected rights. Additionally, they seek an injunction against similar and future denials of foster licenses on the bases of protected beliefs. "Every child deserves a loving home, and children suffer when the government excludes people of faith from adoption and foster care," added the Alliance Defending Freedom. The Gantts and Wuotis are hardly the first to be precluded from adopting or fostering on the basis of their Christian faith. The Massachusetts DCF rejected Catholics Mike and Kitty Burke last year. Washington State dashed Shane and Jenn DeGross' dreams in 2022. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!