Neighbor of Muslim cop who killed unarmed woman says killer is “nervous…jumpy…has little respect for women”

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/07/neighbor-of-muslim-cop-who-killed-unarmed-woman-says-killer-is-nervous-jumpy-has-little-respect-for-women

 

“It looks increasingly likely Noor’s defence will be that he panicked and believed his squad car was attack after a loud noise — described by some sources as a banging on the car — and seeing a figure rushing in the dark towards them.”

Weak defense. Officers ought to be able to stand seeing someone rush toward them in the dark without immediately opening fire.

“He is extremely nervous … he is a little jumpy … he doesn’t really respect women, the least thing you say to him can set him off. When they say a policeman shot an Australian lady I thought uh, oh but then when they said who it was I was like, ‘OK.’…He has little respect for women he has little respect for blacks and kids.”

Here is yet more evidence that Noor was not fit to be a police officer only on the force to head off “Islamophobia” charges. With three complaints against him in two years, Mohamed Noor seems at very least to be dangerously reckless and/or incompetent. It is likely that Minneapolis officials were so anxious to have a Somali Muslim police officer they could showcase that they put Mohamed Noor on the force and kept him there when his obvious shortcomings would have had a non-Muslim officer fired or not hired in the first place.

 

“Neighbour of Justine Damond’s killer gives shocking new insight into his behaviour,” by Sarah Blake, Daily Telegraph, July 20, 2017:

KILLER cop Mohamed Noor is known in the townhouse complex where his large family lives as quick-tempered, “jumpy” and “extremely nervous”.

New insight into the character of the Minneapolis policeman emerged on Thursday as investigators released transcripts of the two emergency calls Australian life coach Justine Damond made just before Noor shot her dead last Saturday night.

Noor, 31, is the oldest of Mohamed Abass and Rahmo Ali’s ten children and is a frequent presence at his parents’ modest white two-storey home, which they share with his four younger siblings and is just 2km from his apartment.

Forklift driver Chris Miller, 49, has lived next door for the past two years and said he wasn’t surprised to learn Noor was the policeman making international headlines for firing on Ms Damond after she called 911 about what she thought was a sexual assault in the alley behind her house.

“He is extremely nervous … he is a little jumpy … he doesn’t really respect women, the least thing you say to him can set him off,” Mr Miller said.

“When they say a policeman shot an Australian lady I thought uh, oh but then when they said who it was I was like, ‘OK.’”

He said Noor, who has refused to explain to investigators what led him to shoot dead bride-to-be Damond, was a strict and ill-tempered presence in the townhouse block, where children play together in a playground in a small park between the units.

“He got into it with the kids, they were outside playing and something got stuck in a tree and he came out and he just started yelling at the kids because they were out here playing,” Mr Miller said.

“He has little respect for women he has little respect for blacks and kids,” said Mr Miller, who is African-American.

“He has an air like you just couldn’t really be around him.”

Noor’s partner, Officer Matt Harrity, told investigators from Minnesota’s Bureau of Crime Apprehension the 31 year old rookie cop shot Ms Damond as she approached their squad car just as a loud noise erupted.

While Noor has not spoken about the incident, his brother on Tuesday told News Corp Australia the shooting was an “unfortunate” accident.

“We feel so bad about this, we are traumatised ourselves. It’s so unfortunate,” a family member said.

“If you wait for the investigation you’ll know it was an honest and sincere event that transpired. Until then we can’t really say anything.”

It looks increasingly likely Noor’s defence will be that he panicked and believed his squad car was attack after a loud noise — described by some sources as a banging on the car — and seeing a figure rushing in the dark towards them….

The Consequences of Heterosexual Anal Sex for Women

https://www.medinstitute.org/2016/08/the-consequences-of-heterosexual-anal-sex-for-women/

 

MI Science Staff: August 2016

Anal sex is currently a “hot topic” of discussion for it is increasingly prevalent among young men and women, and older adults.1 In 2007, a study based on the National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG), found that one-third of U.S. men and women had experienced heterosexual anal sex.2 In the study, starting from the age 15, the percentage of participants reporting heterosexual anal sex increased with age, was significantly higher among 20-24 year olds and peaked among 30 to 34 year olds. Another study conducted by the University of Indiana asked questions on heterosexual anal sex and found that the percentage having anal intercourse within the past year demonstrated a similar age breakdown as that of the NSFG.3

Adolescents are also practicing heterosexual anal sex; and again, the prevalence increases with age. Only 5% of females ages 16-17 reported receptive anal intercourse over the past year, while 18% of females aged 18-19 years reported the same activity.3 A smaller study sample from a 2007 study looking at “main” and “casual” sexual relations among urban minority adolescent females found that teen girls with “casual” partners and those with a “main” partner had a similar percentage experiencing anal intercourse (12% and 16% respectively). The frequency of heterosexual anal intercourse increased in teens with “main” partners.4

Are there health concerns regarding heterosexual anal intercourse? Of course – as with all types of sexual activity – there are both emotional and physical pitfalls. People need to be educated about the dangers of anal intercourse, so they can make an informed decision about whether or not to participate in the activity. Heterosexual anal intercourse predominantly impacts the health of young females as compared to young males. These same risks can affect women of any age. Some examples follow:

A) A small Guttmacher Institute study (28 women) from 2009 reports that 25% of the women interviewed had been forced into having anal intercourse at least once. It goes on to say, “Coercion and violence notwithstanding, many participants reported pain and discomfort, including emotional distress, during anal intercourse.” 5 Furthermore, a qualitative study from the United Kingdom concludes, “Young people’s narratives normalized coercive, painful and unsafe anal heterosex. This study suggests an urgent need for harm reduction efforts targeting anal sex to help encourage discussion about mutuality and consent, reduce risky and painful techniques and challenge views that normalize coercion.” 1 It is the woman who is being coerced and feels the pain.

B) Anal intercourse can eventually lead to fecal incontinence. A February 2016 study concludes: “The findings support the assessment of anal intercourse as a factor contributing to fecal incontinence in adults, especially among men.” 6 In the case of heterosexual anal intercourse it is the woman who is at risk to develop fecal incontinence.

C) The American Cancer Society reports, “Receptive anal intercourse also increases the risk of anal cancer in both men and women, particularly in those younger than 30.” 7 HPV (human papillomavirus) is the main cause of anal cancer; but apparently, anal intercourse in particular increases the likelihood that the virus will attack the anus or rectum. Multiple sexual partners is also listed as a risk factor for anal cancer. Again, it is the woman experiencing heterosexual anal intercourse who is at risk.

D) The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) just released (August 2016) a new fact sheet on “Anal Sex and HIV Risk”. The first statement on the page says, “Anal sex is the riskiest sexual behavior for getting and transmitting HIV for men and women.” It goes on to say that receptive anal sex is 13 times more risky than insertive anal sex for acquiring HIV infection.8 In heterosexual anal intercourse, it is the woman who is always experiencing the highest sexual risk for the transmission of HIV, receptive anal intercourse. Furthermore, receptive anal intercourse carries a risk 17 times greater than receptive vaginal intercourse. Moreover, receptive anal intercourse even carries a risk 2 times greater than that of needle-sharing during injection drug use.9

In August 2016 the CDC also reported that using condoms consistently reduced the risk of acquiring HIV on an average of 63% for insertive anal intercourse and 72% for receptive anal intercourse with an HIV-positive partner. Because “condoms are not 100% effective” the CDC advises that one “consider using other prevention methods to further reduce your risk.” That would require taking a medication, pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), which has to be taken consistently. Obviously, protecting oneself against acquiring HIV when practicing anal sex is complex. Therefore, heterosexual anal sex is obviously very high risk to the woman, 8 especially in locations where HIV prevalence is high. (At best, HIV remains a serious chronic disease requiring a lifetime of treatment and medical follow up; at worst it can result in mortality.)

E) The CDC reports that in addition to the same sexually transmitted infections that are passed through vaginal sex (gonorrhea, etc.), anal sex can also expose participants to hepatitis A, B and C; parasites like Giardia and intestinal amoebas; bacteria like Shigella, Salmonella, Campylobacter, and E. coli.8

There is a lot of misinformation on the internet on heterosexual anal intercourse. As a result the Medical Institute is concerned that the public in general, and adolescents and young adults in particular, are not receiving the whole truth about heterosexual anal sex. Therefore, MI would like to encourage sex educators, health providers, counselors, youth workers and parents to include specific information about anal sex in their communication with adolescents and young adults. (Receptive anal sex carries the same risks for both men and women). For women there appears to be a high degree of coercion and emotional distress associated with heterosexual anal intercourse; this aspect should be included in healthy and unhealthy relationship education.

In summary, the information provided shows receptive anal intercourse to be a very high-risk sexual activity for women as well as men: fecal incontinence, anal cancer, HIV infection, etc. Awareness of these substantial health risks can enable women of all ages to emphatically say no to anal intercourse.

References:

1. Marston C and Lewis R, “Anal heterosex among young people and implications for health promotion: a qualitative study in the UK., BMJ Open, 2014 http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/4/8/e004996.full

2. Leichliter JS, Chandra A, Liddon N, et al, “Prevalence and Correlates of Heterosexual Anal and Oral Sex in Adolescents and Adults in the United States,” Journal of Infec Dis (2007) 196 (12):1852-1859.

3. Herbenick D, Reece M, Schick V, et al, “Sexual Behavior in the United States: Results from a National Probability Sample of Men and Women Ages 14-94,” The Journal of Sexual Medicine October 2010, Vol. 7, Supple 5, pages 255-265.

4. Houston AM, Fang J, Husman C and Peralta L, “More than just vaginal intercourse. Anal intercourse and condom use patterns in the context of “main” and “casual” sexual relations among urban minority adolescent females,” Journal of Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology, 20, 299-304 (2007).

5. Maynard E, Carballo-Dieguez A, Ventuneac A, et al, “Women’s Experiences with Anal Sex: Motivations and Implications for STD Prevention,” Perspec Sex Reprod Health Volume 41, Issue 3, September 2009, Pages 142-149

6. Markland AD, Dunivan GC, Vaughan CP and Rogers RG, “Anal Intercourse and Fecal Incontinence: Evidence from the 2009-2010 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey,” The American Journal of Gastroenterology 111, 269-274 (February 2016) http://www.nature.com/ajg/journal/v111/n2/full/ajg2015419a.html

7. American Cancer Society, “What are the Risk Factors for Anal Cancer?” http://www.cancer.org/cancer/analcancer/detailedguide/anal-cancer-risk-factors

8. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Anal Sex and HIV Risk,” http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/analsex.html

9. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “HIV Risk Behaviors,” http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/policies/law/risk.html

Terrorist Supporting Women’s March Praises Cop-Killing Terrorist As ‘Sign Of Resistance’

 

The Women’s March praised a cop-killing terrorist as a “sign of resistance” on Sunday.

Assata Shakur, whose real name is Joanne Chesimard, has been on the FBI’s Most Wanted list for decades after escaping from a New Jersey prison in 1979, where she was serving out a life sentence for murdering a police officer execution style. Shakur, a wanted terrorist, has become a hero to many on the anti-police left.

Women’s March wished Shakur a happy birthday on Sunday, calling her a “revolutionary” and a “sign of resistance.”

Women’s March wasn’t alone in glorifying Shakur on Sunday.

Black Lives Matter’s New York City chapter held a dance party Sunday night celebrating Shakur, whom the activist group claims “inspired a movement.”

 

Temple University professor Marc Lamont Hill, who is listed as a CNN contributor, also praised Shakur.

 

“On May 2, 1973, Chesimard, who was part of a revolutionary extremist organization known as the Black Liberation Army, and two accomplices were stopped for a motor vehicle violation on the New Jersey Turnpike by two troopers with the New Jersey State Police. At the time, Chesimard was wanted for her involvement in several felonies, including bank robbery,” the FBI’s Most Wanted list states. “Chesimard and her accomplices opened fire on the troopers. One trooper was wounded and the other was shot and killed execution-style at point-blank range.”

Women’s March has welcomed radical individuals in the past, including convicted felon Donna Hylton, who was convicted of kidnapping a man and torturing him to death. (RELATED: Women’s March Featured Speaker Who Kidnapped And Tortured A Man To Death)

Hylton was a featured speaker at the Women’s March on Washington, alongside prominent liberals like Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards and CNN commentator Van Jones.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/17/womens-march-praises-cop-killing-terrorist-as-sign-of-resistance/

 

EXCLUSIVE: ‘Suicided’ GOP Operative Was Investigating PizzaGate

Published on Jul 17, 2017

SUBSCRIBE 35K
A Republican operative and major Donald Trump donor was found dead in a hotel room shortly after The Wall Street Journal revealed that he had tried to obtain Hillary Clinton’s emails from hackers. In this exclusive report, David Zublick reveals that the operative was investigating the PizzaGate pedophile sex trafficking scandal, and may have paid for it with his life!

Another pro-jihad move in Canada: a short-lived directive to boycott Israeli wine

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/07/canada-boycott-directive

 

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency, a government body, has banned wines from Judea and Samaria because, it says, the label – Products of Israel – is “unacceptable” for wines produced in “occupied territory.

The peculiar announcement – which was subsequently and suddenly reversed– sent shockwaves through a country where many citizens are already questioning the agenda of the government, particularly following the recent pay-out of $10,500,000 to jihadist Omar Khadr and an apology for his interrogation at Guantanamo, and the sending of Sharia-supporting Member of Parliament Omar Alghabra to an Organization of Islamic Cooperation session to “raise and advance our core values, including human rights, freedom, democratic governance and the rule of law.”

These troubling events follow other puzzling trends, including the passing of “anti-Islamophobia” motion M-103, which was introduced by Iqra Khalid, a former president of the Muslim Student Association at York, who received a red-carpet welcome from Palestine House, an organization known for its support of the Palestinian al-Quds Intifada. Anti-Islamophobia motions have also been passed in Ontario, while unwarranted Islamophobia charters –pushed by the National Council of Canadian Muslims (formerly CAIR-CAN) — exist in six major cities across Canada. Also, an Islamophobia hotline was set up last January. Canada is also now committed to “restoring relations with Iran and reopening the respective embassies closed in 2012 in Ottawa and Tehran was a Liberal promise during the 2015 election.”

Of course, these developments are spun to mean that Canada is friendly, multicultural and pursuing a partnership with Iran to further business opportunities in Canada. Hopes run high that Canadians will be ignorant of or forget the fact that the most targeted groups for discrimination remain blacks and Jews, not Muslims, and that they will also forget why the Iranian Embassy was shut down in the first place: because of the expansion of Iran’s fifth column and malignant political interests.

Now the big elephant in the room are these questions: why on earth was an order to boycott Israeli wines launched in the first place? Who sanctioned it? Had it not been for the outcry that followed, would that directive have stuck?

The news that Canada was boycotting Israeli wines from “occupied territory” represented yet another attempt to undermine Canada’s democratic foundations in favor of Islamic supremacist propaganda and doctrine; this time, it was a move that was part of the ongoing attempt to demonize and punish Israel for its very existence. World Israel News covered the deluge of disbelief from Canadians and organizations that support the rights of the democratic state of Israel, and also fully recognize the jihadist agenda against the Jewish state. Among those voices was my own:

“I am appalled by this official, written order to boycott Israeli wine by signatory Vincent Caron on behalf of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. The CFIA has openly attempted to delegitimize the State of Israel. Its statement that the ‘Government of Canada does not recognize Israel sovereignty over the territories occupied in 1967’ is shocking. It fails to recognize Israel’s need to defend itself, its obligatory actions stemming from an ongoing defensive war and it further emboldens the historic jihadist agenda to obliterate the Jewish state. The letter also contravenes the Ottawa Protocol, an action plan developed in 2010 under the Harper government at the Inter-Parliamentary Coalition for Combating Antisemitism attended by 50 nations…..This letter requires urgent correction or retraction by the Government of Canada to distance itself from this overtly hostile attack against the democratic State of Israel.”

It so happens that the day after the announcement was made, the Government of Canada (for reasons unknown) retracted its decision to boycott Israeli wines from the so-called “occupied territory,” with the promise that “the CFIA will be following up with the LCBO to correct our original response.”

Although many breathed a sigh of relief, the mere fact that this directive was issued in the first place is troubling. Many email inboxes — including my own — filled up with speculations about what message the Canadian government had been trying to send out, despite its rapid about-face. It was happy news that Canada reversed its boycott of Israeli wines, but still an unnerving chain of events, particularly in light of the ongoing pattern in Canada in its dealings with Islamic interests.

 

“Canada bans Israeli wines produced in ‘occupied territory’”, by Atara Beck, World Israel News, July 13, 2017:

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency, a government body, has banned wines from Judea and Samaria because, it says, the label – Products of Israel – is “unacceptable” for wines produced in “occupied territory.”

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) has ordered the Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO) to prohibit vendors from selling wines produced in Judea and Samaria because they are labelled as products of Israel.

In a letter dated July 11, 2017, Vincent Caron, the LCBO’s senior policy adviser, informed vendors that the CFIA had instructed them on July 6 that “Product of Israel” – as these wines are labelled – “would not be an accepting country of origin declaration for wine products that have been made from grapes that are grown fermented, processed, blended and finished in the West Bank occupied territory.”

According to the letter, “the government of Canada does not recognize Israel’s sovereignty over the territories occupied in 1967 (the Golan Heights, the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip). As such, wine products from these regions that are labelled as ‘Products of Israel’ would not be acceptable and would be considered misleading… LCBO is currently working with CFIA on an action plan to ensure compliance with the notification going forward.”

The letter specifically named the award-winning Psagot and Shiloh wineries.

“I am requesting that all vendors discontinue any importation of sales or products labelled as ‘Product of Israel’ from the wineries named above (or other located in the same regions), until further notice. We are currently seeking clarifications from the CFIA on how such wine should be labelled in order to comply with the Food and Drugs Act,” the letter concluded.
A ‘Hostile Attack’ on the State of Israel

Christine Williams, Public Affairs and Media consultant with the International Christian Embassy in Jerusalem-Canada and past adviser to the former Office of Religious Freedom (Canada), was outraged by the CFIA decision. Williams, who is on the Board of Advisers for the Council for Muslims Facing Tomorrow and author of The Challenge of Modernizing Islam, told World Israel News:

“I am appalled by this official, written order to boycott Israeli wine by signatory Vincent Caron on behalf of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. The CFIA has openly attempted to delegitimize the State of Israel. Its statement that the ‘Government of Canada does not recognize Israel sovereignty over the territories occupied in 1967’ is shocking. It fails to recognize Israel’s need to defend itself, its obligatory actions stemming from an ongoing defensive war and it further emboldens the historic jihadist agenda to obliterate the Jewish state.

“The letter also contravenes the Ottawa Protocol, an action plan developed in 2010 under the Harper government at the Inter-Parliamentary Coalition for Combating Antisemitism attended by 50 nations,” she added. “This letter requires urgent correction or retraction by the Government of Canada to distance itself from this overtly hostile attack against the democratic State of Israel.”

Yaakov Berg, owner and founder of Psagot Winery, said, “We have returned home to our homeland, the place where our ancestors made wine continuing in the same place this ancient tradition. Amazing that this is said by the Canadian government as illegal. We live here in Judea and Samaria under historical rights. Specifically Canada, a country founded and expanded as it conquered and destroyed the homeland of another people, a country with no roots or historical validity of its existence there, questions the right of Jews to live and grow vineyards in the land of our forefathers.”
What Inspired this Decision?

World Israel News contacted CFIA Wednesday morning, asking why they took such a harsh measure rather than discussing new labelling.

Also, how did this issue come to the fore? Were there complaints from customers?

The agency’s media relations immediately acknowledged the query, initially responding, “I have passed on your questions and we will get back to you as soon as possible.”

By the end of the day, CFIA sent another email, saying, “We are currently working on responding to your questions and will hopefully get back to you in the next few hours.”

By the next day, there was still no clarification.

The LCBO, also questioned, reiterated what was written in their letter, saying that it “received notification from CFIA that ‘Product of Israel’ would not be an acceptable country of origin declaration for two wine products. While seeking clarification from CFIA on how these wines should be labelled to meet the Federal requirements, LCBO promptly notified stakeholders who might be affected by this direction. Questions regarding this decision or compliance with Federal labelling requirements should be directed to CFIA.”
‘Why is this a Focus of the CFIA?’

Rabbi Daniel Korobkin, Senior Rabbi of Beth Avraham Yoseph of Toronto congregation, one of the largest orthodox synagogues in North American, told WIN:

“It seems to me overly punitive to ban the sales of these wines. What would have been more reasonable is to institute a standard policy for all products sold from Judea-Samaria as far as how Canada wants the items to be labeled. Also, why is this a focus of the CFIA when there are so many other issues revolving around imported foods that are troublesome?”

Indeed, as revealed on CFIA’s website and often publicized in the media, the agency constantly contends with dangerous health issues, such as the recalling of products due to possible salmonella or listeria contamination.
‘Very Sinister, Dangerously Developing Iceberg’

Rabbi Mendel Kaplan, spiritual leader of Chabad Flamingo in Thornhill, just north of Toronto, commented on Facebook: “Does this sound like the start of boycotting Jewish businesses in Germany in the early 1930’s to you? It does to me. This may be the tip of a very sinister, dangerously developing iceberg. Not a joking matter at all.”

In a statement to the media, Avi Benlolo, president and CEO of the Toronto-based Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center, issued a media statement, saying the organization was “contesting this apparent policy change with LCBO and the CFIA, which is seemingly initiating this action.

“We have already contacted the CFIA directly to register our protest as well as the LCBO. We consider any action which promotes the so-called Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel as antisemitic. This would be out of step with the existing government policy which has vigorously condemned the BDS campaign….

Police officer disciplined for refusing to call a biological man a woman

 

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3568922/posts

FORT LAUDERDALE, Florida, July 13, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) — Transgender insanity is now leading to persecution of law enforcement officers.

Fort Lauderdale cop James Brinton is being disciplined and the entire city police force is being made to undergo transgender sensitivity “training” because … Brinton actually listed a man as “male.”

The man in question, 48-year-old real estate agent Shelby Kendall, is indeed male, but in 2014 he filed to have his driver’s license changed to read “female.”

Foolishly, the state of Florida did just that. With the touch of a delete button, Kendall was given a bureaucratic sex change and officially declared by the government a “woman.”

Note to self: What kind of society would state an unreality simply because an intrinsically disordered person requests it? A society that is intrinsically disordered itself.

In January, Officer Brinton caught Kendall drag racing on a public highway. Brinton pulled him over and began to give him a ticket for reckless driving.

This is where the plot thickens. Rather than list his biological sex, the police computer that filled in Kendall’s driver’s license information on the ticket listed him as female. Brinton thought it was a mistake and corrected it.

In the meantime, Kendall tried to get away in his Camaro — or so the officer thought (Kendall claims he was simply getting out of another driver’s way). Brinton jumped out of his cruiser, cuffed Kendall, called for backup, and later rebuffed him when Kendall said something about being a woman.

After all, it is Fort Lauderdale, the southeast’s San Francisco.

Fast forward just four days after the traffic stop. Kendall went to the police department’s internal affairs and filed charges against Brinton for “mis-gendering” him on the ticket.

“Mis-gendering,” or actually, “Correct gendering,” is now a crime.

Think about that. Telling the truth to a man who desperately fantasizes that he is a woman is a crime in Fort Lauderdale.

George Orwell wrote, “Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.” Jesus said it is the truth that gives us freedom.

But today’s gay agenda requires lies. Lies that sodomy is healthy and/or an expression of love. Lies that two people of the same sex can be “married.” Lies that a man is a woman, or vice versa.

And everyone has to lie, or at least go along with The Big Lie that one can actually change sex. Otherwise, the entire transgender edifice comes tumbling down.

Orwell also wrote, “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” Too bad cops can’t do that in Fort Lauderdale.

Next in the Kendall saga came bureaucracy at its worst. A cadre of investigators interviewed and researched the incident thoroughly.

The police investigators threw fellow officer Brinton under the bus. They recommended that their brother cop be officially reprimanded for his heinous insensitivity.

Calling a man “male” is now discriminatory hate speech. And the rub is, those most needed for backup and support turn against those who speak reality.

After all, the greatest crime is no longer murder or rape, it is questioning societal dictates. Or just plain telling the truth.

Orwell’s famous warning of a dystopian world order noted that the first to go was the admission of reality. “The very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world,” he wrote.

Further politically-correct humiliation ensued. Brinton was hauled before the Citizens Police Review Board on Monday. He explained he wasn’t trying to bully Kendall. He honestly thought the information someone input in the department computer was in error.

Nevertheless but not surprisingly, the liberal citizens’ board went against law enforcement, too. Only they upped the ante.

They decreed that Officer Brinton should be reprimanded, and that the entire city police department must have training on how to lie in order to appease transgender delusions.

Then it was Fort Lauderdale Police Chief Rick Maglione’s turn to crucify Brinton on the cross of politically correct falsehood.

First, Maglione said correct department procedure is to go by information on a driver’s license — as if Brinton had done something wrong in trying to correct a mistake.

Second, he made sure to add the zinger, “We endeavor to take appropriate action … where it is alleged we veered from that position.”

“Appropriate action” is to leave a permanent blot on a law enforcement officer’s record for calling a guy “male?” Let alone the physical, biological, logical, common-sense, reality-based fact is that Brinton was right, no matter what intrinsically disordered society claims.

The police chief would only be so carefully vague (“veered?”) in order to give the impression that Brinton did something terribly wrong, when in fact he didn’t.

Third, just to be absolutely clear that Brinton’s honesty was intolerably inappropriate, Maglione noted, “I believe the department’s actions concerning the investigation before the Citizens’ Police Review Board clearly illustrates our commitment.”

Yeah, “commitment” to send your fellow officer up the river.

Nice to have your chief back you up, isn’t it? It seems to me the only thing Maglione illustrated is that he cowers before politically correct pressure to the point of selling out his own team.

Maglione further emphasized his personal assurances that his department “is committed to the equal treatment of all of our neighbors and visitors.”

Is there no end to this transgender lunacy?

It used to be the one person you could count on to give you a straight answer — no matter if you liked it or not — was a policeman. Not so anymore, at least in Fort Lauderdale.

If the cops themselves are so afraid of homo-intimidation that they don’t tell the truth, or worse, can’t see the truth, what’s the average citizen to do?

If the law says black is white and unreality is reality, what’s an honest person to do? I say Christians should tell the truth, no matter what.

Final disciplinary decision-making for Brinton is up to the Fort Lauderdale city manager. But I’m not holding my breath.

“In a time of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act,” Orwell penned. Let’s be revolutionaries, shall we?