State allows boys in schoolgirls' bathrooms. Freaked out girls will face punishment.

Last week the Massachusetts Department of Education issued directives for handling middle and high school transgender students – including allowing them to use the bathrooms and locker rooms of their choice. According to the Dept. of Education, transgender students are those whose assigned birth sex does not match their “internalized sense of their gender.”

Schools will now be required to accept a student’s gender identity on face value.

“A student who says she is a girl and wishes to be regarded that way throughout the school day and throughout every or almost every other area of her life, should be respected and treated like a girl,” the guidelines stipulate. They go on to say, "The responsibility for determing a student's gender identity rests with the student. As a result, the person best situated to determine a student's gender identity is that student himself or herself."

In other words, any red-blooded, hormone-driven teenaged boy can simply say he feels like a girl, and, according to the directives, the school will be required to allow him to hang out in the girls' locker room while they are showering after gym class. And here's the best part. Any female student objecting to this would be shown "firm disapproval and possible discipline" for not "affirming or supporting" her "transgender" classmate.

The 11-page directive also urges schools to eliminate gender-based clothing and gender-based activities – like having boys and girls line up separately to leave the classroom.

Does anyone wonder why homeschooling is becoming increasingly popular in America?

What do you think?  Click on the comments link in the bar below to share your thoughts. No registration necessary.

Responsible spending cuts will return America to slavery, Texas representative warns

While President Obama read his State of the Union address earlier this week, he told us that spending cuts would devastate important government functions and destroy hundreds of jobs (just like his proposed $9 minimum wage would do, but I digress). Wasting no time to agree, Representative Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), took it a step further saying that reducing the size of government would be equal to enslaving America again. To her, the more the government spends, the more “free” America is.

In response to proposed spending cuts, Jackson Lee recently said, “Yesterday was the official birthday of President Lincoln, February 12^th, and although it was a tragic time in our history, I can assure you that it showed the greatest promise of America when people could come together and do something great. I stand here as a freed slave because this congress came together. Are we going to be able to do it today to free America?”

A “freed slave”? Considering that would make Ms. Jackson Lee at least about 150 years old, she looks pretty good, but I digress again.

If the currently proposed spending cuts do occur, they would total about $44 billion, which is 1.2% of 2013 spending, according to a Congressional Budget Office report. That’s nothing when you consider our government spends just under $10 billion a day.

Our spending – and borrowing - are so out of control that to continue this way is what will enslave us to the government because only through basic slavery in the form of punishing taxation could we even begin to manage the debt we’re creating.  As it stands, the government takes in obscene amounts of money through taxation and still we have a record and equally obscene deficit. Spending less will not enslave anyone, it will make us more free.

Would Jackson Lee have supported Obama when he said, as a senator, that the humongous spending habits and continuous debt ceiling raises of Washington were irresponsible and even unpatriotic (his exact word)? How come now that Obama is president, he has flip-flopped on his view of reckless spending and continues to want to raise the debt ceiling -- and anyone against this, according to Jackson Lee, is pro-slavery?

The hypocrisy and offensiveness of this current government are endless.

What do you think?  Click on the comments link in the bar below to share your thoughts. No registration necessary.

Is desire to avoid pregnancy the same as having leukemia? To Sandra Fluke, yes.

Just when we thought it was safe to turn on a news show without seeing the poster child for handouts with her hand out, Sandra Fluke is back. Fluke, in case anyone could forget, is the one who believes we the taxpayers should pay for her birth control pills. She even pleaded for contraceptive freebies on the national stage when she spoke at the Democratic National Convention demanding her rights to behave sexually as she pleases, while wanting us to pay for the prevention -- or termination -- of any ensuing pregnancy.

Now Fluke is voicing her concerns that the Obama Administration might actually recognize our conscience rights and repeal the HHS mandate that forces all employers to provide for contraceptive and abortifacient coverage despite personal religious objections. To Fluke, that would be a bad thing because she says such exemptions to contraception coverage could be abused by employers to deny coverage for things like leukemia. In other words, in Fluke's world, avoiding pregnancy is on the same par as deadly diseases.

In a recent interview on MSNBC, Fluke said, “I think what it is important to note is that some of the folks who are continuing to object to this policy are actually worried about employers who are private companies, not religiously affiliated employers in any way, but the boss has a particular religious concern and they want to be able deny their employees particular types of healthcare. Now if you take a step back and think about that, that’s, you know, you work at a restaurant, you work at a store and your boss is able to deny you leukemia coverage, or contraception coverage, or blood transfusions or any number of medical concerns that someone might have a religious objection to."

First, being a private employer in a non-religiously affiliated business does not mean the employer does not have the right to live his religious beliefs. Second, since when is preventing pregnancy on par with something like leukemia? Most married women I know strive to get pregnant - or take responsible precautions not to become pregnant if the time's not right. Not one person I know anywhere strives to get leukemia, nor has anyone I'm aware of been able to control whether they get the dreadful disease.

But above all, Ms. Fluke, if you want to fool around to your heart's content, it's none of my business. But respect my private religious conscience rights and keep my wallet out of your bedroom activities, please. Your desire to not be pregnant is neither my concern nor my responsibility.

It's funny  how often we hear so-called feminists demand the government keep its hands off their bodies, but they sure have no problem using the government to get us all involved in their private activities when it suits them.

As for comparing the desire to prevent a life-affirming miracle like pregnancy to something lethal like leukemia, Ms. Fluke should be ashamed of herself. Unfortunately, she has proven time and again that shame is one condition from which she does not suffer.

What do you think?  Click on the comments link in the bar below to share your thoughts. No registration necessary.