Eleven States File Suit Against Obama’s Gender Confused Bathroom Policy

By William Teach May 26, 2016 – 8:05 am

For some reason, parents and elected officials have a problem with penis being shown in bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers to their underage daughters

(NY Times) The Obama administration on Wednesday faced the first major court challenge to its guidance about the civil rights of transgender students in public schools, as officials from 11 states filed a lawsuit testing both the scope of federal anti-discrimination law and the government’s sweeping interpretation of it.

The officials, in states from Arizona to Georgia to Texas to Wisconsin, brought the case in Federal District Court in Wichita Falls, Tex., and said that the Obama administration had “conspired to turn workplaces and educational settings across the country into laboratories for a massive social experiment, flouting the democratic process, and running roughshod over common-sense policies protecting children and basic privacy rights.”

Wednesday’s litigation fed into the nation’s intensifying, and suddenly fast-moving, debate about the rights of transgender people and, in particular, whether the administration has exceeded the scope of current laws defining discrimination in the United States.

Not mentioned anywhere in the NY Times article is that the lawsuit states that the guidance “has no basis in law” and could cause “seismic changes in the operations of the nation’s school districts”

(Washington Post) “There is no room in our schools for discrimination of any kind, including discrimination against transgender students on the basis of their sex,” Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch said in a statement when the letter was released. “This guidance gives administrators, teachers, and parents the tools they need to protect transgender students from peer harassment and to identify and address unjust school policies.”

In that letter, the two agencies cited Title IX, which prohibits sexual discrimination at educational facilities that receive federal funding, and said that this extended to how schools treat transgender students. The lawsuit filed Wednesday argues that the Obama administration was “officially foisting its new version of federal law” on schools and accuses federal officials of seeking “to rewrite Title IX by executive fiat.”

Of course, in a sane world, telling a biological boy or girl to use the bathroom that conforms to their actual biological sex is not discrimination. Psychologists and those involved with behavioral studies will tell you that the mass number of young people who have these wacky feelings that they should be the opposite biological sex grow out of that as they grow into adulthood. The slightly saner option would be for those who are gender confused to accept compromises, like using single sex bathrooms and having separate showers and changing rooms. The TG community, along with their lawyers and such, refuse to allow this. They want penis being exposed to Other People’s underage daughters. And so does the Obama administration.

Which attempted to create law out of thin air.

“While the department will review the complaint, the federal government has strong legal foundations to uphold the civil rights of transgender Americans,” the Justice Department said in a statement Wednesday night.

What about the civil rights of women and girls to not have to be in bathrooms, changing rooms, and locker rooms with males who are confused and think they are women, as well as males who are taking advantage of these idiotic Progressive policies to, at a minimum, cop a cheap peak at naked women and girls? What about their rights?

Texas is joined in this latest lawsuit by Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin, as well as the Arizona Department of Education and Maine Gov. Paul LePage (R). In addition, the Harrold school district and another small district in Arizona were included.

North Carolina has its own suit against Los Federales over HB2.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Eleven States File Suit Against Obama’s Gender Confused Bathroom Policy »

Posted in Current Affairs | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Oberlin Special Snowflakes Have A Sad, Are Dropping Out

By William Teach May 25, 2016 – 4:48 pm

Let’s go with something different than the gender confused. We’ll go with the educationally confused (via Ace)

(Reason) Oberlin College’s activist community is ready to call it quits. Progressive students are dropping out of college, citing academic and emotional difficulties stemming from their mental health problems and overall disgust with the toxic culture on campus.

That’s according to a fascinating piece for The New Yorker by Nathan Heller, who interviewed a number of exhausted activists at Oberlin. They perceive that other students, faculty members, and the administration are completely against them, and have made it impossible for them to live on campus. Some are dropping out.

Of course, some of these students probably feel unsupported because their impractical demands were not realized. Two examples: activist students not only wanted to abolish all grades below a ‘C,’ they also thought faculty members should proactively offer them alternatives to taking a written, in-class midterm exam.

I suspect that the other students aren’t against them; they just don’t care beyond mushy mouthed platitudes. Most are there for an education, something of value for the almost $50,000 per year in just tuition fees. They also, like most college kids, want to have some fun, do some partying, hook up, and all the other things. They aren’t interested in being semi-professional agitators.

The article features lots of woe-is-me’s from the Special Snowflakes, who’ve made the choice to be activists rather than take advantage of the learning offered by the people who are there to teach.

Oh, who am I kidding

(Time) A transgender rights organization is calling out Hillary Clinton for failing to complete a trans-focused questionnaire it distributed to the presidential candidates.

Trans United Fund, the first tax-exempt political advocacy group to focus specifically on transgender issues, announced Monday that both Clinton and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders had committed to completing the survey, but that only Sanders’ campaign had filled it out.

Does it matter? Trans United is already backing Hillary. And she knows it. The Queen need not fill out a questionnaire. Then there’s this

(Dallas Morning News) Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is expected to announce a legal challenge to President Barack Obama’s directive instructing school districts to allow transgender students to use the bathrooms that match their gender identity.

The attorney general has scheduled a 2 p.m. news conference Wednesday in Austin. WFAA-TV (Channel 8) reported Tuesday evening that Paxton would announce the legal challenge then.

Liberals won’t care. They throw actual biological women under the bus in heartbeat when there’s a special interest group to pander to.

Read: Oberlin Special Snowflakes Have A Sad, Are Dropping Out »

Posted in Special Snowflake Syndrome | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach May 25, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrible, evil fossil fueled machine causing a flooded, muddy world, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Jammie Wearing Fools, with a post on Hillary hating fracking in NY but loving it in other countries.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | Comments Off on If All You See… | Trackback URL

The Climate Change Police Head To Dallas To Assault Exxon-Mobile

By William Teach May 25, 2016 – 10:20 am

And they are particularly happy to trash the 1st Amendment while being climahypocrites

(Watchdog.org) Here are two questions the climate change police declined to answer Monday at the anti-ExxonMobil press conference:

  1. Did you use only renewable fuels to put on your #ExxonKnew coalition confab?
  2. Do you believe groups and individuals that don’t agree with your climate-change agenda have First Amendment rights?

The answer to both questions, of course, is no.

Renewable fuels have limited reach in a world still dependent on coal, oil, and natural gas for its energy needs. Even the most myopic climate change agenda cheerleader ought to know that. The technology used to put on the press call, the Facebook pages and other social media they use to get their message out, the jets they boarded to travel, all are powered by fossil fuels.

And these global warming guardians on Monday’s press call made it clear they have no time for free speech when it comes to “climate change deniers.”

There’s a shareholders meeting in Dallas today, and the Warmists are there protesting, demanding answers. They should answer the two above questions. You know most did not walk, bike, or drive an all electric vehicle.

Further, as we’ve seen, these same people who screech about their First Amendment rights to accuse others of misconduct (and burn the flag, etc and so on), want to shut down the 1A rights of people who do not buy into the Cult of Climastrology. We’ve seen this time and time again. Now they’re doing it with investigations and subpoenas from Attorney Generals, in what are Lawfare fishing expeditions.

I love that one. Beyond the whopping 12 people, they want to arrest a company. With their astroturfed signs.

And there’s a big takeaway: the use of force, preferably Governmental. But, hey, don’t call Warmists fascists, ya know.

Read: The Climate Change Police Head To Dallas To Assault Exxon-Mobile »

Posted in Climahypocrites, Global Warming | 29 Comments | Trackback URL

Obama Gave $500 Million Slated For Zika To UN Climate Fund

By William Teach May 25, 2016 – 7:36 am

Recently, liberal groups were aghast that Congress did not pony up as much money as they wanted in order to deal with Zika. But, they weren’t as upset about this

(Daily Caller)  The Obama administration has taken $500 million appropriated by Congress to fight the Zika virus to fund the United Nations Green Climate Fund, which gives foreign countries money for green energy projects.

“The threat to adults from Zika is relatively small, but the threat to pre-born children is very high,” Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Lankford wrote in an oped for The Daily Signal. “Our national priority rightly focuses on protecting the life of these young children in the womb, since each child has value, no matter their age or size.”

Lankford sharply criticized the Obama administration for using Department of State funds meant to fight infectious diseases to fund the president’s global warming agenda. Moreover, the U.N. agency Obama funded recognizes Palestine as a state — making it possibly illegal to pay into the Green Climate Fund.

Of course, Obama doesn’t care. As Senator Lankford noted

While I understand that intelligent people can disagree on the human effects on the global climate, it is hard to imagine a reason why the administration would prioritize the U.N. Green Climate Fund over protecting the American people, especially pregnant women, from the Zika virus.

For the same reason liberals put Islamists over women. Put the gender confused over women. Put this group over that group. Certain people must suffer for their Belief in AGW. Never themselves, of course.

Read: Obama Gave $500 Million Slated For Zika To UN Climate Fund »

Posted in Barry Obama, Global Warming | 12 Comments | Trackback URL

Bummer: Trump Dares To Bring Up Clinton’s Sordid Past

By William Teach May 25, 2016 – 7:29 am

The Politico’s Nick Gass has a big sad over Donald Trump daring to bring up serious allegations of sexual misconduct and murder against Bill and Hillary. He doesn’t bother reaching out to any of the sexual assault victims himself, and seems rather vexed that Trump would even launch these attacks.

Trump dredges up sordid Clinton accusations
It’s going to be a nasty general election battle.

If there was any doubt about the nastiness of the upcoming general election fight between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, Trump has obliterated it.

The Manhattan billionaire has launched his most personal attacks yet on the Clintons, dredging up decades-old conspiracy theories and allegations of sexual misconduct on the part of Bill Clinton to kick his “Crooked Hillary” assault into overdrive.

On Monday, Trump released a visceral video featuring the voices of Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broaddrick and an image of Bill Clinton not-so-subtly chomping on a cigar. The women describe their allegations of being sexually assaulted by Clinton.

It’s been said it before, but let’s make note of it yet again: in virtually every other case of sexual misconduct, especially allegations of rape, Liberals immediately jump to the conclusion that the accused should be hung up by their privates, metaphorically and otherwise. We see this playing out on college campuses across the country, where students are accused of rape then convicted in kangaroo courts. But, when it comes to Bill Clinton, and Hillary Clinton enabling the conduct, dismissing the conduct, covering the conduct, well, then, nothing to see here, folks, move along.

Here’s something not considered by the spinmeisters: bringing up these allegations will resonate with the young folks, the ones who are hyper-sensitive in their belief that “no means no”. Yes, no means no, and sexual misconduct is a criminal thing, but, as you’ve probably seen, this rises to a whole new level on college campuses. They might not vote for Trump, but, they won’t vote for Hillary, either.

Salon itself is very upset, and says that the media cannot allow Trump to make this election about Bill. First, is the media to ignore the news, and what candidates say? Are they supposed to become shills for a particular candidate? Not that they don’t already do that to a degree, but, like college kids, the media would have to take this to a new level. Second, the Trump attacks are aimed more at Hillary, for standing by and even enabling Bill’s sordid sexual attacks. Third, Salon, like many liberal outlets, have attacked Bill Cosby for his rape accusation, and most deemed him guilty right from the get go (he most likely is, IMO). But they have never wanted any investigations into Bill and Hillary’s conduct. The accusations against Bill are somehow off limits.

Trump has also brought up the conspiracy theories over the death of Vince Foster. In my opinion, this one is just silly, but, Trump has always seemed to buy into conspiracies. Leave this alone.

The article includes this quote from Rush Limbaugh

“What is so wrong about people being reminded of the Clinton past, or in some cases, being told about it for the first time? I mean, is anything in the past ever out of bounds for a Republican candidate?”

It’s a good point. Democrats bring up things from decades and decades ago. Remember, they dredged up stories about Mitt Romney hazing a kid and put his dog on the car roof in a dog carrier. Slate, which is Salon-lite, was outraged over the hazing hair cut, all the way back in 1965. So were a lot of media outlets. Same with the dog on the roof incident. Yet, most of these outlets are cool with Bill Clinton sexually assaulting, raping even, women.

Investigating, even just discussing, Bill’s sordid past and Hillary’s conduct in those actions? They are supposed to be out of bounds. Likewise, there is supposed to be no investigation of Hillary’s conduct as Secretary of State, especially Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation pay for play while SoS, nor her email server. You know what’s real important, though? Whether Donald has a hair weave.

If this campaign is nasty, it’s because one of the people running for president is a horrible person, married to another horrible person.

(Let’s be clear. I’m not supporting Trump. But, the Clinton’s are sleazeballs, with Hillary being even worse than Bill)

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Bummer: Trump Dares To Bring Up Clinton’s Sordid Past »

Posted in Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton | 15 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach May 24, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is a muddy, flooded world because Someone Else drove a fossil fueled vehicle, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Doug Ross @ Journal, with a post on Congress looking to impeach the IRS head.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Thank Goodness, We Now Know What It’s Like To Be A Gender Confused In The “Wrong” Bathroom

By William Teach May 24, 2016 – 10:25 am

We all wanted to know, and “Meredith” Russo tells us

(NY Times) I AM a trans woman, meaning I identify as a woman rather than the sex I was assigned at birth. I transitioned all at once in 2013 while working at a call center; one day I came in a man, and the next I came in a woman. Things went well at first, with co-workers taking it in stride and customers reading my voice as female, but then one of my bosses demanded to speak with me.

She wanted to talk about bathrooms.

“Have you had the surgery?” she asked. (Have you ever talked about your genitals with a superior at work? It’s not exactly a party.) I told her no. “Well, then, you’ll have to use the men’s until you do. We can’t risk a lawsuit.”

I’m calling BS, because the vast majority of companies and bosses wouldn’t raise the issue without checking with HR and Legal, and having a representative of one or both present for that conversation. Not unless they wanted a potential lawsuit on their hands. And, if there’s a call center, there’s a pretty good chance the company is big enough to have HR and Legal.

I headed to the men’s room, where I waited for the solitary stall to open up. I considered going all punk rock, hiking up my skirt at a urinal and flipping off any man who looked at me funny. But there is probably no meeker creature on earth than a newly transitioned woman.

The man who emerged from the stall looked at me as if I were a jug of spoiled milk. I waited on the toilet until the bathroom was empty again, but as soon as I started washing my hands, another man entered. He looked at me for a long time and then made a beeline for the urinal next to the sink, inches away from me, his stare never breaking.

Uh huh. Perhaps they were wondering why someone with a pronounced Adams apple, who probably looked like a cross-dresser, was bringing their perversions to their place of business.

There was a lot of turnover at this job, so every two weeks a fresh batch of employees seemed to come in. This meant that every two weeks new men would come into the bathroom, assume they’d accidentally entered the women’s room when they saw me there, and then glare at me when they figured it out. Some insisted that I was in the wrong place — until they realized what I was, and got really angry. It got so bad that I stopped going to the bathroom at work altogether, and I developed urinary tract infections. So then I stopped drinking water before and during work.

That’s on you, “honey”. You made the choice to act on your confusion, but did not take the steps to do more than pretend you are a female. You’re attempting to force your “morals” on other people, who won’t necessarily cotton to them, and you’re being intolerant of their concerns.

That doesn’t mean it’s not still an issue when I have to use a public restroom. The fear is still there — that someone will take offense, get angry and attack me, or that I’ll be made to leave a business, that I’ll be accused of sexual misconduct, arrested and sent to men’s jail.

That’s the main thing I wish the supporters of these laws would realize: We are much more frightened of you than you are of us.

We aren’t frightened of the gender confused. We have serious concerns about them being in showers, locker rooms, and bathrooms with wives, girlfriends, and children. We’re annoyed by you trying to force your confusions down our throats, that you don’t give a damn about our concerns, that you’re being intolerant. And we’re very much concerned that your in-your-face push for forced acceptance will enable and embolden scumbags, esepcially pedophiles, to take advantage.

Just because you’re gender confused doesn’t mean we have to accept it.

Read: Thank Goodness, We Now Know What It’s Like To Be A Gender Confused In The “Wrong” Bathroom »

Posted in Current Affairs | 17 Comments | Trackback URL

Surprise: A Greener Earth Is A Big Problem!

By William Teach May 24, 2016 – 7:18 am

Do you remember the articles a few months ago about the Earth getting greener? This was, of course, blamed solely (there are a lot of articles, to be sure) on the rise of CO2 by Warmists, what the Cult of Climastrology calls “carbon pollution.” Even though a goodly chunk was from regrowth programs in China and Russia. This is apparently a Very Bad thing, showing that you just can’t win with Warmists

Who Knew Living on a Greener Earth was a Problem?

When you see rolling hills of lush, green grass and trees, you probably think to yourself, “right on!” Well, don’t celebrate just yet because apparently, a greener Earth is actually a bad thing.

All this confusing research comes from a new study that was printed in the journal Nature Climate Change. The big conclusion of the study was, yes, the Earth has become significantly greener over the past 33 years, but that greening is because of all the carbon dioxide humans have been pumping into the air.

Scientists came to their conclusion by using “satellites to examine vegetation growth over time, assuming that the extra green is coming from leaves on plants and trees,” Grist reports.

“Using a computer model to estimate leaf growth, they find the extra greening is equivalent to adding about 18 million square kilometers of vegetated land to the globe, more than twice the area of the mainland U.S.”

One would think a greener Earth would be a good thing, especially in light of the urbanization of so much of the planet. You know, the concrete jungles where the Warmists tend to live, far removed from actual nature. Except when they take long fossil fueled trips to visit nature and Make A Statement. And, you know, Warmists, having subsumed real environmental concerns, become hysterical over the loss of forests and jungles. But….

Now, technically, Earth greening isn’t so bad—plants love soaking up carbon. But the problem is, there’s no way all of Earth’s plants can soak up all the carbon we’re releasing. “All that extra plant growth can’t keep up with the 40 billion tons of carbon dioxide humans dump into the atmosphere every year,” Grist explains. Also, another problem: A lot of the world’s greening is happening in the arctic. Yeah, that’s not good.

So, let’s hope humans will actually find a way we all can agree on that will help us cut carbon emissions extensively so the planet can green naturally–and, you know, not die.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y164/wteach/pirates/facepalm.gif

This isn’t the first time a Warmist has positioned the greening of Earth as a Bad Thing. There are many other hysterical rants, as well.

Read: Surprise: A Greener Earth Is A Big Problem! »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Trump “Clarifies” Position On School Guns

By William Teach May 24, 2016 – 6:59 am

What is Donald Trump’s actual position on guns and the 2nd Amendment? He used to be for an assault weapons ban and comprehensive gun control. Now? He claims to be a champion of law abiding gun owners, a position he staked when he decided to run for president as a Republican in 2011, and has now broadened. We know what Hillary stands for: significant restrictions. If you want to know, look at what California is doing. Hillary would go there, along with most Democrats. Though she won’t give up her own armed security

(CNN) Donald Trump on Monday clarified his position on allowing guns in schools, telling CNN in a phone interview that “school resource officers” or trained teachers should be the ones carrying guns.

He stood by his adamant criticism of gun free zones but backed away from his blanket call to eliminate all gun free zones in schools, saying they would only be eliminated “in some cases.”

Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton this weekend accused Trump of wanting to “mandate that every school in America allow guns in classrooms.”

Trump responded Sunday morning on Fox News with a muddled comment that seemed to both reject and reaffirm his support for arming teachers in classrooms.

“I don’t want to have guns in classrooms, although in some cases teachers should have guns in classrooms, frankly,” he said.

I think we would all prefer that teachers not need to carry weapons to protect themselves and the children, but, schools, like other gun free zones, have become easy shooting grounds for nutjobs. This second position from Trump is much better than the first. Allowing some school personnel, who have been properly trained on the use of firearms, much like the way people are trained for concealed carry (in those states, such as NC, which require actual training), would go a long way towards keeping nutjobs from seeing schools as easy picking grounds.

Trump’s refusal to reiterate his support for ending gun-free zones on day one of his presidency as he did earlier this year and his emphasis on school resource officers providing armed security suggest Trump is mollifying the hard-right policy positions that he staked out to successfully snag the Republican nomination. And his apparent waffling on whether to arm teachers once again raises questions about his consistency issues crucial to his conservative constituency.

Actually, modifying his positions in this manner would go a long way towards telling Republicans and Conservatives that he is being more thoughtful of his positions, and is less bluster and spouting off at the mouth than what he usually seems to be. Few gun owners/supporters will have a problem with Donald’s clarification. Gun owners/supporters expect gun owners to be responsible with their weapons. Required training on having a gun in school is a good idea.

One still, though, has to wonder, and worry, about what Trump really believes. Hence, I still do not trust him.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Trump “Clarifies” Position On School Guns »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Donald Trump | 15 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove