↓ Archives ↓

Archive → December 7th, 2015

Perversity Harms Children and Perverts Education

Editors Note: A person with male parts should not be forced on females who feel uncomfortable with that person looking at them. This is a violation of privacy for the vast majority in favor of a handful of transgenders. Other accommodations could be made but are unacceptable to Obama and the transgenders.
The goal is to end the concept of gender. The end result is anyone can use any bathroom and any locker room. No separation of gender. It would be similar to mini nudist colony’s when taking a shower after gym class.
This is just more of the Obama plan to change America destroying our morals, culture, and traditional values.
Perversity Harms Children and Perverts Education
Perversity Harms Children and Perverts Education
Written By Laurie Higgins   |   12.07.15

In our world of normalized perversion, erotic love is severed from sexual differentiation, marriage is severed from sexual differentiation, sex is severed from marriage, sex is severed from procreation, procreation is severed from marriage, and people are severed from their bodies. What unites all these subversive severances is untethered narcissistic desire. And tragically, normalized perversion is harming children and transforming education into anti-education.

A disturbing article about a San Francisco elementary school illustrates that reality and points to the future of all our schools unless those who know better, do better.

Last September SFGate told the story of Miraloma Elementary School which is doing away with sex-separated restrooms, starting first with the lower grades and working their way up through the higher grades. As we all know, the younger the child, the easier the indoctrination.

Two of the children featured in this troubling story are the six-year-old Braverman twins, Ari and Ella. Ari is a boy who, according to the article, “doesn’t fit boy stereotypes.” According to his parents, “He wears boys and girls clothes and doesn’t discriminate between pink and blue toys.”

His mother, Sarah Mattison-Earls, offered more detail about his binary-shattering history: “He wore dresses for a couple of years and now…‘still rocks the gold lamé stretch pants.’”

How his ability to rock gold lamé stretch pants interferes with his ability to use the boys’ restroom is still unclear.

Ari’s father, Gedalia Braverman, pontificated that “As parents, you eventually realize it’s not your job to change your child’s personality….It’s not my job to identify and pigeonhole my children’s genders, and certainly it’s not the school’s.”

What a sorry, diminished understanding of “personality” Mr. Braverman possesses.

If “personality” is merely the aggregate of a child’s untutored desires, and if it is not the job of parents to “change” their children’s “personality,” what precisely is a parent’s role?

Some might argue—if they could do so without risking the vitriol of the tolerant—that one part of a parent’s job is to help shape or direct their children’s desires, beliefs, values, and actions toward that which is good, true, and beautiful. More specific to the topic, it is the job of parents to help their children accept and view as good the sex in which their genes have pigeonholed them.

Further, it is properly the job of schools to recognize objective, scientifically verifiable sex. It is decidedly not the job of arms of the government to subordinate objective, scientifically verifiable sex to subjective, mutable feelings about sex.

Ari’s twin sister Ella expressed her happiness about the gender-neutral restrooms: “If someone doesn’t refer [sic]to either gender, they might not be sure which bathroom to use….I think it’s nice because then people don’t have to be separated just to go into bathrooms.”

“Just” to go into bathrooms? How does a six-year-old arrive at the notion that separate bathrooms for people of different sexes is trivial? And if it is trivial, then why won’t gender-dysphoric boys, girls, men, and women use the bathroom that corresponds to their sex?

A six-year-old who discusses “gender” and expresses a preference for gender-neutral restrooms has obviously been inculcated with a set of assumptions about sex and “gender identity.” And it seems unlikely that Ella has been taught that physical embodiment (i.e., maleness and femaleness per se) is both immutable and profoundly meaningful.

While Ella and Ari’s parents have the right to inculcate them with any nonsense they want, public school administrators do not have the right to inculcate other people’s children with nonsense using taxpayer monies.

Ari and Ella Braverman have a sad backstory that perhaps explains their precocious and perverse notions about maleness and femaleness.

Their father, Gedalia Braverman, is a 56-year-old single, HIV-positive, homosexual father who acquired the twins through a sperm donation from a friend who had leftover sperm from donating to a lesbian couple, and an egg donation from the niece of his best college buddy. This young woman was “in her 20s, the time in a woman’s life when the largest number of best quality eggs can be harvested. She also met Braverman’s criteria for health and intelligence.” Finally, Braverman had to rent a womb—a womb that the gestational surrogate ended up losing as a result of a difficult delivery of the twins Braverman wanted:

Braverman had dreamed not only of parenting, but of having multiple children. Having one pregnancy was costing him approximately $150,000. Not to mention the entire process takes about a year. For each additional pregnancy he would have to pay the amount and invest the time all over again.

He was starting the process at 48, and would be 49 when a child was born, if all went well. “I didn’t want to have another child at 51, 52. I also didn’t know whether I was going to get pregnant the first time,” he said. In some cases, if things don’t all go smoothly, it can take years to successfully conceive and carry a term. “So given that, I really wanted to have as many kids as possible, as quickly as possible, within reason.”

In their effort to mimic true marital relations whose natural end is children, those innaturally sterile unions (or as in Braverman’s case, in no union) resort to purchasing eggs and/or sperm, and when necessary renting wombs, thus turning children into commodities. Many of them believe their desire and extraordinary efforts to procure what they have no moral right to make them better parents than “breeders.”

What concerns those in intrinsically sterile sexual relationships (or in no relationship) less are the needs, rights, and desires of the children they acquire who will be hurt in numerous ways:

  • They will be intentionally deprived of their birthright. They will be intentionally deprived of their right to know, be known by, and be raised by both their biological mother and father. It should go without saying that the desire to know and be connected to one’s biological lineage is powerful and universal. Libraries, genealogical organizations, and even a popular television show testify to this enduring human desire.
  • They will be intentionally deprived of their right to know, be known by, and be raised by both a mother and father. Mothers and fathers are as different by nature as women are from men—a truth which even homosexuals acknowledge when they claim to be attracted only to persons of their same sex. Children deserve to experience those differences—some of which play a role in their very creation.
  • These children will suffer when mothers and fathers in normal relationships prohibit their children from spending time in homes in which perversion is embraced and affirmed. Homosexual activists will try to blame conservatives for the sadness children raised by homosexuals will feel when their friends cannot play at their homes. But the ultimate cause for their sadness will rest with the selfish decisions of homosexual adults who insist not only on embracing perversion as identity but also on acquiring children. No responsible parent ought to allow their young children to spend time in a home in which homoeroticism is affirmed. Prohibiting young children from being exposed to such wickedness is not hateful even though, tragically, other young children will feel sad. Homosexuals intuitively know that young children and even teens have a limited capacity for moral reasoning. Homosexuals know that if children perceive someone as kind, they are predisposed to think of everything they do as good. Through their relationships with other people’s children (including in public schools), homosexuals seek to transform their moral views of homoerotic relationships.
  • These children will suffer because they will not be taught truth about the essential connection between physical embodiment and self-conception and between both of those and human flourishing. They won’t be taught properly about modesty, privacy, and compassion. And they won’t be taught the truth about marriage and sexuality.

Homosexuals take umbrage at any suggestion that children ought not be placed with or purchased by homosexuals. They view good parenting as constituted solely by the capacity to love and provide for the needs of children. But such a claim raises the question: What are the needs of children?

Source: Will County News

The EPA’s Water Power Grab/ Changing the definition of water

The EPA’s Water Power Grab: Lawmakers Can Use the Appropriations Process to Stop It

The EPA and Corps finalized a rule that would seek to define what waters they can regulate under the Clean Water Act. The rule is so broad that it could regulate almost any water in the country. (Photo: Steve Smith Blend Images/Newscom)

As Congress figures out what policy riders, provisions in appropriations bills that prohibit or direct the use of funds for certain purposes, will be included in any omnibus appropriations bill, there are several that should make the list, including one to prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers from using funds to implement their water rule in fiscal year 2016.

What the Rule Would Do

The EPA and Corps finalized a rule that would seek to define what waters they can regulate under the Clean Water Act. The rule is so broad that it could regulate almost any water in the country. This includes everything from certain man-made ditches to “streams” that are dry land most of the year, except when there’s been heavy rain.

Under the Clean Water Act, you might be “polluting” even if you just kicked sand into a water covered under the law (a “jurisdictional water”). As more waters are deemed jurisdictional due to this rule, property owners will be forced to secure more permits to engage in ordinary activities, such as farming.

Permits cost a lot of money and take a lot of time to secure. Many property owners may not have either.

Furthermore, the final rule is so vague that property owners may not even know they could be violating the law if they don’t secure a permit. For that matter, many people in the EPA and Corps wouldn’t know someone is violating the law. The rule is so subjective that proper compliance may be determined at the whim of the agencies.

Everyone wants clean water. Not everyone thinks this specific rule giving the EPA and Corps unprecedented power is the best way to have clean water.

It isn’t just farmers, government, and big businesses that will be affected. Sackett v. EPA offers one egregious example of overzealous regulatory enforcement. In this 2012 Supreme Court case, the EPA threatened a couple with fines of $75,000 per day for placing gravel on virtually dry land to build a home in a built out subdivision—without a hearing.

If this wasn’t bad enough, this case wasbefore the final rule was finalized. The rule will almost certainly lead to more Sackett-type abuses because more waters will be deemed jurisdictional, compliance will be even more difficult, and the EPA will be emboldened by having these broad powers codified in regulation.

Doesn’t Opposing the Rule Mean You Oppose Clean Water?

The EPA would have you believe that opposing its rule means you support dirty water. In a completely inappropriate campaign to gain support for its rule, the agency posed the question “Do You Choose Clean Water?,” trying to equate the rule with support for clean water and, by implication, opposition to the rule as support for dirty water.

Everyone wants clean water. The difference is that not everyone thinks this specific rule giving the EPA and Corps unprecedented power is the best way to have clean water. If prohibited from implementing this flawed rule, the agencies could still withdraw the rule and actually develop a reasonable rule based on sound environmental principles that also respects property rights, individual freedom, and states (not to mention the plain language of the Clean Water Act).

Ideally, Congress itself would define what waters are supposed to be covered and stop letting these agencies continuously grab more power.

The Rule Is Bad for the Environment

Federal overreach doesn’t equal sound environmental policy. Congress used to understand this. The Clean Water Act specifically says:

It is the policy of the Congress to recognize, preserve, and protect the primary responsibilities and rights of States to prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution, to plan the development and use (including restoration, preservation, and enhancement) of land and water resources[.]

This rule certainly undermines states’ rights.  From an environmental perspective, it also undermines sound water policy, since those closest to the situation aren’t making the decisions.

States are supposed to take the lead under the Clean Water Act, but instead the federal government is taking over. This is problematic, because states and local governments know their water and natural resources much better than centralized bureaucrats in D.C. States are in the best position to identify solutions to any problems if necessary.

Who Opposes the Rule?

The better question might be who doesn’t oppose the rule. The opposition to the rule (based on various reasons) is wide and diverse and comes fromfarmers, ranchers, manufacturers, small businesses, counties, and home builders. Attorneys general and agencies from at least 31 states have sued the federal government over the rule. Even environmental groups have sued the federal government over the rule.

Congress can’t rely on the judiciary to do what Congress should be doing in the first place: blocking implementation of the rule through the appropriations process and passing legislation to withdraw the rule.

The Corps itself was expressing seriousconcerns in memos to the EPA about the rule shortly before it was released. For example, the Corps completely tore apart two key EPA documents used to support the draft final rule, explaining as late as May 15 (less than two weeks before the final rule was released):

In the Corps’ judgment, the documents contain numerous inappropriate assumptions with no connection to the data provided, misapplied data, analytical deficiencies, and logical inconsistencies.

The Sixth Circuit issued a stay in October blocking implementation of the rule, but this stay could always be lifted; after all, the Court hasn’t even decided whether it has jurisdiction to hear the case.

Congress can’t rely on the judiciary to do what Congress should be doing in the first place: blocking implementation of the rule through the appropriations process and passing legislation to withdraw the rule.

If the Obama administration wants to defend this indefensible rule, that’s on them. Congress, however, can take action that will genuinely protect private property owners, states and local governments, and the environment.

Source: Will County News

Omnibus Spending Bill to Limit Obamacare

Why the GOP Is Looking to the Omnibus Spending Bill to Limit Obamacare’s ‘Insurer Bailout’

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., is leading a charge of conservative House members and leaders of prominent groups who are calling on Republican leadership to restrict the federal government’s access to taxpayer dollars to fund Obamacare’s risk corridor program. Republicans included a provision defunding the program in its reconciliation package. However, it was removed following a ruling from the Senate parliamentarian. (Photo: Kevin Dietsch/UPI/Newscom).

Senate Democrats blocked GOP efforts Thursday to repeal Obamacare’s risk corridor program, which Republicans have referred to as a taxpayer-funded bailout of insurers. Now, conservatives are looking to the $1.1-trillion omnibus spending bill to continue restricting the use of taxpayer dollars for the program.

As Congress begins to debate this year’s omnibus spending bill, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., is urging GOP congressional leaders to use the must-pass legislation as the vehicle to further restrict the program’s access to taxpayer dollars.

“If the only way Obamacare can continue is for taxpayers to bail out health insurers that lose money because of it, that’s as good an indication as any that the whole law should be repealed and replaced,” the Florida senator wrote in aletter to Republican leadership last week. Rubio continued:

It is our responsibility to completely shield the U.S. taxpayer from a deal in the omnibus that might reimburse health insurers retroactively for these losses or any other future losses. The best way to do this is to include the language in the omnibus that we have already used twice to prevent a taxpayer-funded bailout.

Republican Reps. Jim Jordan of Ohio and Tim Huelskamp of Kansas echoedRubio’s displeasure with the risk corridor program and said at an event on Capitol Hill earlier this week they would oppose any measure that provided additional money to it, as would the approximately 40-member House Freedom Caucus, which Jordan chairs.

“We certainly don’t want to bail out Obamacare and [be] bailing out big insurance companies,” Huelskamp said.

Prominent conservative leaders also called on Republican leadership to continue restricting the use of taxpayer dollars for the risk corridor program, as the language included in last year’s spending bill did, in a letter sent last month.

“The risk corridor program represents a microcosm of [Obamacare], and one of its most insidious provisions, as it attempts to hide the true costs of Obamacare from insurance companies and beneficiaries, and instead spread it out among hardworking taxpayers,” the letter read. “Eliminating the risk corridor program’s ability to do this represents a major blow to the law and a step toward increasing transparency in Obamacare’s exchanges.”

The signatories of the letter included Heritage Action for American Chief Executive Officer Michael Needham, Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist, and Club for Growth President David McIntosh.

On Thursday, the Senate used a budget tool known as reconciliation to pass a package, 52-47, repealing key components of Obamacare and stripping Planned Parenthood of its federal funding for one year. The reconciliation package was unveiled by Senate Republicans earlier this week and originally included a provision to repeal the law’s risk corridor program.

During debate over the reconciliation bill Thursday, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., objected to the provision repealing the risk corridor program, saying it violated the Byrd Rule—which mandates provisions of a reconciliation bill be budgetary in nature—and arguing that the measure served political interests.

“It is yet another effort to pander to the extreme political base rather than working with us to strengthen health care for our families,” Murray said.

Following Murray’s objection, Democrats blocked Republicans’ efforts, 52-47, to override the parliamentarian’s ruling—which required 60 votes—and repeal the risk corridor program.

Murray’s objection earned ire from Rubio, who was instrumental in restricting the money available for the risk corridor program during the 2014 government spending debate.

Since 2013, Rubio has been a consistent voice against the risk corridor program, which he argues serves as a taxpayer-funded bailout of insurers.

During debate over the $1.1-trillion omnibus spending bill in 2014, the Florida Republican limited the amount of money available for the risk corridor program by introducing a provision prohibiting the use of taxpayer dollars for it. Instead, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services could use only fees collected by the insurance companies themselves.

The risk corridor program, which is in place until 2017, is intended to provide stability for insurers in the health insurance market. The program requires insurers profiting above a specified threshold to share a portion of their profits with the federal government. Those that lose more than a specified threshold, meanwhile, receive financial assistance from the government.

However, conservatives have warned that the program services as a “bailout” for insurance companies that fail to profit under Obamacare.

Source: Will County News

What’s an “Omnibus” bill?

what's am omnibus.001

The Hill 101: What’s an “Omnibus” bill?

The end-of-year “Omnibus” Spending Bill is by now a Congressional holiday tradition — as is the “will they or won’t they?” nail-biter finish that comes within hours of a stated deadline and sometimes pushes through multiple short-term extensions…and delayed holiday plans.

Technically, the Omnibus is one big bill that “carries” lots of smaller bills.

And it really does work like a “bus.” This year’s spending bill will carry the very important cargo of several smaller spending bills that did not make it out of the appropriations process on their own. These bills end up riding together in one big bill at the end of the year. But they may not be the only ones on board.

Policy Riders (or, “poison pills” if you don’t like them): The big debate occurring now is whether additional non-appropriations measures will “ride” along with the spending bills. And the standby list is long. Some of those reported to have been in a first draft (which was rejected by House Democrats) include:

  • Provisions to disapprove Obama’s EPA regulations — would garner Republican votes but lose some Democrats and bring a veto threat, so it might be negotiated away in order to get another priority, like:
  • Repealing the ban on exports of crude oil — a bill passed earlier in the year to this effect, with bipartisan support.
  • Limiting entry for Syrian refugees — would lose some Democrats, who instead favor:
  • Bipartisan proposal to limit the visa waiver program, which allows citizens of some countries to enter the U.S. without a visa. (President Obama supports some form of this provision and has already begun tightening restrictions on the visa waiver program.)
  • A McConnell proposal to eliminate caps campaign spending by political parties in coordination with candidates (opposed by the Freedom Caucus)

And those are just some of the ones that have made it to the press. CNN reports: “Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, the top Democrat in the Senate, was upbeat on Tuesday about progress in the talks, noting that the number of riders in the bill had shrunk from 250 to 100. But he also warned that any one of those riders could cause the bill to fail.”

The ‘bus is supposed to arrive by December 11, when current spending expires, but Speaker Paul Ryan said Congress might not have a deal by then. If not, we would likely see a short-term extension to allow time for negotiations to continue. GOP leaders are showing no desire for another shutdown fight, while President Obama is not ruling it out, if he is sent a bill with policy riders he opposes.

Source: Will County News