The Simpler, The Limited, Thinking Human Female Mind

The following piece regarding American female ‘victories’ by female Kathleen Parker was sent by Mark Waldeland:

By Kathleen Parker:

http://www.twincities.com/opinion/ci_23387979/kathleen-parker-say-it-go-ahead-say-it

WASHINGTON — News that women increasingly are the leading or sole breadwinner in the American family has resurrected the perennial question: Why do we need men?

(Comment by ghr: The human female, devoid of male contacts, being by nature notoriously unintellectual, incurious, uncreative, emotionally ditzy, almost devoid of depth of thought and concern for her actions’ consequences, and nearly empty of any thinking beyond Thomas Sowell’s Stage One category, has certainly found her modern nitch in the twenty first century world bureaucracy where mechanical efficiency is worshipped and esteemed.

She invents nothing. She builds nothing. And outside of motherhood, she ‘creates’ nothing, but competes adequately with animals of her own condition.

From early childhood her instincts when facing sudden crises command her to scream reaching by hysterics for the nearest male to protect and ‘save’ her from peril.

Except for motherhood and its inherent connections, the human female has been and will continue to be the weaker sex in every serious stage of meaningful human competition.

Every instution having become ‘feminized’ becomes intellectually purified and therefore sterile.

Tyranny’s enemy is male rising from the male drive to be free to think, to do, to examine and penetrate the unknown.

Only within the modern religion and politics of American Marxism and its world of ‘mechanical’ bureaucracies does the human female dutifully perform well as programmed….and pleased with their contributions putting into some kind of order that which man has conceived, built, created.

Do read further the ‘thinking’ Maureen Dowd authoress of the question and book, “Are Men Necessary” to learn more about the human female mind.)

Maureen Dowd attempted to answer this question with her 2005 book, “Are Men Necessary?” I responded three years later with “Save the Males.”

With each generation, the question becomes more declarative and querulous. Recent demographic shifts show women gaining supremacy across a spectrum of quantitative measures, including education and employment. Women outnumber men in college and in most graduate fields. Increasingly, owing in part to the recession and job loss in historically male-dominated fields, they are surpassing men as wage-earners, though women still lag behind at the highest income and executive levels.

My argument that men should be saved is that, despite certain imperfections, men are fundamentally good and are sort of pleasant to have around. Most women still like to fall in love with them; all children want a father no matter how often we try to persuade ourselves otherwise. If we continue to impose low expectations and negative messaging on men and boys, future women won’t have much to choose from.

We are nearly there.

The Pew Research Center recently found that four in 10 American households with children under age 18 include a mother who is either the primary breadwinner or the sole earner (quadruple the share in 1960). The latter category is largely owing to the surge in single-mother households.

This reflects “evolving family dynamics,” according to the New York Times, which sounds rather nice, evolution being a good thing and all. But what it really represents is a continuing erosion of the traditional family and, consequently, what is best for children and, therefore, future society.

Before you reach for the inhaler, permit me to introduce a few disclaimers. First, I’m all for women achieving all they can. Obviously, I’m on that treadmill myself. I’ve raised three children while working (mostly self-employed and briefly as a single mom). There is no moisture behind my ears.

Second, women have joined the workforce in greater numbers because they’ve had to, not merely to hear themselves roar, as the Helen Reddy song once described women’s nascent self-realization. Children are expensive and one income seldom suffices. Thanks to the recession, many Americans count themselves lucky if even one member of the household has a job. And a single mother clearly has no other choice, though it is increasingly the case that women choose to be single parents as the biological clock runs down.

Nevertheless, trends that diminish the importance of fathers from the family unit cannot — or should not — be celebrated. Contrary to the Hollywood version of single motherhood, a trend that began with Murphy Brown more than 20 years ago, single mothers are more likely to be younger, black or Hispanic, and less educated, according to Pew, and they have a median family income of $23,000. In those families where married women earn more than their husbands, the woman is more often white, older and college educated and the median household income is $80,000.

In discussions of Pew’s findings, conversations the past few days have veered toward practical questions of men’s value. During a recent segment on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” guests — all women except Joe Scarborough, who looked sheepish and mostly kept his own counsel — visited the familiar question: Why do women even need men?

The ladies worked earnestly to find positive roles for their hirsute colleagues, noting that men can be useful in family planning, child care sharing, working as part of a team. Although a man’s presence was implicit in the hypothetical household, I waited futilely for emphasis to shift to the importance of fathers to their children’s well-being. “Father,” it seems, has become the new F-bomb. Oh, we’ll say “F#$&” in a in a 30-rock second, but “father”? The term, along with the concept, seems to have receded from popular usage, displaced by the vernacular of drive-by impregnators, the inane “baby daddy.”

Women, indeed, may not need men, though they seem to want them — at least until the estrogen ebbs. Women have become more self-sufficient (a good thing) and, given that they still do the lion’s share of housework and child rearing, why, really, should they invite a man to the clutter?

Because, simply, children need a father. That not all get a good one is no argument against what is true and irrevocable and everlasting. Deep in the marrow of every human child burbles a question far more profound than those currently occupying coffee klatches: Who is my daddy?

And sadly these days, where is he?

(Further comment: The human male seeks male behavior. Modern American society is being designed for females and female ‘equality’. But the human female has a female mind filled with the ditzy, the shallow, the end, not the beginning of ideas, the end, not the beginning of competition…..and competition’s achievements, the driving instinct for human male existence besides the survival of the species.)

Save Your Pennies: Cheapest ObamaCare Plan for Family, $20,000 per Year

What planet will you be living on when you get your first Obamacare billing? Have a good day thinking about it.

The following article was sent by Mark Waldeland:

IRS: Cheapest Obamacare Plan Will Be $20,000 Per Family

(CNSNews.com) – In a final regulation — http://www.irs.gov/PUP/newsroom/REG-148500-12%20FR.pdf — issued Wednesday, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) assumed that under Obamacare the cheapest health insurance plan available in 2016 for a family will cost $20,000 for the year.

Under Obamacare, Americans will be required to buy health insurance or pay a penalty to the IRS.

The IRS’s assumption that the cheapest plan for a family will cost $20,000 per year is found in examples the IRS gives to help people understand how to calculate the penalty they will need to pay the government if they do not buy a mandated health plan.

The examples point to families of four and families of five, both of which the IRS expects in its assumptions to pay a minimum of $20,000 per year for a bronze plan.

“The annual national average bronze plan premium for a family of 5 (2 adults, 3 children) is $20,000,” the regulation says. . . .

continued: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/irs-cheapest-obamacare-plan-will-be-20000-family

PRAGER NOTES BLACK RACISM IS DAMAGING TO BLACKS

Do Blacks and the Left Really Believe This?

By Dennis Prager – June 4, 2013

Here is a contemporary political truth: Every time you think that the left and its political party have hit moral bottom, they will eventually prove you wrong.

The most recent example occurred last week in Louisiana. The head of the Louisiana Democratic Party, State Senator Karen Carter Peterson, D-New Orleans, stood before her colleagues in the state Senate and announced the reason people oppose Obamacare.

“You ready?” she asked three times.

It is President Obama’s color.

“It isn’t about the administration, and it should not be about the administration of the state nor federal level when it comes to Obamacare,” she said. “But in fact it is. And why is that? I have talked to so many members in the House and Senate and you know what it comes down to? Are you ready for this? It is not about how many federal dollars we can receive. You ready? You want to know what it’s about? It’s about race. Now nobody wants to talk about that. It’s about the race of this African-American president. … It comes down to the race of the president of the U.S. which causes people to disconnect and step away from the substance of the bill.”

Now why would the head of a state Democratic Party — and a state senator — say something that is equally vile and moronic?

There are two possible explanations, and one is worse than the other.

One is that Peterson doesn’t believe what she said; that she said it solely in order to intimidate opponents of Obamacare. When a prominent black accuses anyone — even if it is most white people in America — of racism, it usually ends all debate.

This would, of course, reflect poorly on Peterson’s character, but it would actually be the more positive of the two possible explanations. Because the other possible explanation is that she really believes what she said. And if she really believes that the more than one hundred million Americans who oppose Obamacare — a CNN poll last week found that 54 percent of Americans oppose Obamacare — do so because Obama is black, America is in trouble.

America is in real trouble if Peterson represents a large majority of black Americans. And we have every reason to believe that she does. She represents a 48-percent black district. And virtually every black leader routinely charges whites with racism.

We simply need to be honest. Either the great majority of American whites are racist — indeed profoundly racist if they oppose Obamacare solely because the president is black — or the great majority of blacks wrongly perceive reality when it comes to their perceptions of whites. In either case, blacks and whites are living in parallel universes. And one of them is both factually and morally very wrong.

In my view, the idea that whites that oppose Obamacare do so because the president is black is one of those terrible lies that shape a society for ill.

But this is not only a commentary on present-day black America. It is even more so a commentary on the left.

Blacks have memories of genuine oppression that have left deep psychological scars. While we wish that reality would trump psychology here, we can understand — though not agree with — black anger at white America.

But the non-black left — which routinely accuses whites who oppose the president of racism — has no such excuse. Paul Krugman of the New York Times, Chris Matthews of MSNBC, former president Jimmy Carter, Frank Rich of New York Magazine, and so many others on the left have no psychological excuse for saying white opposition to Obama is racist. Their charge is just malicious.

This is just one more example of the societal destruction wrought by the left. Ironically, in this instance its primary victims are … blacks.

Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/06/04/do_blacks_and_the_left_really_believe_this_118673.html#ixzz2VJL4rhTy
Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter

Krauthammer: Who Gave the Order to IRS to Sabotage the Tea Party?

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: Well, McDermott is so far in the tank, he’s just a lap dog of the left. He hasn’t even received the message from the Democrats that you’re supposed to being a knowledge it was wrong and to apologize which was done by the Democrat who was the ranking member on the committee today.

The president himself called the conduct outrageous. The new director of the IRS has said it was a breach of trust of America, and McDermott is pretending that somehow it was the fault of the tea party because like all Americans, they follow the law, made application for legal exemptions of one kind or another, and were discriminated against.

I mean, it’s embarrassing, butI think some Democrats are beyond embarrassment on this. There is no defense, even Democrats admit there is no defense. The only question is where the idea came from, who knew, who gave the order, who condoned it, and then who learned about it later and did nothing. And those are the important questions.

Today was important because it gave a face to what is a number, a 501c4 which is an abstraction. It showed how the First Amendment really affected real people. And that now is done. I think from now on, the task is to trace the chain and find out where it went, [how] high up, who started it and who knew about it. (Special Report, June 4, 2013)

more on video below:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/06/04/krauthammer_vs_juan_on_irs_scandal_only_question_is_where_the_idea_came_from.html

Krauthammer on IRS Scandal: “Is the White House’s Best Defense Stupidity?”

video: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/06/03/krauthammer_on_irs_scandal_is_the_white_houses_best_defense_stupidity.html

Moms Are Breadwinners Because There Are No Dads

BREADWINNER MOMS by Mona Charen at realclearpolitics:

The headlines were misleading: “Moms are Breadwinners in Record 4 of 10 Households.” Immediate thought:

Wow, 40 percent of wives are primary breadwinners. Nope. If you read down to the fifth or sixth paragraph in most stories about the new Pew study, you’d discover that the number of women out-earning their husbands was actually just 22.5 percent of married couples with children under the age of 18. The 40 percent figure includes single-parent households, in which the mom is not the primary, but the sole, earner.

They’re always lauded, those single moms. Politicians of both parties always append the word “heroic” to them.

But the profile of single mothers has changed dramatically since 1960, when only 4 percent were “never married.” In previous decades, women became single mothers through divorce, desertion or death. In 2011, 44 percent of single moms were never married.

Pew devoted some attention to the question of how Americans feel about wives out-earning their husbands.

Sixty-three percent of respondents (including 75 percent of college graduates) disagreed with the statement:

“It’s generally better for a marriage if the husband earns more than the wife.” Maybe that’s of interest to Sheryl Sandberg and some of her colleagues, but it’s not an urgent concern for society.

Wives who earn more than their husbands, like wives who earn less than their husbands, are part of the healthy elite in America — married couples. Their children are going to do well. Only a tiny minority of children from intact homes are going to get into trouble with the law, experience poverty, get pregnant as teenagers, commit suicide, acquire a drug addiction, perform poorly in school or wind up on public assistance. All of those troubles, and more, will be statistically much more likely for kids who grow up in single parent homes.

We know as well as we can know anything in social science that two parent families are best for children and for society. American married couples are solving the work/family balance in any number of ways. The overwhelming majority of mothers prefer to take the lion’s share of childcare responsibilities, and an equally large percentage of fathers prefer to be primary breadwinners. Other surveys have found married parents of both sexes spending more time than ever with their kids.

The slow growth economy under Obama has added to the burdens of all mothers, though, and this shows up in surveys about how much women would like to work. A 2007 Pew survey found that only 21 percent of mothers described their “ideal” situation as working full-time. In 2012, 37 percent said they’d like full-time work. In 2007, 60 percent said part-time work was their ideal. By 2012, 50 percent said so. More than twice as many men as women lost jobs during the recession, and women’s interest in work may reflect the state of the family’s finances more than anything else.

But what are we to make of the ever-swelling population of women who don’t have the luxury of part-time work because they chose to bear and raise children alone?

Pew tells us something unsurprising — the younger you are, the more likely that you are an enabler of this socially suicidal pattern. Seventy-four percent of those aged 50 and older say the rising number of single mothers is a big problem. The percentages decline steadily with the ages of respondents. Only 42 percent of those aged 18 to 29 think single parenting by choice is a big problem.

Some liberals, like President Obama, pay lip service to the importance of fathers. “I was raised by a heroic single mother” he told Morehouse graduates, “but I still wish I had a father who was not only present but involved.” That’s helpful, but liberalism has been the consistent cheerleader for burying the old stigmas that kept families intact. Liberals don’t mind if you want to have an intact family, but they bristle at the notion that you might recommend it for everyone. Katie Roiphe, for example, delights in the fact that 53 percent of the babies born to women under 30 are illegitimate. “If there is anything that currently oppresses the children,” she wrote recently in The New York Times, “it is the idea of the way families are ‘supposed to be’ …”

Roiphe is partially right — ideas can be oppressive. Liberal ideas are undermining marriage and condemning millions of children to unnecessary poverty, instability and unhappiness.

Comment: With American society as it is today with its collection of feminists and Marxists, black racists, Union gangsters, the products of Gay-Lesbian one sex studies, the press, religious and educational bureaucracies entwined in Obamaling politics, what would be the lure to father children, raise them in such environments which are criminal to normal male inquiry, energy, creativity, curiosity, problem solving, and invention?

Human Females Fit Bureaucracies Better Than Males

Breadwinning Wives and Nervous Husbands
By RICHARD H. THALER

GIRLS are generally outperforming boys in high school, and then proceeding in greater numbers to attend and graduate from college. And as women take the helm as chief executives of more major corporations, including Hewlett-Packard, I.B.M. and PepsiCo, there are hints that the glass ceiling may be at least cracking, if not breaking.

Such developments should encourage aspiring young women to believe that social norms are changing, and that barriers to success are dropping. But a new study reveals that women’s gains on the economic front may be contributing to a decline in the formation and stability of marriages.

One reason for this decline may be that women with greater earning power have greater economic security that allows them to leave bad marriages. Yet another possibility is that many men seem to be clinging to a social norm from the “Mad Men” days: that the husband should be the primary earner in a family.

There is an obvious disconnect here. Those men who spent their teenage years goofing off and their college years drinking beer shouldn’t be surprised that women who consistently received higher grades and continued further in school might now be earning more money as well. But the evidence suggests that while men tend to applaud their spouses when they help to bring home the bacon, husbands aren’t always as enthusiastic when women start bringing home the filet mignon. And it’s especially troubling that these old-fashioned social norms about gender identity appear to be adversely affecting family formation and stability.

This is the finding of an interesting new paper by Marianne Bertrand, Emir Kamenica and Jessica Pan, three economists who are colleagues of mine at the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business. They found that traditional views of gender identity, particularly the view that the right and proper role of the husband is to make more money than the wife, are affecting choices of whom to marry, how much to work, and even whether to stay married.

Suppose that both men and women are happier — all else being equal — the more money their spouse makes. In such a world, couples wouldn’t care whether the man or woman earns more, so the population of couples would have what we call a “normal distribution,” and would be captured in a bell-shaped curve. But that’s not what we see in the real-world data.

Instead, there is a sharp drop in the number of male-female couples at exactly the point where the woman starts to earn more than half of household income.

This finding supports earlier research from speed-dating sessions, which found that while women prefer men to be intelligent and ambitious, men have these preferences for women only to the point where women threaten to earn more than they do. These preferences appear to be reflected in whom people choose to marry and in how much women choose to work outside the home.

Women’s earnings have been rising relative to men’s over the past 40 years — though, on average, women’s pay still lags behind. One sign of change is seen in a recent study from Pew Research, which finds that mothers are providing more than half the income in 15 percent of married households with children at home, up from 3.5 percent in 1960. Given such trends, it’s logical that problems would arise if men kept their desire to be the primary breadwinners.

This may be one of many reasons that the share of young adults in marriages decreased 30 to 50 percent across various racial and ethnic groups from 1970 to 2008. Clearly, a choice to marry later in life explains part of this decline, but Ms. Bertrand and her co-authors estimate that the trend in the percentage of women making more than men explains almost one-fourth of the marriage rate’s decline in the 40 years ended in 2010.

What happens when a man marries a woman who has the education and skills to earn more than him? The couple can avoid violating the “man earns more” social norm if the woman works part time or leaves the labor force altogether. The authors found evidence of both choices. But what if the woman stays in the labor force and does earn more than her spouse? How does this affect the marriage? The findings here are striking. In such couples, surveys show, both wife and husband generally report being less happy about the marriage.

Given these findings, it isn’t surprising that when a wife earns more than her husband, the risk of divorce rises, too. To study this, the authors used a survey conducted in two waves, 1987-88 and 1992-93. (There were no more recent data available for this particular test.) Then they investigated the likelihood of a divorce in the five-year interval. For this sample, some 12 percent of all couples were divorced during this period — a sobering fact about the stability of marriages in general. But the divorce rate rose by half, to about 18 percent, for couples in which the wife earned more than the husband.

How to explain the jump? Some people might think that a wife who earns more will do fewer household chores than her tradition-bound mate expects. Regardless of your opinion about men who harbor such feelings, the facts rule out that explanation: women who earn more than their husbands actually do a greater share of household chores, compared with couples in which the wife works but earns less.

The paper’s findings support the anecdotal complaints of many highly educated, high-earning women who say they can’t find suitable husbands. And as women continue to outperform men in school, these problems are likely to grow. Perhaps over time, men will catch on to this new world and accept the fact that hard-working girls may well turn into highly paid women.

Until that realization sinks in, problems arising from tradition-bound notions of gender identity will keep taking a toll on our economy and our families. Employers, however, may have opportunities to help.

For a variety of reasons, including the stubbornly persistent norm that women assume more than half the responsibility for raising children, many highly educated women would like to work part-time at a level commensurate with their skills. Businesses, however, have been slow to adapt, even as technology makes it much easier to do some or all of one’s work from home. I believe that there are substantial economic opportunities for companies that find ways to hire the millions of talented but underemployed mothers in our economy.

But now back to the notion of couples’ contentment: Is there any way to tell whether it’s the wife or the husband who becomes unhappy when the wife earns more? Does he think that she is threatening his manliness, or does she think that he’s a slacker?

That may be impossible to answer, partly because of something I learned long ago from Alvin E. Roth, a Nobel laureate in economics last year. I call it Roth’s rule: In equilibrium, it’s impossible for you to be happier than your spouse.

If you and your spouse both understand that rule, you’re both likely to be happier — regardless of how much money either of you make.

Richard H. Thaler is a professor of economics and behavioral science at the Booth School of Business at the University of Chicago.

Mike Levin Curses His Own Generation for Uncle Sam’s Collapse

Levin doesn’t refer to drug and crotch life and voting, the stupidity and Godlessness as central to his generation’s current voting, drugging, sexual, anti-intellectual, civil and moral misbehavior. The nation has lost its religion, its Christianity, the one force that dominated the Nation’s conscience, guidance, and general social, ethical and moral behavior.

Enter Barack Hussein Obama, the product of the new realm, devious, dishonest, disingenuousness, duplicitous; a tyrant with a tongue….a non American who prefers the sanctity of black misbehavior, no matter how criminal, to follow the traditions of the Law of the Land, its Federal Constitution. He is the man of Mark Levin’s generation, but not an American.

Click on to follow Mark Levin’s emotions of self flagelation……but one must remember, it was my generation which produced the Mark Levins, but the Nancy Pelosis, Dick Durbins, Harry Reids, Maxine Waters, and Charles Schumers and countless Obamalings which have run the nation into its Marxism giving all good things American a bad story and name:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/06/01/mark_levin_its_my_generation_that_has_shredded_the_constitution.html

A Tribute to Michele Bachmann

article sent by Mark Waldeland:

MICHELE BACHMANN Assessing her legacy in the U.S. Congress

Michele Bachmann has defended the unborn and the institution of marriage. She has fought for all taxpayers by fighting against bailouts of institutions that failed largely due to government intervention in the marketplace. She fought against trillion-dollar deficit spending that will confiscate the earnings of wage earners for many years to come. She’s fought against ever expanding government programs that, under the guise of “helping” people, create an enervating and enslaving dependency on government.

To the enlightened left, who see ever-lowering moral standards and ever-increasing dependency on government as an increase in freedom, these actions make her a failure. But to us unenlightened rubes who think that there actually is a connection between truth and freedom, and a role for following the rule of law as established by our Constitution, she is a heroine. Thank you, Michele! Carry on!

Michael Bird, St. Anthony

Bullying Bill by Minnesota’s Lefties Introduces Police Pursuits into Public AND Private School

http://www.twincities.com/education/ci_23193980/joe-soucheray-do-kids-really-need-be-monitored

Joe Soucheray: Do kids really need to be monitored like hothouse orchids to prevent bullying?

I would imagine that much of the concern compelling the proposed new law is manufactured on behalf of kids struggling with sexual identity issues. They should not be bullied, and five will get you 10 that teachers are already alert to that dynamic. Proponents of the new measure say that not enough is being done, thus the need for new programs, administered by a central office, created out of whole cloth.
Which can only mean that new programs are intended to be put in place to monitor the kids like hothouse orchids. What they say, think and feel, much less what they might express physically, will have to pass the muster of the school climate center. I don’t think I am exaggerating. The ramifications are problematic, at best. Is it bullying if a guy cancels out on a prom date at the last minute? Is it bullying if a student pipes up in class that he or she is in favor of conventional marriage? That could hurt somebody’s feelings. Would hurt feelings constitute bullying?

And if hurt feelings constitute bullying, then it stands to reason that the school climate center — I’m seeing a NASA space launch-type room with computers and television monitors — would have to send out an agent for perhaps some bureaucratically approved indoctrination.

It all comes under the rubric of being careful what you wish for. This kind of proposal seems to suggest that the kids will be taught by bureaucrats what they can think, feel and even say in order for those thoughts, feelings and speech to fall within the guidelines established by the state.

**************************************

[Minnesota Family Council]

S.F. No. 783/HF 826) will impose a $26 million mandate on all schools and require “politically correct” diversity training in all public and private schools in the state.* [*The Senate version of the bill includes private, religious schools. ]

Requires schools to monitor student communications, not just in the school and school events, but whenever students might be communicating with other students.
Applies to private, religious schools. Massive and unprecedented attack on the rights of religious schools to direct the operation and content of the programs.
Imposes a costly, unfunded mandate on all public and private schools. (In the Senate bill.) Fiscal notes the annual cost for schools will be $26 million.
The definition of the bill is likely unconstitutional because of its overbroad reach. In the Senate bill, anything which has a “detrimental effect on the physical, social or emotional health of a student” constitutes bullying under the bill. This could include comments, intended or not, which makes a student feel bad. Or which “creates or exacerbates a real or perceived imbalance of power between students”. What does that mean?
Gives special attention and protections to at least 19 groups in society, including “sexual orientation” and “gender identity and expression” (boys and girls who want to dress as the opposite sex). So if male student comes to school dressed in female clothing and is teased. That would constitute bullying under this bill.
Bureaucratic nightmare. Forces schools to document, retain the records of thousands of bullying complaints, incidents, real or perceived and forward information to the state.
Would be used as a tool to reshape the attitudes and values of school-age children regarding family structure and sexuality
Goes far beyond bullying to require schools to “prevent and reduce discrimination”. This could include, alternative views on sexuality and family structure issues.
In short, this bill will create an administrative nightmare for school officials, and impose burdensome and confusing legal responsibilities on teachers, school staff, and volunteers. It represents a gross intrusion on parental autonomy and religious freedom in both public and private schools.

article sent by Mark Waldeland

Obama Blames Uncle Sam for Violence in Mexico

‘Guns made in America’ is still on the president’s mind. It is a narrow mind. Mr. Barack Hussein Obama doesn’t want to rile his rank and file drug and sex lefty university culture flank who along with black urban center plantation racists reelected him to degrade further a nation already in financial trouble, religious, and moral decline.

The majority of Barack Hussein’s voters in 2012 paid no federal income tax…….but thrive from a lifetime of forced tax-payer ‘largesse’ who do.

OBAMA BLAMES U.S. FOR GUN VIOLENCE IN MEXICO

video from realclearpolitics:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/05/03/obama_blames_us_for_gun_violence_in_mexico_pushes_for_gun_control.html