Dawgy_Style

Parents, how would you feel if you found out that your junior or senior high school daughter was showering with a boy at school?  Then how would you feel if you were told by the school that there is nothing they or you can do about it?
Last week, the California Assembly (same as House of Representatives in most states) passed Assembly Bill 1266 by a 46-25 vote.  Currently, there are 54 Democrats, 25 Republicans and 1 vacancy.  All 46 votes for the bill were Democrats as no Republicans voted for in favor of the measure.
AB 1266 states that public schools cannot discriminate in any way concerning the sex of the student.  Both sexes are to have equal access to all offered courses, counseling and athletics.  Any student can try out for any sport, regardless of their sex.
But the kicker is this statement contained in the bill:

“SECTION 1.  Section 221.5 of the Education Code is amended to read:”
“(f) A pupil shall be permitted to participate in sex-segregated school programs and facilities, including athletic teams and competitions, and use facilities consistent with his or her gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records.”

In other words, any boy who claims he is a girl, even though he is anatomically still a boy, would be allowed to use the same locker rooms and showers that the girls use.  On the opposite side, a girl claiming to be a boy but is still anatomically a girl would be allowed to shower with all the boys.  They don’t even have to be undergoing any form of sex change therapy, just say they are the opposite sex from what they really are and they can parade around in all their glory in either locker room or shower.

Would it surprise you to learn that the bill’s author, Assemblyman Tom Ammiano is a Democrat and homosexual from San Francisco?  He is also heavily involved in LGBT activist groups. In 1975 Ammiano became the first public school teacher in San Francisco to publicly admit that he was a homosexual.
In some warped sense of logic, Ammiano believes that this bill doesn’t violate or pose a problem to anyone else’s rights. Defending his gay bill he said:

“There’s no trampling of other people’s rights. There’s a recognition that other people have the same rights that you do. It’s also important to protect our children from prejudice.”

Oh really? What about the right of privacy, modesty and decency? What about the right of a parent to protect their child from sexual perversion and nudity of the opposite sex?
I wouldn’t expect anyone with the perverse morals of a homosexual to understand that millions of parents do not want their children exposed to the shameless naked displays of the opposite sex if at all possible, and that is exactly what this bill will allow.
What is to stop a boy from wanting his thrills by claiming to be a girl just so that he can shower with them and expose himself to them every day at school? What would stop that same boy from eventually claiming that he was wrong and that he’s really a boy so that he can return to his normal life when the thrill is gone? Will there be any monitoring of the so-called gender identity individuals to make sure that they are not taking advantage of a member of the opposite sex?
This bill is not about equal rights for gays, it’s about privileged rights! Yes it does trample on the rights of others but that’s exactly their intention. They don’t want equality, they want preferential treatment and rights that go above and beyond what normal people have. And unless Christians start standing up for their rights and get involved in politics at the local, state, and federal levels, we will lose all or privileges to the sexual perverts whose agenda is to destroy Christian America!

Read more: http://politicaloutc.../#ixzz2TIj2ah13

Speaking in Mexico on Friday, President Barack Obama blamed U.S. gun manufactures for the violence in the country, adding that much of it stems from the American demand for illegal drugs.
"Much of the root cause for violence that has been happening here in Mexico, for which so many Mexicans have suffered, is the demand for illegal drugs in the United States," Obama said during a speech at Mexico's Anthropology Museum
He then turned his attention to U.S. gun owners and gun control.
"Most of the guns used to commit violence here in Mexico come from the United States," Obama said."I think many of you know that in America, our Constitution guarantees our individual right to bear arms. And as president, I swore an oath to uphold that right, and I always will."
"But at the same time, as I've said in the United States, I will continue to do everything in my power to pass common-sense reforms that keep guns out of the hands of criminals and dangerous people," he added.
"That can save lives here in Mexico and back home in the United States. It's the right thing to do," Obama said.

The Pentagon has released a statement confirming that soldiers could be prosecuted for promoting their faith: "Religious proselytization is not permitted within the Department of Defense...Court martials and non-judicial punishments are decided on a case-by-case basis...”.

The statement, released to Fox News, follows a Breitbart News report on Obama administration Pentagon appointees meeting with anti-Christian extremist Mikey Weinstein to develop court-martial procedures to punish Christians in the military who express or share their faith.
(From our earlier report: Weinstein is the head of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, and says Christians--including chaplains--sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ in the military are guilty of “treason,” and of committing an act of “spiritual rape” as serious a crime as “sexual assault.” He also asserted that Christians sharing their faith in the military are “enemies of the Constitution.”)
Being convicted in a court martial means that a soldier has committed a crime under federal military law. Punishment for a court martial can include imprisonment and being dishonorably discharged from the military.
So President Barack Obama’s civilian appointees who lead the Pentagon are confirming that the military will make it a crime--possibly resulting in imprisonment--for those in uniform to share their faith. This would include chaplains—military officers who are ordained clergymen of their faith (mostly Christian pastors or priests, or Jewish rabbis)--whose duty since the founding of the U.S. military under George Washington is to teach their faith and minister to the spiritual needs of troops who come to them for counsel, instruction, or comfort.
This regulation would severely limit expressions of faith in the military, even on a one-to-one basis between close friends. It could also effectively abolish the position of chaplain in the military, as it would not allow chaplains (or any service members, for that matter), to say anything about their faith that others say led them to think they were being encouraged to make faith part of their life. It’s difficult to imagine how a member of the clergy could give spiritual counseling without saying anything that might be perceived in that fashion.
In response to the Pentagon’s plans, retired Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin, who is now executive vice president of the Family Research Council (FRC), said on Fox & Friends Wednesday morning:

It’s a matter of what do they mean by "proselytizing." ...I think they’ve got their defintions a little confused. If you’re talking about coercion that’s one thing, but if you’re talking about the free exercise of our faith as individual soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines, especially for the chaplains, they I think the worst thing we can do is stop the ability for a soldier to be able to exercise his faith.”

FRC has launched a petition here which has already collected over 30,000 signatures, calling on Secretary Hagel is stop working with Weinstein and his anti-Christian organization to develop military policy regarding religious faith.
**UPDATE**
The FRC petition has now exceeded more than 40,000 signatures at the time of this update.
Breitbart News legal columnist Ken Klukowski is senior fellow for religious liberty with the Family Research Council and on faculty at Liberty University School of Law.