Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : How Quickly Can Obama Totally Destroy the US? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MJ who wrote (1616)	2/22/2013 2:58:33 PM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 16547

Students Who Refuse to Affirm Transgender Classmates Face Punishment Feb 20, 2013 By Todd Starnes Parents across Massachusetts are upset over new rules that would not only allow transgender students to use their restrooms of their choice – but would also punish students who refuse to affirm or support their transgender classmates. Last week the Massachusetts Department of Education issued directives for handling transgender students – including allowing them to use the bathrooms of their choice or to play on sports teams that correspond to the gender with which they identify. The 11-page directive also urged schools to eliminate gender-based clothing and gender-based activities – like having boys and girls line up separately to leave the classroom. Schools will now be required to accept a student’s gender identity on face value. “A student who says she is a girl and wishes to be regarded that way throughout the school day and throughout every, or almost every, other area of her life, should be respected and treated like a girl,” the guidelines stipulate. According to the Dept. of Education, transgender students are those whose assigned birth sex does not match their “internalized sense of their gender.” They said gender nonconforming students “range in the ways in which they identify as male, female, some combination of both, or neither.” “The responsibility for determining a student’s gender identity rests with the student,” the guidelines dictate. “One’s gender identity is an innate, largely inflexible characteristic of each individual’s personality that is generally established by age four…As a result, the person best situated to determine a student’s gender identity is that student himself or herself.” The new rules would also prevent teachers and administrators from telling parents with which gender their child identifies. “School personnel should speak with the student first before discussing a student’s gender nonconformity or transgender status with the student’s parent or guardian,” the directive states. The guidelines were issued at the request of the state board of education to help schools follow the 2011 anti-discrimination law protecting transgender students. “These students, because of widespread misunderstanding and lack of knowledge about their lives, are at a higher risk for peer ostracism, victimization, and bullying, the document read. The Massachusetts Family Institute denounced the new rules calling them a violation of privacy. “Fundamentally, boys need to be using the boys’ room and girls need to be using the girls’ rooms, and we base that on their anatomical sex, not some sort of internalized gender identity,” said Andrew Beckwith, the institute’s general counsel. Beckwith told Fox News the new policy has a “very broad standard that is ripe for abuse.” “The policy allows students to have one gender identity at home and another at school,” he said. “And it refuses to let teachers and administrators tell parents what gender their child is at school.” Another part of the directive that troubles parents deals with students who might feel comfortable having someone of the opposite sex in their locker room or bathroom. The state takes those students to task – noting their discomfort “is not a reason to deny access to the transgender student.” And any student who refuses to refer to a transgendered student by the name or sex they identify with could face punishment. For example – a fifth grade girl might feel uncomfortable using the restroom if there is an eighth grade transgendered boy in the next stall. Under the state guidelines, the girl would have no recourse, Beckwith said. “And if the girl continued to complain she could be subjected to discipline for not affirming that student’s gender identity choice,” he told Fox News. “It should not be tolerated and can be grounds for student discipline,” the directive states. Gunner Scott, of the Massachusetts Transgender Political Coalition, praised the directive – and said punishing students who refuse to acknowledge a student’s gender identity is appropriate because it amounts to bullying. “The reality is that it’s about creating an inclusive environment for all students to learn,” Scott said. But many parents disagreed and said the directive actually gives transgendered students more rights and privileges than other students. “It doesn’t treat all students the same,” said Bill Gillmeister, of Brookfield, Mass. “It has a greater preference to gender-identifying children. That concerns me a great deal.” Gillmeister told Fox News he has a son and daughter in high school. He also serves as a school committeeman. He wondered about safety and fairness – especially when it comes to athletics. Under the new rules transgendered students will be allowed to play on either boys or girls teams. “What about the girl who loses a spot on that basketball team because a boy is able to play as a girl,” Gillmeister wondered. He worried about boys going into the girls locker rooms and vice versa. “As a father of a daughter who might be playing sports, that concerns me greatly,” he said. “My daughter would likely not play a sport that she would otherwise play if she knew there was a potential for a boy to walk into the girl’s locker room.” Gillmeister predicted no matter what happens – there will be lawsuits. “It will either be the girl who didn’t get a seat on the basketball team because some boy got it or some boy who wanted to use the girls’ room but was denied access,” he said. Beckwith and others say the education department is using a loophole in the anti-discrimination law to create a “stealth bathroom bill.” “It’s affecting students as young as kindergarten,” he said. The directive also calls on schools to implement gender neutral clothing rules. “For example, some schools require students to wear gender-based garb for graduation or have gender-based dress codes for prom, special events and daily attire,” the directive states. “Schools should eliminate gendered policies and practices such as these.” They pointed out on school that changed its dress code for the National Honor Society. The new policy does not require girls to wear dresses. They also instructed schools to stop lining up students based on gender. Instead, they recommended lining up students using their birthdays or alphabetically. Beckwith said it seems like Massachusetts is trying to create gender-neutral schools. “They’re encouraging schools to eliminate all gender based distinctions,” he said. radio.foxnews.com

To: MJ who wrote (1616)	2/22/2013 3:59:23 PM
From: joseffy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 16547

Hagel nomination proves Obama not serious about stopping nuclear Iran. By Mona Charen February 22, 2013 nationalreview.com Does it matter that a nominee for secretary of defense doesn’t particularly care for American power? Speaking to the Center for Strategic and International Studies in 2007, Senator Chuck Hagel revealed the kind of prejudices regarding American military strength most frequently found in the pages of the The Nation or among protesters at Occupy rallies. Distancing himself from Republicans he regarded as too bellicose, Hagel said, Rather than acting like a nation riddled with the insecurities of a schoolyard bully, we ought to carry ourselves with the confidence that should come from the dignity of our heritage, the experience of our history, and from the strength of our humanity, not from the power of our military. This is a familiar leftist critique of America, a pseudo-psychological analysis of our foreign policy as a form of pathology. For a certain set of people, the problems in the world are never Soviet aggression and expansionism, communist repression and adventurism, or Islamic radicalism and terror. No, the problem is always America’s neurotic need to throw its weight around, alienating benign foreign powers and creating discord and trouble. Whereas fair-minded people the world over consider the Islamic Republic of Iran to be a terror-sponsoring gangster regime, Senator Hagel described the Iranian regime at his confirmation hearing as an “elected and legitimate” government. A friendly Democratic senator later offered him an avenue for retreat, which he grabbed, saying, “What I meant to say — should have said — it’s recognizable.” What regime isn’t “recognizable”? What solicitous Democrats cannot obscure is that Senator Hagel has a long record of softness toward Iran. He voted against designating al-Quds a terrorist entity, advised direct negotiations with the mullahs, opposed sanctions, and suggested that a military response to Iran’s nuclear program is not a “viable, feasible, responsible option.” In a 2007 speech, he praised Iran’s cooperation with the U.S. in Afghanistan and noted that our two nations had found “common interests.” From these, Hagel continued, “emerged common actions working toward a common purpose.” This is sheer fantasy — disturbing enough in a U.S. senator but profoundly unsettling in a secretary of defense. Just two months before Hagel sprinkled these rhetorical rosebuds at the mullahs’ feet, an al-Quds force had attacked our forces in Karbala, Iraq. We were not at war with Iran (or not consciously). Time magazine reported the ambush: In the back of two of the vehicles were the four Americans. One of them was alive, though barely. Handcuffed, he had been shot in the back of the head, but he was breathing. The other soldiers were already dead. One had taken bullets in both legs and his right hand, and at some point the kidnappers had torn open his body armor and fired bullets into his chest and torso. Two others were handcuffed together, with one’s right hand joined to the other’s left. Two shots in the face and neck had killed one. Four bullets in the chest had killed the other. The al-Quds terrorists had stolen all of the men’s ID tags. Before dying, one of them had scrawled his name in the dust of the jeep. Hagel is not worried about a nuclear Iran. In his 2008 book, he notes blithely that “the genie of nuclear weapons is already out of the bottle no matter what Iran does.” In that same year, Hagel proposed that the State Department open an “interests section” in Tehran. Before the Hagel nomination, we lived with the polite fiction that President Obama was determined to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons. The president has reiterated this position consistently since 2007. Mr. Hagel demonstrated confusion about it during his confirmation hearing, mumbling that “we have no position on containment.” For clarity, Senator Carl Levin (another helpful Democrat) corrected Hagel. “We do have a position on containment, and that is we do not favor containment.” As recently as last September, President Obama said, “Make no mistake: A nuclear-armed Iran is not a challenge that can be contained. . . . The United States will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.” But who can take that boilerplate seriously now? The president has nominated a man for defense secretary who warms the heart of the terror regime in Tehran, a man who despises U.S. power, a man who opposed not just military action but even sanctions against Iran. That the president refuses to withdraw this nomination makes nonsense of his repeated pledges to thwart Iran’s nuclear ambitions. If ever a nomination were filibuster-worthy, this is it.

To: MJ who wrote (1616)	2/22/2013 6:31:05 PM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 16547

Gas Prices Soar 51 Cents in Just Two Months CNS News ^ \| February 18, 2013 \| Julia Seymour

To: MJ who wrote (1616)	2/23/2013 11:02:08 AM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 16547

Firearm Co's REFUSING Sales to Gov't Agencies... Firearm Co's REFUSING Sales to Gov't Agencies... Firearms Companies Restricting Sales to Government Agencies in Areas That Restrict Gun Rights By Gregory Gwyn-Williams, Jr. February 22, 2013 A growing number of firearm and firearm-related companies have stated they will no longer sell items to states, counties, cities and municipalities that restrict their citizens' rights to own them. According to The Police Loophole, 34 companies have joined in publicly stating that governments who seek to restrict 2nd Amendment rights will themselves be restricted from purchasing the items they seek to limit or ban. Extreme Firepower Inc., located in Inwood, WV has had a longstanding policy that states: "The Federal Government and several states have enacted gun control laws that restrict the public from owning and possessing certain types of firearms...If a product that we manufacture is not legal for a private citizen to own in a jurisdiction, we will not sell that product to a law-enforcement agency in that jurisdiction." York Arms, located in Buxton, ME released a statement following new legislation in New York: "Based on the recent legislation in New York, we are prohibited from selling rifles and receivers to residents of New York. We have chosen to extend that prohibition to all governmental agencies associated with or located within New York." Quality Arms, located in Rigby, ID writes on their website, "elected officials have their own agenda to circumnavigate the truth and destroy the constitution of the United States." The site states: "Quality Arms Idaho will not supply and firearm or product, manufactured by us, or any other company nor will we warranty, repair, alter, or modify and firearm owned by any State, County or Municipality who infringes on the right of its citizens to bear arms under the 2nd Amendment." Bravo Company USA states: "The people at Bravo Company USA and BCM support responsible private individuals having access to the same tools of civilian Law Enforcement to affect the same ends...As such Bravo Company's policy is that law enforcement officials and departments will be restricted to the same type of products available to responsible private individuals of that same city or state." To view the full list click here.