http://onlineathens.com/local-news/2016-04-17/state-proposals-lgbt-rights-push-business-spotlight

State proposals on LGBT rights push business into spotlight

ATLANTA | Major corporations invested in Southern states have become some of the staunchest opponents of bills they consider discriminatory, facing off against Republican lawmakers eager to portray their states as the best home for global brands.

The NFL, Apple and other behemoths have cajoled Republicans into rejecting or softening bills in recent years that supporters say protect people who oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds. Companies are speaking up loudly again this year in states where such bills have been proposed as part of a backlash to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that effectively legalized gay marriage.

"As a company that is committed to the principle that everyone deserves to live without fear of discrimination simply for being who they are, becoming an employer in North Carolina, where members of our teams will not have equal rights under the law, is simply untenable," California-based PayPal CEO Dan Schulman said in a statement last week ending plans to hire 400 people for a new operations center in Charlotte. The decision is among the largest tangible effects of a new North Carolina law overruling LGBT anti-discrimination measures passed by local governments.

Watchers of corporate America's approach to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender issues said such public statements are only one way companies have been supportive, pointing to several years of efforts to win over LGBT employees and customers.

CEOs sometimes take the lead, as in 2013 when Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz told a shareholder who believed the company's pro-gay marriage position hurt profits: "Not every decision is an economic decision." Some companies have gone beyond what's required by state or federal law for equal employment policies and benefits. The Corporate Equality Index survey conducted by the Human Rights Campaign, which has graded companies' environment for LGBT employees since 2002, gave 13 companies a perfect score that first year. This year's survey reported 407 companies hit that mark.

When Cindy Armine-Klein joined the payment technology company First Data in 2014, the firm had recently scored below 50 on the survey. CEO Frank Bisignano told Armine-Klein when she was hired as chief control officer that year to prioritize creation of LGBT programs.

Since then, the company has added coverage of domestic partners to employee benefits, included gender identity in its anti-discrimination policies and created a group to connect LGBT employees around the country. When a bill shielding opponents of same-sex marriage cleared the Georgia legislature this year, concerns quickly reached executives through that network.

The firm, headquartered in Atlanta, joined about 500 others opposing the bill. Bisignano made a personal call to thank Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal following his veto of the measure.

"When you have the opportunity to bring your whole self to work, that creates happy, active, creative employees," said Armine-Klein, who married her wife in 2011. "That is good for the employee; that is good for us as a company; that is good for our clients."

But firms also want to be on equal footing with competitors.

Nearly 400 companies last March signed on to a court document filed with the U.S. Supreme Court during its review of several states' gay marriage bans, three months before the justices effectively legalized the unions. Attorneys representing the broad coalition of companies, from online retailer Amazon to video game developer Zynga, wrote the "fractured legal landscape" of differing state policies on marriage harmed the companies' ability to operate across state lines.

M.V. Lee Badgett, an economics professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst with a focus on LGBT issues, said companies have made the same argument about proposals moving through state legislatures this year.

"The patchwork of laws on marriage wasn't working for them," Badgett said. "Now we're looking at a new patchwork developing. That's not going to work for them, either."

Prospective employees or current workers offered promotions may turn them down if they have to relocate to a state where laws aren't considered LGBT-friendly, said Steve Bucherati, who retired in 2015 after more than a decade as Coca-Cola's chief diversity officer.

"Bluntly, companies exist to make money for share-owners," he said. "And you can make more money for your share-owners if you can attract, develop and retain the best employees."

The pushback to bills proposed in several Southern states retreads ground from a 2014 Arizona clash. That state's legislature approved a bill allowing business owners with strongly held religious beliefs to deny service to gays and lesbians. American Airlines and Apple joined with state business groups to oppose the measure, while the NFL said it would reconsider selecting Arizona to host the next Super Bowl.

Days later, then-Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican, said the bill "could divide Arizona in ways we cannot even imagine" and vetoed it.

The pressure can run both ways. Conservative organizations including the American Family Association have urged people to cancel their PayPal accounts because of its opposition to the North Carolina law. And the Faith and Freedom Coalition, a conservative Christian organization, is asking supporters to write letters to companies opposing the law.

In Georgia, a state senator said he won't buy tickets to or watch any Atlanta Braves baseball games this year because the team "opposed modest religious freedom laws." The Braves joined around 500 other companies, including the NFL, Walt Disney Co. and Marvel Studios, in opposing the Georgia bill.

In 2012, Chick-fil-A CEO Dan Cathy drew rebukes from gay rights advocates when he said he supports a "biblical definition of family." But the result was an outpouring of support for the Georgia-based company from conservatives, who helped set a single-day sales record by visiting the chain's locations on a "Chick-fil-A day" organized by former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, an outspoken evangelical.

Since then, though, the company has steered clear of such debates and has not commented on LGBT-related legislation in Georgia or elsewhere.

"In a perfect world, a company would want its stance to be the same as its customers," said Brandon Smith, a consultant on workplace environment and a professor at Emory University. "But if you're a Coca-Cola, that's impossible. They instead try to be very sensitive to anything that might be alienating. Their general play is always going to be toward acceptance."

Sent from my iPhone

http://www.myajc.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/exclusive-religious-liberty-rift-in-georgia-deepen/nq46P/

‘Religious liberty’ rift in Georgia deepens

Gov. Nathan Deal warned in his first interview since he rejected Georgia’s controversial “religious liberty” legislation that he’s willing to pull out the veto pen again if a similar measure lands on his desk.

That could put Deal squarely at odds with a top potential contender to replace him, Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle, who has doubled down on his support for the proposal. Cagle says such legislation is backed by a “silent majority” of Georgians.

The split illustrates anew the contrast between a two-term Republican incumbent who does not have to run for re-election and the political calculations of a likely contender in the 2018 governor’s race.

And it’s yet another in a string of reminders that Deal’s veto of the so-called “religious liberty” bill only gave Georgia a temporary reprieve from an issue that is now roiling other Southern states.

In an exclusive interview with the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Deal said the uproar in North Carolina and Mississippi should give religious conservatives in Georgia second thoughts about pushing another version of legislation that would give broader legal protections to opponents of gay marriage.

And he said he was concerned another contentious debate over “religious liberty” legislation could damage Georgia’s reputation.

“I don’t want to go through the same process all over again. I’ve made my position very clear. I tried to write a very thoughtful veto message,” he said. “It expressed my concerns and it expressed my reasons for vetoing it. And those reasons won’t change in my mind.”

Deal, who legally can’t run for another term, vetoed the measure on March 28 amid a wave of criticism from corporate heavyweights and gay rights groups who threatened to boycott the state if it became law.

Cagle and other supporters have vowed to revive the measure next year, depicting it as necessary to provide an extra layer of legal protections for faith-based activities.

The lieutenant governor said in an earlier interview that he maintains a good relationship with Deal, and that they agree on far more issues than they disagree. But that doesn’t change his “belief in the fact that this needs to be addressed,” he said.

“This issue does not go away. There is still a tremendous amount of emails and correspondence that we’re receiving that is looking for action to be done on this,’ ” Cagle said. “I, for one, believe very strongly that we do need to ensure that this standard is put in place for the state of Georgia.”

Cagle’s far from alone in his stance. House Speaker David Ralston said after the legislative session that he and Cagle want to reach a consensus that would “focus on the substance of the bill rather than the rhetoric that’s out there.”

And some rank-and-file Republicans have gone a step further. State Sen. Marty Harbin, R-Tyrone, wrote this week in the the Christian Index – the official publication of the Georgia Baptist Mission Board – that Deal “blatantly violated” the trust of Georgia voters by rejecting the measure, and called on lawmakers to reinstate it.

“Freedom is not free; it is costly and has come to us because of the great sacrifice of so many. Are we now willing to protect it for those who come behind us?” he wrote. “I want my children and my grandchildren to enjoy the same freedoms that I have had in my life – freedoms for which my father fought.”

Cagle has been the most outspoken about the measure among potential Republican gubernatorial candidates. That has strained his relations with the Metro Atlanta Chamber and other pro-business groups, but it has endeared him to religious conservatives.

He trumpeted his efforts to fight “radical atheist groups” in support of legislation aimed at the Georgia High School Association and its rules forbidding religious messages on athletic gear. And he’s promised to fight critics who argue the “religious liberty” measure amounts to legalized discrimination.

While that position could help Cagle in a potentially crowded GOP primary dominated by evangelicals, it could pose problems for him in a general election and cost him support of powerful business interests. For now, though, Cagle said any speculation on his future is premature.

“I have always, if you looked at my career, I’ve been an independent-minded individual. I believe very strongly in being a pro-business conservative,” he said. “I also believe very strongly in a person’s First Amendment right in the free exercise of religion. There has to be a delicate balance.”

Deal, who infuriated religious conservatives with his veto, told the AJC that he’s not going to weigh in on what next year’s “religious liberty” legislation should look like. But he urged supporters to carefully consider the fallout in other Southern states whose governors recently signed legislation seen by critics as an attack on gay and transgender rights.

Facing a growing corporate backlash, North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory urged lawmakers to change part of a new law that he recently signed that prevents people from suing over employment discrimination in state court. But he stopped short of opposing another section that limited bathroom access for transgender people.

Deal said supporters of “religious liberty” legislation should take stock in the fallout in North Carolina, which includes a decision by PayPal to cancel its plans to build a global operations center in that would have created 400 new jobs.

“It’s time to take another deep breath. I see what’s happening in North Carolina. I see what’s happening in Mississippi,” Deal said. “And I would hope that many of the ones that are pushing for it would not want the state of Georgia to go through that kind of scenario.”

Sent from my iPhone

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/434036/progressive-corporate-politics-conservative-response

The Real Solution to Progressive Corporate Culture

Social justice is all the rage in corporate boardrooms, and some on the left would like you to think it’s because of market pressure. Americans are firmly on the “right side of history” when it comes to gay rights, gender identity, and religious bigotry, and companies are responding. It’s in their best corporate interests to boycott North Carolina, threaten Georgia, and bully Mississippi. The culture wars are over. Taking a stand is now the path of least resistance.

Don’t be fooled. The business world’s turn toward progressivism is the result of peer pressure, not market forces. It reflects the personal values and interests of the corporate world’s liberal elite, not the values and interests of the country as a whole. Apple, Disney, and PayPal fish from the same cultural and academic pond as the elite media and elite universities. When I was at Harvard Law School, my classmates were recruited not just by top law firms but also by top consulting firms and multinational corporations. Very few of them were conservative. Barely any of them were social conservatives.

Back when I still did commercial litigation, my larger corporate clients were almost uniformly left of center, and the few Republicans on staff were stereotypical “Wall Street” conservatives. They may have been fiscal hawks, but they positively loathed the religious Right. My small-business clients were far more mixed. Conservative communities tend to spawn conservative entrepreneurs.

Decades of stocking top corporations with talent from the “best” schools has now yielded a predictable result. Employees tend to retain not only the political values of their youth, but the activist mindset and philosophy of the modern progressive. That means an inconsistent (to put it charitably) view of free speech. It means public naming and shaming to enforce ideological conformity. It means living in a leftist cultural cocoon where Christian conservatives are largely viewed as malicious bigots.

RELATED: Why Does the Walt Disney Co. Prefer Communists to Christians?

So, here we are. Progressives mock the notion that corporations can have “values” when those values are religious or conservative, but then they endlessly obsess over the progressive culture and values of their favorite companies. Progressive entrepreneurs talk about “making the world a better place” so much that it’s a cliché. Buzzwords such as “sustainable,” “diverse,” and “inclusive” dominate progressive corporate discourse — just as they do on the campuses where political correctness is most oppressive.

The answer to bad speech is better speech. If you think progressive corporate activism can be repelled by an onslaught of boycotts, you’re wrong. Trying to create change through economic threats and reprisals is inconsistent with establishing and preserving a culture of free expression. Plus, it doesn’t work. Politics is a sub-sub-culture, so boycott movements rarely gain large-scale traction. Even the most ambitious attempts at conservative boycotts  have mainly served to make progressives feel courageous for “standing up to the wingnuts.”

Moreover, progressive corporate culture is so pervasive that the consistent conservative boycotter would have to retreat from modernity. What are the appropriate “conservative” computers, operating systems, smartphones, and social-media platforms? For that matter, what is the “conservative” car company? Unless I want to watch God’s Not Dead and Duck Dynasty on endless loop in front of a television I made myself, my entertainment consumption will prop up some social-justice warrior, somewhere.

RELATED: Social Conservatives’ Big Problem: We Lack Power (and How to Fix It)

We’re living with the results of the Left’s “long march” through America’s most significant religious, cultural, and economic institutions. Though there is no easy fix, we shouldn’t surrender by any means. At every turn we should offer a vigorous defense of our values, publicly attack the inconsistency and hypocrisy of the progressive corporate Left, and rally behind the Right’s embattled entrepreneurs. But even the most effective activism will only mitigate the problem. It won’t reform the system itself.

If you think progressive corporate activism can be repelled by an onslaught of boycotts, you’re wrong.

---

Conservatives must do the hard work of institution-building and institution-joining — of reshaping the notion that the “best” conservatives are those who become activists or politicians. Board members and CEOs can have far more cultural impact than governors or legislators. A single, high-level conservative academic program can place top talent in every major industry.

The Left roundly mocked Mitt Romney when he declared that “corporations are people,” but progressives understand this truth better than conservatives. Personnel is policy. Corporate America is populated by people who wake up in the morning asking, “What can I do for social justice today?” They won’t be shamed into inaction, but their effectiveness can be blunted if we can put a conservative beside them, or — better yet — in their seat. That takes time and it takes effort. Are we patient and persistent enough to make a long march of our own?

— David French is an attorney, and a staff writer at National Review.

Sent from my iPhone

http://christianindex.org/harbin-religious-freedom-hb757-call-to-continue/

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, HB 757, AND THE CALL TO CONTINUE

By Marty Harbin

We have been involved in a very long and difficult struggle to defend religious liberty in the state of Georgia. Let’s take a look back at what has happened.

Marty Harbin

In the first year of the 2015-2016 Biennium, my colleague, Senator Josh McKoon, introduced a bill that was essentially the same as a piece of legislation that had passed at the Federal level in 1993. It would have prohibited the government of the state of Georgia from compelling someone to do something against their religious beliefs unless there was a very strong, compelling reason. This bill was called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA.

While some said that no such bill was needed in Georgia because of the Federal RFRA, they are incorrect. The Supreme Court has since ruled that the Federal RFRA does not apply to the states, and that, in fact, states do need their own version. In large part because of this ruling, 31 other states, besides Georgia, have already passed laws identical to or very much like the 1993 Federal RFRA. All of the states surrounding Georgia have State RFRAs in place.

Some have claimed that RFRA is a radically far-right and discriminatory bill, despite passing at the Federal level with overwhelming support by Congress, including Georgia’s current Governor and then Congressman Nathan Deal, as well as with the support of then-President Bill Clinton, who signed the Federal RFRA into law. There have been no incidents of discrimination in regard to this law since its passage in 1993.

Senator McKoon’s bill, after passing overwhelmingly in the Georgia Senate, languished in a House committee for an entire year. As a result, several versions of RFRA were offered by various representatives at the beginning of the 2016 session. But only one bill was introduced in the House, commonly called the “Pastor Protection Act,” or PPA, which would have simply provided religious freedom protection so that the state of Georgia could not compel a pastor to officiate over a same-sex wedding if doing so violated his deeply-held religious conviction that marriage, as instituted by God, is between a man and a woman.

Protection for all Georgians

After passing unanimously in the House, the PPA, legally numbered House Bill 757, came to the Senate, where my colleague, Senator Greg Kirk, amended it in committee to include the “First Amendment Protection Act”, or FADA. This would have provided religious freedom protection so that the state of Georgia could not take adverse action against an individual or business for having a deeply held religious belief that marriage, as instituted by God, is between a man and a woman. Thus, protection for all Georgians.

Having passed out of committee, HB 757, with FADA added to it, passed the Senate by a strong majority and went back to the House, where it was amended again to add what was, essentially, Senator McKoon’s long-lost RFRA bill. The result was that both Houses agreed overwhelmingly to this version of HB 757, that in summary, combined PPA, FADA, and RFRA together.

The objection came from Governor Deal, who demanded that the bill be stripped of the language which provided religious freedom protection for individuals and businesses, leaving protection only for pastors/clergy and non-profits. Meeting this requirement, which was necessary for his support, this bill then passed out of the Georgia General Assembly on March 16th and went to the governor’s desk. But, despite the fact that all of his demands were met, Governor Deal vetoed HB 757 – the law titled “the Free Exercise Protection Act” on March 28th.

Radical?

Some have claimed that the bill is radical, and thus Governor Deal vetoed it. But is it really? It says that the state cannot force a business to be open on Sunday. Is that radical? It says that the state cannot make someone attend a wedding they don’t want to attend. Is that radical? The majority of Georgians do not think so and have expressed their strong support of this legislation.

But do you know what is radical? It is radical for Big Business and the Atlanta Chamber to succumb to the pressure of special interest groups and help push their agenda. The businesses that are making these threats are located all over this nation and in other parts of the world. They haven’t pulled out of those places so why threaten Georgia?

Why doesn’t the media present this story as businesses intimidating Georgia rather than legislators threatening the economy? Why does something that is “for” protecting something get reported as “against” something else? Why has there been so much negative press about this issue? The real reason is because there is and has been an agenda to destroy religious freedom, which is the basis of all of our other freedoms.

The simple truth

The simple truth is that there is nothing discriminatory about this bill. I repeat, there is no discrimination in it. A lot of diligent work has gone into this bill. There was concerted effort by those in both chambers working with the speaker and the lieutenant governor and the governor’s office to ensure protection against discrimination.

That is why I am very disappointed that a man who, not only once, but twice, won the trust of a majority of the voters in this state, so blatantly violated that trust by refusing to sign a law that will protect them – the ordinary people who live and work in our state, those who are producers and consumers, those who contribute to making our economy strong as well. Their voices have been ignored by our governor.

However, this battle is not over. There are several options for the true, freedom-loving, God-fearing members of the legislature to take. Our Founding Fathers have given us a form of government that includes a balance of powers with checks and balances. They have given us the incredible gift of a representative form of government – a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. The voice of the people has spoken through their elected representatives. They want HB 757 – “The Free Exercise Protection Act.”

The Constitution of Georgia allows for a special session of the General Assembly to be called in order to overturn the governor’s veto. For that, we would need the support of 34 Senators and 108 Representatives. This is certainly possible, as overwhelming majorities in both Houses voted for the passage of HB 757.

But it will take courage. Freedom is not free; it is costly and has come to us because of the great sacrifice of so many. Are we now willing to protect it for those who come behind us? I want my children and my grandchildren to enjoy the same freedoms that I have had in my life – freedoms for which my father fought.

Others are fighting in the states around us. Others are taking a stand. Not taking action now on this issue will only result in more battles in the future.

Religious liberty created our great nation. Religious liberty is the foundation of all of our other freedoms, and it must be protected. Join me as I make every effort to call a special session to overturn the governor’s veto. This is the right thing to do, whatever the cost!

I urge my fellow senators and representatives to rise up. I urge the citizens of Georgia to rise up as well. Let your senator and representative know how important this issue is to you. Watch to see how they respond and hold them accountable for their action or inaction. I pray, and I ask, that you join me in praying that enough will be willing.

However, if there is not enough support for a special session to be called, know that we will not give up. My colleagues and I will return next year at the start of the new 2017-2018 Biennium, and we will continue this battle for the religious liberties of all Georgians.

---

Georgia State Senator Marty Harbin (R-16) is a deacon and Sunday School teacher at First Baptist Church in Fayetteville, GA.

Founded in Washington, DC in 1822 by legendary Baptist leader Luther Rice, The Christian Index is the nation's oldest continuously published religious newspaper.

Sent from my iPhone

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/04/09/brief-zubik-vs-burwell-finds-hhs-mandate-bizarre-unprecedented/

Brief in Zubik v. Burwell Finds ObamaCare HHS Mandate ‘Bizarre and Unprecedented’

Then-Speaker of the House once infamously said of the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. ObamaCare, “But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it away from the fog of the controversy.”

Well, the “fog of the controversy” lifted in 2010 when the President’s bill transforming our health care system was pushed through Congress and signed into law.

What we’ve had since is a storm of outrage.

It turns out that what was in the bill – taxpayer subsidized abortion, for instance – was, indeed, egregious. But we knew all along that ObamaCare contained support for abortion, the President’s denials notwithstanding.

It’s what was not in the bill – that the government would force religious non-profit groups to violate their faiths – that has resulted in over 50 lawsuits against the executive branch. Our case, Priests for Life vs. HHS, and six others consolidated with it under the title Zubik v. HHS, are now under review by the Supreme Court after oral arguments March 23.

The ministry in which we serve, Priests for Life, has brought forth one of those cases and was the first of the petitioners currently before the Court to challenge what has become known as the “HHS mandate.”

The mandate requires that religious non-profit entities like Priests for Life, Catholic charities, and Christian colleges be complicit in providing employees with abortifacients and other drugs and procedures that our faiths teach are gravely sinful. It demands that we obey the government instead of God. And it will levy crushing fines against us if we don’t.

The administration claims that the HHS mandate is based on an amendment to the Obamacare act passed by the House and Senate. The truth, however, is that the mandate, at least as drafted and imposed by the Departments of Health and Human Services, Treasury, and Labor, was not authorized by Congress. To say that the regulation has a legislative basis is akin to one of those Hollywood movies that claims to be “based on a true story” – the connection is tenuous, at best.

The HHS mandate is, basically, a device invented by the administration. As convincingly argued by the Cato Institute and the Independent Women’s Forum in a friend-of-the-court brief filed in support of the 37 religious petitioners in Zubik vs. Burwell, federal agencies “have overstepped their bounds” in creating a “bizarre and unprecedented” rule that tramples on religious liberty.

The amendment to the Obamacare bill that is used to justify the creation of the HHS mandate required that employers’ insurance plans provide coverage for women’s “preventive care and screenings.” But it did not specify abortion-inducing drugs and contraceptives. Congress was talking about prevention of disease, not of pregnancy.

Once Obamacare became law, the Department of Health and Human Services contracted with the Institute of Medicine, a non-governmental advisory agency, to make recommendations for what should be included in “preventive care.” Six months later, after inviting groups like Planned Parenthood to testify before it, the IOM issued a report that urged coverage for 20 different kinds of FDA-approved birth control, four of which can cause abortions.

Now, employers would be required to provide coverage for abortifacients and other drugs and procedures that are highly objectionable to many people of faith. But again, this pressure did not come from Congress. In fact, Congress knows that if it wants, it can include in legislation an exemption from the strict protections that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) gives to Americans and groups like Priests for Life. But Congress made no such exception in the Affordable Care Act, and therefore RFRA applies to it.

HHS quickly adopted the IOM report and issued the first version of the HHS mandate. Years and several versions of the regulation later, the government is still arguing that it has the authority to decide which religious groups it will exempt from the mandate – that is, favor – and which it will not – that is, disfavor.

Under the mandate’s current language, churches do not have to violate their beliefs, but entities like the Priests for Life and the Westminster Theological Seminary do. Why? Because federal civil servants say they can discern who is sufficiently religious and who is not.

As the Cato Institute and the Independent Women’s Forum point out, the federal departments that came up with these distinctions have no ability or expertise to make them; they certainly don’t have the authority – not in America.

The Cato/IWF brief argues that the Supreme Court shouldn’t even bother weighing whether the HHS mandate violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. They say that the Court should strike down the regulation because “Congress in no way, shape, or form delegated to HHS the authority to regulate religion—much less to make untenable distinctions among religious groups.”

Ultimately, then, Priests for Life v. HHS involves the separation of powers – the executive branch should not appropriate the powers of the legislative branch. But the case also involves the separation of church and state – the government should not be picking and choosing religious groups for reward and punishment.

Father Frank Pavone is National Director, Priests for Life

Sent from my iPhone

http://www.allenbwest.com/2016/03/uh-oh-us-schools-told-to-obey-michelle-obama-or-suffer-these-consequences/

Uh-oh: US schools told to OBEY Michelle Obama, or suffer these consequences…

Folks, when I read this story I was just at a loss for words. I don’t know how much more insanity will emanate from this Obama administration but it’s getting really inane. If this story doesn’t set you aflame and give you cause and reason to understand liberal progressive socialism has no place in our Republic — then I don’t know what will.

As reported by the Washington Free Beacon, “The federal government is taking steps to fine schools that do not comply with first lady Michelle Obama’s school lunch rules. 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition Service issued a proposed rule Monday to codify parts of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, which was championed by Mrs. Obama. 

The regulation would punish schools and state departments with fines for “egregious or persistent disregard” for the lunch rules that imposed sodium and calorie limits and banned white grains. 

A West Virginia preschool teacher was threatened with fines for violating the rules by rewarding her students with candy for good behavior in June 2015. The teacher ultimately did not have to pay, but the school had to develop a “corrective action plan” with training on the policies. 

The government now seeks to make fines enforceable by regulation. Section 303 of the law requires that the federal government “establish criteria for the imposition of fines” for all the Department of Agriculture’s child food programs. 

“Under section 303, the Secretary or a State agency may establish an assessment against any school food authority or school administering the Child Nutrition Programs if the Secretary or the State agency determines that the school or school food authority failed to correct severe mismanagement of any program, failed to correct repeated violations of program requirements, or disregarded a requirement of which they have been informed,” the proposed rule states. The government insisted that fines would be limited only to schools, school food authorities, and state agencies that have “failed to correct severe mismanagement of any program, disregarded a requirement of which it has been informed, or failed to correct repeated violations of program requirements.”

Do you truly understand what this means? The federal government is using monetary penalty to coerce and force acquiescence to its policy. And worst of all, this policy was not from our elected representatives, but rather a Golf-Foxtrot-India (Good Freakin’ Idea) of the First Lady, Michelle Obama. 

So now the First Lady commands, like Marie Antoinette, “let them eat cake” — and if you’re not a student of history, this wasn’t a reference to fine French pastries. It was a reference to the scraps that “cake” up in the oven when bread is baked – that’s how much Madame Antoinette felt about the starving masses. 

And so it goes with First Lady Obama’s mandated food nutrition standards. Heck, her “Hunger-Free Kids Act” is about as oxymoronic a title as her hubby’s “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.” 

If you’ve been keeping up with this, you know much food has been wasted because the kids don’t want to eat it. But, darn you schools, you’ll be forced to pay if you don’t submit. Gee where have we heard that before? Submit or pay? What kind of nation are we living in folks? Is this still America? 

And these “fines” — who do you think will be paying for them? Yep, we shall, because it will be passed off to us in increased school bonds in local measures. And what’s up with the Obama administration classification of “egregious or persistent disregard” for lunch rules? The federal government is now making lunchroom rules and imposing financial penalties? Ladies and gents, that verbiage sounds like something you would have heard in the former Soviet Union — what next, teachers expelled to the gulags…maybe that’s what Obama wants GITMO to be used for, a reeducation camp?

With all that’s happening in the world, we don’t need the federal government mandating lunchroom meals — and if you don’t agree, you are certifiably a progressive socialist borderline communist. As a parent, I’m responsible for my child’s eating habits. Angela and I prepared the meals for our girls. And let me ask you a question, those kids on reduced or free meals in schools, wouldn’t it be better to feed them things they like? I say we make sure we have fitness programs that promote a healthier and active lifestyle — oops, better be careful, if a kid doesn’t run that lap, the parents may get a fine notice.

However, now the Department of Agriculture is backpedaling and trying to clean up this mess, “Update Tuesday, March 29 7:23 P.M.: Following publication of this story, a USDA spokesperson told the Washington Free Beacon that the goal of the new proposals are meant to ensure high standards in its Child Nutrition Programs. 

“To ensure that entities implementing these critical programs continue to meet high standards of program effectiveness and integrity, USDA is proposing a series of program improvements that address only those programs with systemic and significant program violations, such as theft of funds and financial mismanagement, to safeguard the integrity of Child Nutrition Programs and taxpayer dollars,” the spokesperson said.”

They do not get it folks. They believe they’re justified in issuing a financial penalty for “egregious or persistent disregard.”

Here is what we need to do: bombard the USDA with phone calls and emails at all times of the day for the rest of this week, well, until they recant and retract this socialist rule. George Orwell could not have written this script any better. This is the ultimate example of the welfare nanny-state — the belief that since the government is providing it, we shall mandate it. Yet the progressive leftists go apoplectic with mandatory drug testing of welfare recipients. 

Just think, today it’s in the school lunchroom…what happens when they mandate to us all what we should eat and drink? Don’t laugh — you heard about the sugary drink tax? I was just in Philadelphia on Monday; it’s happening there.

Sent from my iPhone

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/21/college-of-pediatricians-calls-transgender-ideology-child-abuse/

College of Pediatricians Calls Transgender Ideology ‘Child Abuse’

In a strongly worded statement issued today, the professional association of pediatricians says “a person’s belief that he or she is something they are not is, at best, a sign of confused thinking.” It describes such thinking as problem that exists in the mind and not the body and “it should be treated as such.”

The college of pediatricians is joining a heated debate that increasingly pits concerned parents against school teachers, administrators, legislators, and transsexual advocates who are pushing the trans agenda in grade-schools, city governments, state governments, and the federal government.

A wave of “non-discrimination” bills are appearing around the country that require public women’s restrooms to accommodate men who think they are women and even those who consider themselves “gender non-binary,” that is, men who appear to be men but who say there are neither male or female.

The American College of Pediatricians will release a full statement this summer. The statement released today explains, “human sexuality is an objective biological binary trait: ‘XY’ and ‘XX’ are genetic markers of health — not genetic markers of a disorder.”

The statement goes on:

The exceedingly rare disorders of sex development (DSDs), including but not limited to testicular feminization and congenital adrenal hyperplasia, are all medically identifiable deviations from the sexual binary norm, and are rightly recognized as disorders of human design. Individuals with DSDs do not constitute a third sex.

The statement points out that such gender confusion should be treated as a psychological disorder called “gender dysphoria” and is “a recognized mental disorder in the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association (DSM-V).”

The group is most concerned about the regimen of drugs that are given to children to block puberty. “Children who use puberty blockers to impersonate the opposite sex will require cross-sex hormones in late adolescence. Cross-sex hormones (testosterone and estrogen) are associated with dangerous health risks including but not limited to high blood pressure, blood clots, stroke and cancer.”

Rates of suicide among adults who use cross-sex hormones and undergo sex change reassignment surgery are “twenty times greater” than the rest of the population even in such trans-friendly places as Sweden.

The doctors argue that “Conditioning children into believing a lifetime of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex is normal and healthful is child abuse.”

Sent from my iPhone