Biden Willing To Take Food From Needy Children To Advance Gender Identity Agenda

Source: Kerry: Unemployed and Unedited.

I am not entirely opposed to the federal government using its purse strings to influence the behavior of states. For example, I am in favor of de-allocating federal funding for states that allow various forms of “sanctuary city” to declare themselves within their jurisdictions. But starving children to force schools to promote weird sexual philosophies doesn’t meet my standard of acceptable federal action.

To my mind, federal extortion of the states may be acceptable when the objective is consistent with some explicable national interest and some demonstrable consensus of the public. A two part test. I do not believe that gender-identity politics meets that standard.

It seems very clear to me that Joe Biden and his clan don’t care about anyone but themselves.

56 thoughts on “Biden Willing To Take Food From Needy Children To Advance Gender Identity Agenda

  1. Funny. Conservatives have never supported meals for low income students…welfare, don’t you know. Mom’s buying lobster and champagne at Harris Teeter because kids are getting fed on our dime.

    But now, “starving kids” are extorted to “groom” children for another Pizzagate.

    God, guns and gays…it’s election time!

    So I understand and sympathize 😇

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Most conservatives don’t oppose providing lunches to kids, they oppose the Federal government funding it. because of the strings attached.

      That erodes the benefits of Federalism. We don’t want one way of doing things, we want 50 states trying different approaches and comparing results.

      Like

      1. Understand, but politically, starving children are being appropriated by the right.

        But it distracts from abortion and the legislative successes despite vehement opposition from the right, which may be the pushback to a red wave.

        Liked by 3 people

      2. RE: “Understand, but politically, starving children are being appropriated by the right.”

        Is that so wrong?

        Like

  2. Can you even hear yourself? “promoting weird sexual philosophies” ??? That right there is evidence that schools need to educate the public on being gay. It is not a philosophy. It is a biological reality. It is only weird to people who don’t understand it. Your culture only knows about two sexes. Some Indian cultures recognize 16 sexes. What you don’t understand, you fear. What you fear, you hate. And that is exactly why schools need to “promote weird sexual philosophies.”

    Liked by 2 people

    1. I would bet I have known more transexuals, gays and lesbians than most,(remember that I practiced in Ghent) and I don’t hate or fear any of them. But I strongly oppose encouraging Gender Dysphoria in pre-pubescent children. If you just leave them alone, puberty is going to straighten a lot out for them. But prior to that, they are suggestible and implanting an idea that will cause them confusion later is child abuse.

      Like

      1. I’d be willing to bet money that most people have known more transexuals, gays, and lesbians than they realize.

        And no one is encouraging “Gender Dysphoria” by telling kids it’s okay if little Billy has two dads. If you kick little Billy out of school because he has two dads, you have taught the class that having two dads is a bad thing. You haven’t encouraged those kids to be gay, but you have taught them something is wrong with being gay.

        There are different flavors of hate and fear. I don’t fear or hate daddy-longlegs spiders. I know they’re not poisonous and they even do good by eating other insects. But as a kid I was taught that spiders are bad and, to this day, I can’t overcome the revulsion of having one touch me. Lessons learned in the earliest years are the lessons that stick with you for life. You are indoctrinated before you even know it. Racial prejudices, cultural prejudices, sexual prejudices are all subtly taught to young children. And what they’re learning from “don’t say gay” is “gay is bad.” “Gay is so dirty, you can’t even talk about it.” You are teaching them to be bigots. And IMHO, that is child abuse.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. Not what I am talking about.

          Trans advocates are pushing parents to accept puberty blockers for confused kids.

          Puberty is what often ends the confusion.

          “Gender affirming care” for prepubescent kids is child abuse.

          Like

      2. “I would bet I have known more transexuals, gays and lesbians than most,”

        You would lose that bet to me. My theater background and the professional life of my father and step-mother has had me introduced to so many, I have lost count.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. There is a HUGE difference between “promoting” and EXPLAINING when questions are asked.

        As an example, my first grade granddaughter last year was overheard telling another student, who had just told a third student that it was WRONG for her to have two mommies, that it wasn’t wrong. The teacher called my daughter to relay the story and wondered why my GD would say such a thing. My daughter told her because there is nothing wrong with it.

        Now, is my 7 year old granddaughter promoting anything? Or is the teacher, who called MY daughter and not the parents of the accusatory child ,promoting hatred for the “other” to the detriment of one of her students?

        Liked by 2 people

          1. “My concern is promoting gender confusion in suggestible prepubescent children.”

            What does that even mean? If you punish / discourage a little boy for preferring to play with dollies rather than toy guns are you promoting gender confusion?

            Liked by 1 person

          2. “But encouraging the cross dress at school behind their parent’s back or putting them on Lupron to hold off puberty is abuse.”

            Yeah, a lot of terrible things that do not happen are abuse. As stated elsewhere, this is part and parcel of the bogus “culture war.” You ought to be embarrassed to have become a warrior.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. “I suggest you follow Libs…”

            I suggest that you not generalize from some freaks you find on the internet. If we are going to legitimize such “logic” then “conservatives” will be a lot more vulnerable than Democrats. You have some genuine morons carrying your banners. And several of them are in Congress.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. Freaks on the internet?

            At least three major children’s hospitals are on record as providing mastectomies and hysterectomies and ither gender affirming surgeries to minors as young as 16 without parental consent and even younger with parental approval.

            Trans advocacy groups are offering Lupron over the internet, no Rx, no parental consent.

            Libs of Tiktok does us a service by hunting down these social media offers to young people.

            I wish it were just a handful of freaks, but its not, It’s hospitals and doctors too, And a lot of teachers,

            Like

          5. “Freaks on the internet?”

            Uh, you recommended Libs of TikTok.

            If these minors as young as 16 are legally allowed to make such decisions on their own and they are under the care of a “major children’s hospital” what exactly is your problem? Too icky for you?

            Liked by 1 person

          6. Once you have a hysterectomy there is no going back. Same with the male to female surgery.

            You have claimed that people under 21 should not be able to buy firearms because their brains aren’t fully developed until later.

            I do not support young people making irreversible decisions before they are at least 18, and have had a lot of psychotherapy to be sure they have made a rational decision within their own reality.

            One of my best friends was married and had 2 children(one of whom his wife had early while he was at my house playing chess without telling her where to reach him) and then decided he was gay at 40.

            It was difficult, but he could change his mind. If you have stuff cut off or out, you can’t.

            Like

          7. So, your problem is that you think you know better than the young person making the decision and the doctors at the “major children’s hospital” handling the case? And this superior knowledge of yours is a sound basis for denouncing Democrats who, as in the case of abortion, try to stay out of Doctor/Patient relationships? Have I got that about right?

            It seems to me that you people are going a little overboard in telling people how to live their lives. I think it is going to hurt you in Roe-vember. The people who eat up this “culture war” bullshit are already highly motivated. Kansas and NY-19 are bellwethers saying that this overreach cuts both ways.

            Liked by 1 person

          8. I’m saying that a 16 to 20 year old should not be making irreversible decisions and for sure, no advocate should be pushing those decisions socially.

            The suicide rate post surgery is as high or higher than for those who do not have the surgery, so I don’t see any indication of a lasting benefit. If “gender affirming surgery” were a vaccine, the FDA would no approve it based on the evidence. (not that I care what the FDA approves, but using the same criteria genital mutilation would not get approval )

            Like

          9. “I’m saying that a 16 to 20 year old should not be making irreversible decisions and for sure, no advocate should be pushing those decisions socially.”

            So, if you know any 16 to 20 year-olds thinking about gender surgery, advise them to wait. But keep the law out of it. Let doctors and patients make whatever decision they think best in each situation.

            “no advocate should be pushing those decisions socially.”
            There are very valid reasons to act sooner rather than later in these matters. Those who think early care is important have every right to advocate for that course of action.

            Liked by 1 person

          10. Advocates rarely provide a balanced view of benefits and costs.

            Before providing irreversible, life changing elective surgery, a truly informed consent provided by someone NOT an advocate should be required, especially when we’re talking about young people.

            Like

    2. RE: “Can you even hear yourself?”

      Yes I can. In fact, I pondered my word choice carefully as I wrote the post. I am particularly fond of the phrase you called out because it captures the essence of presuming to know things we actually don’t know.

      I am aware of several biological theories about being gay, including theories in evolutionary biology that attempt to explain the origins and perseverance of homosexuality in terms of natural selection — a seeming paradox. As far as I know, the science is not sufficiently robust to be able to say with certainty that being gay is a “biological reality”.

      My own view is that being gay is probably a social reality, but that social realities are more intimately connected to genetics than is generally appreciated.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. “As far as I know, the science is not sufficiently robust to be able to say with certainty that being gay is a “biological reality”.

        The operative phrase is “As far as I know.” And you are just plain ignorant and choose to remain that way. For example, you probably will not read and understand this . . .

        https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9549243/

        or this. . .

        https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.aat7693

        Liked by 2 people

        1. RE: “For example, you probably will not read and understand this . . .”

          No, I’m not going to waste my time on your cherry picks. The abstract for one states that some components of homosexuality appear to be heritable. The other abstract points out that the socio/cultural aspects of homosexuality are complex and not well understood. I have already said that I agree with both points.

          Like

          1. Of course you are not interested in the truth – there is no doubt that genetics play a significant role in the determination of a person’s sexual orientation. The fact that there are other factors does not negate that fact. That simple truth does not sit well with the gay-bashing politics of “conservatives” like you. So sure, you are not going to waste your time. Like I said above – being ignorant is a choice.

            Liked by 2 people

          2. RE: “there is no doubt that genetics play a significant role in the determination of a person’s sexual orientation.”

            There is substantial doubt, both about the claim itself and how genetics might operate to create homosexuality.

            RE: “The fact that there are other factors does not negate that fact.”

            Nor do two random papers found on the internet establish that being gay is a “biological reality,” whatever that means.

            Like

          3. “biological reality,” whatever that means.

            It means that people do not choose their sexual orientation. It is an innate part of who they are. Assuming you are heterosexual, did you choose to be?

            Liked by 1 person

          4. RE: “It means that people do not choose their sexual orientation.”

            In that case it means something that science has not established.

            Like

        2. I don’t think those papers mean what you seem to think they mean.

          They find that sexual orientation is influenced, not determined, by the combination of multiple genes. (polygenic)

          There is no evidence of a ‘gay gene’ though certain combinations of genes can open that door.

          Whatever the reason, people are free to be who they want to be, but they are not free to try to influence prepubescent children.

          Like

          1. Yeah, thanks, but I already fully understood that the strong genetic contribution to sexual orientation is not found in a single gene. But it is there. You do not choose to become gay. Any more than you choose to be heterosexual. The FALSE idea that people do choose to be gay is used to justify the bigotry that is rampant in “conservative” politics.

            This recurrent theme of “leftists” influencing prepubescent children – what do you people call it, grooming? – is a complete fiction dreamed up because your party has no record, no decent candidates, and no policy ideas that people actually want except for the Christo-fascists that make up your base. So culture war it is.

            Liked by 1 person

  3. On this very subject, a vast majority of young girl athletes are more outspoken than any on the absurdity of having to compete with “males” pretending to be girls in sports and having to share locker rooms with them. Forcing them to do so by withholding meal funding is a double slap in the face of the extremist left wing cabal. As much as the left professes to care abt females, they sure do hate for them to excel in sports or be rightfully modest abt changing with boys. Haters!!!
    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/politics/americans-overwhelmingly-oppose-transgender-athletes-in-female-sports-poll-shows.amp

    Liked by 1 person

  4. “We don’t want one way of doing things, we want 50 states trying different approaches and comparing results.

    Yeah, because that’s working out so well for the abortion situation. By that standard, the South should still have slave states and voting rights should be optional.

    And, when you compare results and find out that your particular philosophy is hurting people, what do you do? If there is no federal oversight, who tells the doofus states they can’t doofus anymore?

    The North tried to tell the South the system of slavery was bad, but if not for the Civil War, I’m pretty sure it would still be around. So, that “let-’em-do-their-own-thing-and-see-what-works” doesn’t work.

    Put aside the fairness of the situation. When there are different laws in different states you have divisiveness. You have a weakened country. You have a country divided against itself. I believe somebody once said, “you have a country that can not stand.”

    Liked by 2 people

          1. You say I am stupid. I say you are stupid. Our postings in this forum speak for us. I am pretty sure that he is talking about folks like you. But, when framed this way, I cannot be objective. Neither can you. So we will just have to wonder – which of us is as dumb as a bag of rocks? Because one of us surely is.

            Liked by 2 people

  5. “Nor do two random papers found on the internet establish that being gay is a “biological reality,” whatever that means.”

    Since you won’t do your own research, let me enlighten you about what “biological reality” means. There are instances of children being born with two sets of genitalia. That is just the physical reality that you can see. There are more subtile realities you can not see, but if you can’t understand the biological reality, the rest is beyond your capacity to understand.

    People are BORN with their sexuality wired in. It’s not like bigotry, that has to be taught.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. RE: “There are instances of children being born with two sets of genitalia.”

      Yes, there are. Genital presentation at birth is one of five medical standards used to determine sex. Even so, the “biological reality” is that only two sexes exist, male and female.

      The fact that some homosexuals have some genes in common is insufficient to say that homosexuality is genetic just as genital presentation is insufficient to say that a newborn is male or female.

      You shouldn’t accuse me of not doing my own research.

      Like

  6. When forced to choose between people who do research in order to understand things and people who remain willfully stupid because it fits what they want to believe, I chose the former.

    Liked by 2 people

  7. Homosexuality is mother nature’s way of ensuring that gene pool dies. Trans is just plain perversion. You are either male or female at birth and for life, not assigned, and can never change that no matter how much you wish so or mutilate your body. Pushing a political narrative by starving children to appease the sick is even sicker.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Not surprisingly, Kerry is parroting extreme “Christian” interpretations of the USDA rule-making on discrimination.

    They are acting in accordance with President Biden’s “Executive Order on Preventing and Combating Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation” which is based on the concept that members of the LGBTQI+ community are protected by various anti-discrimination laws that have been on the books for decades. The President cites the recent SCOTUS ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020) to support this interpretation that such people are covered.

    https://tinyurl.com/4cmcpwb3

    Acting on this Presidential policy directive, the USDA has simply applied this SCOTUS interpretation of the law to its existing anti-discrimination requirements.

    So, what is now required . . .

    “As a result, state and local agencies, program operators and sponsors that receive funds from FNS must investigate allegations of discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation. Those organizations must also update their non-discrimination policies and signage to include prohibitions against discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation.”

    https://www.fns.usda.gov/news-item/usda-0100.22

    The “Christians” suing over this anti-discrimination requirement are standing up tall for the right to discriminate and they are going against the precedent set in Bostock.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. RE: “Acting on this Presidential policy directive, the USDA has simply applied this SCOTUS interpretation of the law to its existing anti-discrimination requirements.”

      Wrong. Biden’s executive order gives the USDA a “punishment power” it shouldn’t have. DOJ already can investigate and punish the types of discrimination Biden is worried about. There is no need to weaponize USDA to perform the same function — one, by the way, for which it is not well equipped.

      Like

      1. No, you are wrong. USDA has the same “punishment power” it has always had. USDA – and the rest of the government – is simply applying the interpretation of anti-discrimination law promulgated by SCOTUS in Bostock. The majority opinion was written by Gorsuch, by the way.

        It is very likely that if President Biden had failed to apply the SCOTUS opinion, you people would be accusing him of lawlessly ignoring Supreme Court rulings. He can NEVER do the right thing as far as you are concerned.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Since when has the USDA had the authority or expertise to cancel school lunch programs over sexual discrimination?

          Like

          1. RE: “Nothing has been added to their powers.”

            You should do your homework. Biden’s EO states (Sec. 2(b)):

            “The head of each agency shall, as soon as practicable and as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, including the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.), consider whether to revise, suspend, or rescind such agency actions, or promulgate new agency actions, as necessary to fully implement statutes that prohibit sex discrimination and the policy set forth in section 1 of this order.”

            Like

          2. There is no new power given in this EO. Can you even read?

            The actual revised order from the Department of Agriculture did not include any new sanctions on anybody. It just broadened the protected class per the SCOTUS decision.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. RE: “The actual revised order from the Department of Agriculture did not include any new sanctions on anybody.”

            No, it didn’t. What it did include was the application of existing sanctions for new reasons, a potentially unconstitutional new enforcement power.

            Like

          4. “No, it didn’t. What it did include was the application of existing sanctions for new reasons, a potentially unconstitutional new enforcement power.”

            “No, it didn’t.”
            Finally! Good for you.

            If you had read and understood earlier postings you would know that all we have here is President Biden formally updating regulations to conform to SCOTUS ruling in Bostock. Your hyperbolic blather about “unconstitutional new enforcement power” is way off the mark.

            “Conservatives” and “Christians” need to accept that discrimination against people because of who they are – how God made them – is not okay.

            Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s