Google Find us on Google+

Do Not Let Obama Bully America’s Schools

May 31, 2016 by

Obama Da Bully

Do Not Let Obama Bully America’s Schools

By Henry W. Burke

5.31.16

Title IX prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex.  Of course, “sex” refers to the biological reality of being male or female, not how a person perceives his/her gender identity.

The number of transgender individuals in the U.S. is actually quite small.  According to a reliable U.S. Census Bureau report, there are about 16,000 transgender individuals in the U.S.  This is roughly 7 transgenders per 100,000 people.

In an 87,000-seat football stadium, there would be about 3 transgender people.  In a similar way, Omaha, Nebraska has around 14 transgenders and Lincoln, Nebraska has about 9 transgender individuals.

Similar calculations for Texas would yield 30 transgender people in Austin, Texas, 42 transgenders in Dallas, Texas and 4 transgender individuals in Waco, Texas.

The Obama Administration officials are threatening lawsuits and the loss of federal funding unless the schools submit to their unconstitutional dictates.

Does Obama really want to withhold funds and take away the nutrition programs from low-income students?

What action should you take when someone is bullying you?  What if this bullying started almost six years ago?

The bully in this case is Barack Obama.  Acting more like an emperor, he is trying to bully his subjects into submission over the transgender issue.

On Friday, May 13, 2016, the Obama Administration released a Joint Guidance Letter on transgender students.  The letter from the U.S Departments of Justice and Education was sent to every single school district in the entire country.  They even included colleges and universities in their wide-sweeping edict.

Unless the schools allow students to use the restrooms, locker rooms, and sports teams of their chosen gender, the Obama Administration threatens to take action.  To force the schools into submission, Obama’s henchmen are threatening lawsuits and the loss of federal funding.

What basis is “King Obama” using for his decree?  The Joint Guidance Letter repeatedly cites Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.  Title IX states that:

          No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

            http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/tix_dis.html

 

  1. BRIEF HISTORY OF OBAMA’S STANCE ON THIS ISSUE

Education expert Donna Garner pointed out way back in 2010 that Obama was pushing the gender/homosexual issue.  In Mrs. Garner’s prophetic 10.27.10 article, “Bullying — an Agenda,” she described the federal government’s devious tactics.  On 10.26.10, the U.S. Department of Education sent a “Dear Colleague Letter” to the state departments of education and local school districts.  The ploy they used was to tie bullying to discrimination on the basis of sex.

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201010.html

Mrs. Garner and others warned America about Kevin Jennings, who was Obama and Arne Duncan’s choice at the U. S. Department of Education for the position of Assistant Deputy Secretary for Safe and Drug-Free Schools.

Jennings was the founder of Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) and was the director until 2008.  While at the Education Department, Kevin Jennings promoted homosexuality in K-12 under the guise of the “bullying” curriculum that was permeating our public schools.  

As Donna Garner explained in 2010:

            …The Obama administration is deliberately taking the Title IX federal law and distorting the verbiage to include gender identity. 

            Title IX does not include gender identity; it says that harassment based on race, color, national origin, sex, or disability violates the federal civil rights laws.  The Obama administration, however, has taken it upon themselves to include lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender under the word “sex.”

          Now the Obama administration is threatening public school educators with the USDOE’s misinterpretation of the Title IX law and making educators fear prosecution unless they promote the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) lifestyle as normal.

The scope of Title IX is very broad!  According to the U.S. Department of Education in 2010, Title IX covered 16,500 school districts, 7,000 postsecondary institutions, as well as charter schools, for-profit schools, libraries, and museums. Also included are vocational rehabilitation agencies and education agencies of 50 states, the District of Columbia, and territories and possessions of the United States.

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201010.pdf

 

  1. IS OBAMA’S DECREE LEGAL?

Fast forwarding to 2016, the May 13 letter looks vaguely familiar.  Obama and his minions are again using the threat of lawsuits and the holding back of federal funds to force local school districts to comply with his transgender bathroom edicts.

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin.  Title IX of the Education Amendments added “sex” to the discrimination rules.

When Title IX was passed in 1972, “sex” referred to what it still refers to now; the basic biological reality of being male or female.  Now 44 years after the law was passed, the Obama Administration is threatening the loss of millions of dollars if the schools do not allow the kids unfettered access to the locker room of their choice.

A law from the 1970’s designed to protect girls and women from sexism and sexual harassment is being used to grant boys the right to undress in the girls’ locker room (and vice versa).

On May 17, 2016, Nebraska Attorney General Douglas J. Peterson sent a letter to the Departments of Justice and Education.  Among other things, the Nebraska AG stated:

          In fact, Congress expressly provided in Title IX and its regulations, that schools can continue to have separate restrooms, locker rooms, and showers for men and women.  See, 34 CFR 106.33.  Congress has declined to broaden Title IX to require that schools allow students of one sex access to restrooms, locker rooms, or showers designated for members of the opposite sex.

            https://ago.nebraska.gov/media/news/view/99069/ag-petersons-response-to-joint-guidance-letter-on-transgender-students

Attorney Jane Robbins and Emmett McGroarty of the American Principles Project wrote an insightful article on 5.13.16, “Obama’s Latest Power Grab: Forcing Schools to Accept Radical Transgender Ideology.”  They determined:

          The ideologues have no legal basis for this decree. The Constitution doesn’t allow it. Nor does Title IX of the Civil Rights Act (the fragile peg on which they hang this coal of mail), which prohibits discrimination in schools on the basis of “sex” but not “gender identity.” The vast weight of legal authority is clear on this. But Obama assumes (not without reason) that most state and local officials will roll over rather than risk the almighty dollar.

http://thepulse2016.com/jane-robbins/2016/05/13/15437/

Ryan T. Anderson of The Heritage Foundation added further clarification on the legality of the Obama Administration’s actions in the article “Obama Unilaterally Rewrites Law, Imposes Transgender Policy on Nation’s Schools.”

          In 1972 when Congress passed Title IX of the Education Amendments, no one thought that “sex” meant “gender identity.” It didn’t mean it then, and it doesn’t mean it now. The Obama administration is unlawfully rewriting federal law. The term “sex” is not ambiguous, and is not subject to executive branch agencies redefining to now mean “gender identity.”  

          But, again, the law that Congress passed in 1972 does no such thing. Title IX was intended to protect women and girls from harassment and discrimination, to ensure that they received equal opportunities in education, and now the Obama administration is re-writing it to say schools must allow boys unfettered access to the girls locker rooms.

                http://dailysignal.com/2016/05/13/obama-unilaterally-rewrites-law-imposes-transgender-policy-on-nations-schools/?ac=1

 

  1. HOW MANY TRANSGENDER INDIVIDUALS RESIDE IN THE U.S.?

As the titular head of the transgender movement, Obama is pushing his agenda on the entire country.  Is society making these accommodations for a huge number of transgender people, or is the number rather small? 

Transgenderism can be very temporary.  As pointed out by Dr. Paul McHugh, former head of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins Hospital, the vast majority of children who claim opposite-sex identity will outgrow it.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/johns-hopkins-psychiatrist-transgender-mental-disorder-sex-change

http://thepulse2016.com/jane-robbins/2016/05/13/15437/

 

  1. Williams Institute

One fairly crude estimate (often quoted) places the number of transgender people at 0.3 % of the population.  This corresponds to 700,000 adults.  The estimate was based on surveys taken in California and Massachusetts.  A paper published in 2011 states:

          Mr. Gates of the Williams Institute, who wrote the paper, says his conclusion that 0.3 percent of the total population is transgender is only a rough estimate.

          http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/09/upshot/the-search-for-the-best-estimate-of-the-transgender-population.html?_r=0

 

  1. U.S. Census Bureau

A much better estimate was published by the U.S. Census Bureau in May 2015.  Written by Benjamin Cerf Harris, the report is entitled “Likely Transgender Individuals in U.S. Federal Administrative Records and the 2010 Census.”

https://www.census.gov/srd/carra/15_03_Likely_Transgender_Individuals_in_ARs_and_2010Census.pdf

The U.S. Census Bureau (USCB) report was based on the 2010 Census, where they collected information on 308,745,538 individuals residing in the U.S. during April 2010.

The report produced a very informative Table 5.  This was the methodology for the transgender count:

          Table 5 shows counts of individuals in the SSA Numident who were alive during the 2010 Census and who changed their first names and sex-coding in ways that are consistent with transitioning gender.

This is Table 5 (my Table 1) from the U.S. Census Bureau report:

 

TABLE 1 – (USCB TABLE 5): LIKELY TRANSGENDER INDIVIDUALS IN SSA

  Confidence Threshold
90 percent 95 percent 99 percent
Panel A. Total      
Name   89,667   70,748   43,547
Name and sex-coding   21,833   20,551   16,155
Panel B. Male to Female      
Name   32,027   27,563   19,019
Name and sex-coding   14,338   13,613   11,028
Panel C. Female to Male      
Name   57,640  43,185   24,528
Name and sex-coding     7,495     6,938     5,127

 

Source: SSA Numident, 1936–2010

https://www.census.gov/srd/carra/15_03_Likely_Transgender_Individuals_in_ARs_and_2010Census.pdf

Notes:

Individuals must be alive on 1 April 2010, at least 16 years old at the point of the name change or sex-coding change, and both changes must be permanent within the SSA files to be included in the figures above.  

SSA (Social Security Administration)

“Numident” (Numerical Identification System)

Three confidence levels are shown.  At the 95 % confidence level, 70,748 individuals changed their name consistent with transitioning gender; and 20,551 people changed their name and sex-coding consistent with transitioning gender.  Panel B. “Male to Female” and Panel C. “Female to Male” figures are also shown.  Panel B plus Panel C equals the Panel A. Total.

          Name: [27,563 + 43,185 = 70,748]

          Name and Sex-Coding: [13,613 + 6,938 = 20,551]

Because the 99 % confidence threshold is more reliable, the USCB author generally used this confidence level.  At the 99 % confidence level, Table 5 has 43,547 individuals changing their name and 16,155 individuals changing their name and sex-coding consistent with gender transitioning.

          Name: [19,019 + 24,528 = 43,547]

          Name and Sex-Coding: [11,028 + 5,127 = 16,155]

 

FIGURE 5 – U.S. CENSUS BUREAU REPORT

On page 36, the USCB report includes Figure 5 – Likely Transgender Individuals per 100,000.  Figure 5 maps the distribution of Likely Transgender Individuals across the U.S. by their states of residence.  The U.S. map shows shading on each state to indicate one of five percentile groupings of transgenders per 100,000.  The five groupings are: 1.4 – 3.3, 3.4 – 4.7, 4.8 – 6.0, 6.1 – 7.6, and 7.7 – 10.6 Likely Transgenders per 100,000.

The following states have 1.4 – 3.3 likely transgenders per 100,000:

Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia.

The following states have 3.4 – 4.7 likely transgenders per 100,000:

Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, and Wyoming.

The following states have 4.8 – 6.0 likely transgenders per 100,000:

Alaska, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, Minnesota, Montana, New York, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin.

The following states have 6.1 – 7.6 likely transgenders per 100,000:

Arizona, California, Colorado, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Hampshire, and New Mexico.

The following states have 7.7 – 10.6 likely transgenders per 100,000:

District of Columbia, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington.

https://www.census.gov/srd/carra/15_03_Likely_Transgender_Individuals_in_ARs_and_2010Census.pdf

Table 2 below lists the calculated number of transgender individuals in several selected states:

 

TABLE 2 – NUMBER OF LIKELY TRANSGENDER INDIVIDUALS IN STATE

State Adjusted

Population

Likely

Transgenders

Per 100,000

Use

Transgenders

Per 100,000

Number

of

Transgenders

Percent
U.S. 213,453,305   6.1 – 7.6       7.6   16,223 0.000076
           
Nebraska      1,244,079   3.4 – 4.7       4.7          59 0.000047
Texas    18,279,737   3.4 – 4.7       4.7        859 0.000047
Iowa      2,109,709   1.4 – 3.3       3.3          70 0.000033
Kansas      1,934,823   1.4 – 3.3       3.3          64 0.000033

 

Notes:

(Calculations by Henry W. Burke)

  1. Adjusted Population was calculated by taking the 2010 Census, and determining the people 18 years and over (reasonably close to the over 16 years old in the USCB report).
  2. When the USCB author (Benjamin Cerf Harris) eliminated duplication, the resulting number of PIK’s was equal to 91 % of the “over 16” population.  Accordingly, I multiplied the number of people over 18 by 91 % to get the Adjusted Population or number of PIK’s (Protected Identification Key or unique person identifier).
  3. In the above Table, the Adjusted Population was multiplied by the upper end factor (e.g., 4.7 or 3.3) to obtain the likely number of transgenders in the state.
  4. This method produced a figure of 16,223 for the U.S. (very close to the 16,155 figure in Table 5 of the U.S. Census Bureau report).  This demonstrates that the method effectively duplicates the USCB figures.

Based on this information:

          Nebraska has about 59 transgender individuals.       

          Texas has about 859 transgender individuals.

          Iowa has about 70 transgender individuals.

          Kansas has about 64 transgender individuals.

 

Several examples are offered to illustrate the small number of transgender persons in various settings.

In a football stadium that holds 87,000 fans, perhaps 70,000 would be adults over 16 years of age.  According to the USCB report percentages, there would be about 3 transgender individuals in the stadium.

Omaha, Nebraska has a 2010 Census population of 408,958, with roughly 306,718 adults over 18 years of age.  With the USCB ratio for Nebraska, Omaha would have around 14 transgender persons.  Similar calculations for

Lincoln, Nebraska (258,379 population and 198,952 people over 18 years of age) would yield 9 transgender individuals.

http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/00

How about Texas?  Austin, Texas has a 2010 Census population of 811,458; and 632,937 adults are over 18 years of age.  With the USCB ratio, Austin, Texas has about 30 transgender individuals.  Dallas, Texas has a population of 1,197,816 and 886,384 people over 18 years of age.  Under the USCB figures, Dallas would have about 42 transgenders.  Waco, Texas has a population of 124,805 (93,604 adults over 18 years old).  Similar calculations for Waco would indicate 4 transgender people in the city.

http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/00,4805000

 

The number of transgender people in any one state is rather small.  As a percent, 4 transgenders / 100,000 equals 0.00004 %, which is much smaller than the bogus 0.3 % figure.  With percentages this small, it is easier to grasp and understand “4 transgenders per 100,000” than “0.00004 %.”

 

  1. SAFETY AND SECURITY CONCERNS WITH TRANSGENDER RULES

Obama’s administrative directive creates major safety and security issues for the schools.  For the sake of a handful of transgender individuals, Obama is destroying the privacy and dignity of millions upon millions of students.  (According to the NCES, there were 50 million public school students in 2015.)

http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=372

A school superintendent in Texas raised an excellent point easily overlooked in this discussion – adult visitors who may be using the restrooms.  When a school has visitors for programs and sporting events, grown men could very easily be in the restrooms with young girls.

Deputy First Assistant Attorney General Brantley Starr, who works in Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s office, spoke to the safety concerns:

          The concerns we’ve always heard are related to safety,” Starr said. “That’s why it’s such an important debate that Congress has on a very regular basis. Almost every year since Congress passed Title IX, they’ve debated whether or not to include gender identity discrimination as part of Title IX. Every time they’ve considered it, they’ve heard the policy issues on both sides and rejected any attempts to include gender identity as part of Title IX.

          http://dailysignal.com/2016/05/25/texas-sues-obama-administration-over-transgender-bathroom-directive/

On 5.25.16, Texas Senator Ted Cruz addressed safety and predatory issues:    

Moreover, Obama’s decree flies in the face of common sense. In my years in law enforcement, I’ve handled far too many cases of child molesters, pedophiles, and people who abused little kids. The threats of predators are serious, and we should not facilitate allowing grown men or boys to be in bathrooms with little girls.

          https://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=2651

Under Obama’s new rules, men will definitely enter women’s locker rooms and restrooms!  On 2.8.16, in Seattle, Washington, a man claimed a right to use a women’s locker room after his partial undressing caused alarm. 

          According to Seattle Parks and Recreation, women alerted staff at Evans Pool when a man wearing swim trunks entered the women’s locker room and took off his shirt.

 

          When staff told him to leave, the man reportedly said “the law has changed and I have a right to be here.”

 

          Employees told Seattle’s King 5 News the man didn’t attempt to identify as female but cited a new Washington state rule allowing individuals to choose their bathroom based on their gender identity.

 

            http://dailysignal.com/2016/02/23/man-allowed-to-use-womens-locker-room-at-swimming-pool-without-citing-gender-identity/

The man later returned to the locker room while young girls were changing for swimming practice.  A Seattle Parks spokesman confirms what critics have been saying for some time. 

          There is no way for officials to confirm or deny someone’s ‘gender identity.

Rockwall, Texas Mayor Jim Pruitt wrote an insightful open letter on 5.11.16 about the new restroom ordinance.

http://blueribbonnews.com/2016/05/rockwall-mayors-message-open-letter-to-citizens-about-restroom-ordinance/

Mayor Pruitt, a former judge and prosecutor, argued that sexual predators will take advantage of these new rules and laws:

          This is purely a security issue to me.  These businesses are allowing men unrestricted access to a women’s restroom or changing room based solely on their REPRESENTATION that they are “more comfortable” using that opposite sex’s facility.  I believe that sexual predators will use this lax policy as an opportunity to come into contact with women and children in these isolated and heretofore private environments.

          I have been a criminal court judge and practiced criminal law as both a prosecutor and defense lawyer for over 30 years.   I have seen many cases involving sexual predators in that time and cases where these predators look for opportunities to abuse children. 

          When we allow a man to go into a women’s restroom/changing room – unchallenged because of a business policy – we potentially give a predator yet another ridiculous and dangerous opportunity. 

          http://blueribbonnews.com/2016/05/rockwall-mayors-message-open-letter-to-citizens-about-restroom-ordinance/

According to The National Center For Victims of Crime, 14 % of children who suffered sexual abuse were violated by an unknown perpetrator.  Under Obama’s new guidance, it will be open season for unknown sexual predators!

http://futureofchildren.org/futureofchildren/publications/docs/19_02_FullJournal.pdf

 

Numerous articles have described accounts where predatory men are committing crimes in restrooms.  For example, a 4.23.16 Breitbart article documented 25 incidents where predatory men committed criminal actions in restrooms. 

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/04/23/twenty-stories-proving-targets-pro-transgender-bathroom-policy-danger-women-children/

The Breitbart story listed 5 incidents where men committed crimes in restrooms; some men were arrested dressed as women; others claimed to be transgender women.  The article also listed 19 accounts of predators using public restrooms to criminally victimize women and children.  Such documented accounts prove that this is not a hypothetical matter; the new transgender rules will definitely result in many more sexual crimes!

Even though most of the attention focuses on restrooms and locker rooms, the scope is broader than that.  Obama’s transgender directive also applies to dorms, overnight hotels, and other places you might not expect.

A group that must not be forgotten in this debate are women who were sexually assaulted when they were young girls.  For these women, it would be very traumatic for a man to enter a women’s locker room or restroom.  A group of women in Washington State have spoken out and told their heart-wrenching stories on a powerful video.  Victims of sexual assault must be protected at all costs!

http://dailysignal.com/2016/01/25/sexual-assault-victims-speak-out-against-washingtons-transgender-bathroom-policies/

 

  1. HOW MUCH FEDERAL EDUCATION MONEY IS AT STAKE?

To force the schools into submission over the transgender issue, Obama is threatening the loss of federal funding.  How much money is at stake?

On 3.10.16, Henry W. Burke wrote the report “Federal Money and Federal Control of Schools.”

http://www.educationviews.org/federal-money-federal-control-schools-3/

 

Public K-12 schools receive revenue from three major sources – federal, state, and local.  Nebraska schools get 9.6 % from federal sources, 32.1 % from state sources, and 58.3 % from local government sources.  Texas schools receive 11.4 % from the federal government, 38.6 % from state government, and 50.0 % from local government sources.

The following Table from that report lists the federal funds received by Nebraska and Texas.

 

TABLE 3 – K-12 FEDERAL REVENUE SOURCES FOR NE AND TX (FY 2013)

Federal Sources United States

($Millions)

Nebraska

($Millions)

Texas

($Millions)

Distributed Through State      
  Title 1     14,348       91     1,398
  Special Education     11,127       80        823
  Child Nutrition     13,757       76     1,723
  Vocational          553         3          53
  Other     10,085       63     1,157
    Total     49,870     313     5,154
       
Direct Federal Aid      
  Impact Aid       1,412       25       116
  Other       3,085       28       426
    Total       4,497       53       542
       
    Total Federal Revenue     54,367     366    5,696

 

Source:

U.S. Census Bureau, “Public Education Finances: 2013,” Issued June 2015, Table 2. 

http://www2.census.gov/govs/school/13f33pub.pdf

http://www.educationviews.org/federal-money-federal-control-schools-3/

 

Comments on Table 3:

  1. Table 3 shows the sources of federal revenue for the U.S. and for two states (Nebraska and Texas).  This gives the reader a sense for the size of the well-known federal programs. 
  2. The United States column shows the figures for the whole country; the next two columns provide information on Nebraska and Texas.
  3. Most of the federal revenue is distributed through the states.  Four specific programs are distributed through the State (Title 1, Special Education, Child Nutrition, and Vocational).
  4. Nebraska received $91 million for Title 1, $80 million for Special Education, $76 million for Child Nutrition, and $3 million for Vocational programs.  Direct Federal Aid accounts for $53 million of the Total Federal Revenue.  Nebraska received $366 million in federal education revenue.

[$91 + $80 + $76 + $3 + $63 =$313 million] and

[$313 + $53 = $366 million]

  1. Texas received $1,398 million for Title 1, $823 million for Special Education, $1,723 million for Child Nutrition, and $53 million for Vocational programs.

 

Title I is a federal program that provides funding to local school districts to improve the academic achievement of low-income, disadvantaged students.  The Special Education and Child Nutrition programs are self-explanatory.

For Nebraska, these three programs constitute $247 million in federal funding.  In Texas, the three programs total $3,944 million ($3.94 billion) in federal funds. 

Is it reasonable to assume that America’s first black president would cut off $247 million in funding for Nebraska’s low-income, minority students, including special education and malnourished students? 

Would Obama deprive Texas of $3.94 billion for these same programs?  Most intelligent, thinking people view his pronouncements as just idle threats, designed to scare the states and school districts into submission.

Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick recently said:

          If the president would follow through on his threat to punish a school district by taking away their funds, he would be taking food off the plate, literally, of the poorest of the poor. So does the president really want to withhold funds and take away the free lunch and free breakfast program? I don’t think so.

          http://dailysignal.com/2016/05/19/three-things-texas-is-doing-to-defy-obamas-transgender-directive/

 

  1. TEXAS IS TAKING ACTION AGAINST OBAMA’S DIRECTIVES

Texas Lt. Governor Dan Patrick said his state will not be “blackmailed” by Obama and announced that Texas will stand up to the transgender guidelines in three ways:

  1. By preparing to take legal action

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has sent a letter to the Justice and Education Departments about the guidelines.  The Attorney General said:

          “Once again, the Obama administration has overstepped its constitutional bounds to meddle in the affairs of state and local government,” Paxton said in a statement last Friday. “Today’s announcement seeking to unilaterally redefine and expand federal law must be challenged. If President Obama thinks he can bully Texas schools into allowing men to have open access to girls in bathrooms, he better prepare for yet another legal fight.”

          The so-called ‘significant guidance’ issued by the Obama administration raises more questions than it answers, just as it creates concerns among anyone who believes sex is a biological fact and not a personal preference.

          http://dailysignal.com/2016/05/19/three-things-texas-is-doing-to-defy-obamas-transgender-directive/

 

  1. By passing legislation that keeps men out of women’s restrooms

Lt. Governor Dan Patrick commented:

            “I’ve asked the school districts already to stand down, superintendents not to react, not to initiate policy. There are only a couple of weeks left in school,” Patrick said. “Let’s work through this in the summer. I’m going to continue to encourage school districts to defy the president. This is not law.”

  1. By working with other Republican lieutenant governors

The goal is to urge more resistance to Obama’s directive.  Lt. Governor Dan Patrick said:

          “As we build toward the legislature next session, we’ll be working with both common-sense principles with the superintendent, working from the legal side with the attorney general, and then looking at what legislation we would pass,” Patrick said, adding:

          My position is clear. We don’t want their dirty money. They don’t buy our kids at any price in Texas. We will work through this. We’ll just say no to the money at the end of the day.

          http://dailysignal.com/2016/05/19/three-things-texas-is-doing-to-defy-obamas-transgender-directive/

 

  1. TEXAS SUES OBAMA ADMINISTRATION OVER TRANSGENDER POLICY

Making good on its pledge to take legal action against Obama’s transgender guidelines, Texas sued the Obama Administration on Wednesday, May 25, 2016.  The new guidelines or directives are requiring public schools to open up all intimate areas (restrooms, locker rooms, etc.) to both sexes.

The Texas Attorney General filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court against the U.S. Department of Education, U.S. Department of Justice, and other federal agencies and officials.  Joining Texas in the filing are Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin.  As the outrage grows and the realities become more apparent to the public, other states are sure to join with Texas.

 

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said:

          This represents just the latest example of the current administration’s attempts to accomplish by executive fiat what they couldn’t accomplish through the democratic process in Congress. By forcing through his policies by executive action, President Obama excluded the voice of the people. We stand today to ensure those voices are heard.  

            https://texasattorneygeneral.gov/news/releases/ag-paxton-texas-leads-fight-against-doe-doj-bathroom-locker-room-rules

The Texas Attorney General’s website explains:

          The Obama Administration is attempting to rewrite Congress’s use of the term “sex” in federal law to now expand to include “gender identity.” If successful, this radical change opens up all intimate areas within schools simultaneously to members of both sexes.

            https://texasattorneygeneral.gov/

            https://texasattorneygeneral.gov/news/releases/ag-paxton-texas-leads-fight-against-doe-doj-bathroom-locker-room-rules

 

Under Section IV. Claims for Relief, the lawsuit includes the following ten Counts (abbreviated):

  1. Guidance and interpretations are being imposed without observance of procedure required by law.
  2. Guidance is unlawful by exceeding congressional authorization.
  3. Guidance is unlawful by violating the Tenth Amendment.
  4. Guidance is unlawful by violating the Fourteenth Amendment.
  5. Guidance unlawfully abrogates state sovereign immunity.
  6. Guidance is arbitrary and capricious.
  7. Guidance is arbitrary and capricious (different section).
  8. Guidance is unlawful and violates constitutional standards of clear notice.
  9. Guidance is unlawful and unconstitutionally coercive.
  10. Guidance was issued without proper regulatory flexibility analysis.

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/files/epress/files/2016/complaint_FM.pdf

 

The Texas lawsuit might enjoy the most success, at least initially, on Count No. 1.  The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) is covered in 5 U.S.C.  § 701-708.  The lawsuit states:

          The APA requires this Court to hold unlawful and set aside any agency action taken “without observance of procedure required by law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(D).

          https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/files/epress/files/2016/complaint_FM.pdf

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requires the government to submit significant new regulations for public notice and comment. 

http://www.patentofficelawsuit.info/apa_act.htm

The Obama Administration (fearing the public outcry) did not do that.  This is the same point that caused the court to place a hold on Obama’s executive amnesty orders.  On 2.16.16, a federal judge blocked the Obama Administration’s executive actions on immigration for this reason.

          It also said Obama violated the Administrative Procedure Act by not running his orders through the elaborate process of rulemaking — including 90-day notices and comment periods — instead just ramming them through via directives.

            https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/02/17/federal-judge-in-texas-blocks-obama-immigration-orders/

 

 

CONCLUSION

Obama first tried to scare the schools on the transgender issue in 2010, with the “Dear Colleague Letter.”

Title IX prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex.  Of course, “sex” refers to the biological reality of being male or female.

Even though the Obama Administration repeatedly cites Title IX as the basis for its decree, Title IX does not address transgenders.

The Obama ideologues have no legal basis for the decree.  The Constitution does not allow it.

The number of transgender individuals in the U.S. is actually quite small.  According to a reliable U.S. Census Bureau report, there are about 16,000 likely transgender individuals in the U.S.  This is roughly 7 transgenders per 100,000 people.

In a football stadium seating 87,000 fans, there would be about 3 transgender people.  In a similar way, Omaha, Nebraska has around 14 transgenders and Lincoln, Nebraska has about 9 transgender individuals.

Similar calculations for Texas would yield 30 transgender individuals in Austin, Texas, 42 transgender people in Dallas, Texas and 4 transgender individuals in Waco, Texas.

Nebraska has about 59 transgenders and Texas has around 859 transgender people in the state.

Obama’s administrative directive creates major safety and security issues for the schools.  For the sake of a handful of transgender individuals, Obama is destroying the privacy and dignity of over 50 million students! 

It is extremely unsafe to allow men in women’s locker rooms and restrooms.  Women who were sexually assaulted as young girls will be severely traumatized by a man in a women’s space.

To force the schools into submission, Obama’s henchmen are threatening lawsuits and the loss of federal funding.

Federal funding for local schools is aimed primarily at low-income, disadvantaged students.  For Nebraska, three federal programs constitute $247 million in federal funds.  In Texas, the three programs total $3.94 billion.

Is it reasonable to assume that America’s first black president would cut off $247 million in funding for Nebraska’s low-income, minority students?  Would he really take money away from special education and malnourished students?  Would Obama deprive Texas of $3.94 billion for these same programs? 

Most intelligent people view Obama’s decrees as just idle threats, designed to scare the states and school districts into submission.

Texas and 12 other states sued the Obama Administration over the transgender guidelines.

Among the ten Counts in the lawsuit, seven Counts deal directly with the unlawful nature of Obama’s guidance; and two Counts point to violation of the Tenth and Fourteenth Amendments.  

One Count addresses Obama’s violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.  This is the same law that caused a federal judge to block Obama’s executive amnesty actions for illegal immigrants.

=======================================

Bio for Henry W. Burke

Henry Burke is a Civil Engineer with a B.S.C.E. and M.S.C.E.  He has been a Registered Professional Engineer (P.E.) for 37 years and has worked as a Civil Engineer in construction for over 40 years. 

Mr. Burke had a successful 27-year career with a large construction company. 

Henry Burke serves as a full-time volunteer to oversee various construction projects. He has written numerous articles on education, engineering, construction, politics, taxes, and the economy.

Henry W. Burke

E-mail:  hwburke@cox.net

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Advertisements
Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on FacebookPin on PinterestShare on LinkedInShare on TumblrShare on StumbleUponPrint this pageEmail this to someone

Related Posts

Tags

Share This

3 Comments

  1. Denise

    Please also provide evidence as to why Obama is doing this. Remind everyone that Hillary and Bernie support Common Core. Do they also support this Transgender law as well? In the meantime inform parents as to their school choice options outside the gov. Institutions.
    Remember to vote Trump.

    • Karen Bracken

      One point that also needs to be brought out. This is not about trans genders or LGBT. They are using them (useful idiots is the term) to promote another agenda that has nothing to do with compassion for these people. And when they have achieved that agenda it will be the poor and fringe community that will be the first they go after. If we allow this to take place it will lead to much much worse. We must stop the bleeding now because when the hemorrhage starts there will be stopping it. Parents if you have to pull your kids until these criminals come to their senses then that is what must happen. Do NOT allow the school to implement this policy and do not allow your children to be taught about alternative lifestyles and sex. That is your job. It is not the schools job. Teaching kids about sex does not stop kids from having sex. The rise in single mother parents proves this. What it does is just the opposite. It promotes promiscuity and dependency on the government. It promotes dysfunctional families, it sets kids up for failure. All part of the plan. On January 10, 1963 a member of the US Congress introduced into the Federal Register a list of 45 goals that if implemented in America will turn our once free republic into a Communist country. If you read those 45 items you will see that most of them have either been completed or are on their way to completion. Not one is not in the works.

    • Karen Bracken

      One point that also needs to be brought out. This is not about trans genders or LGBT. They are using them (useful idiots is the term) to promote another agenda that has nothing to do with compassion for these people. And when they have achieved that agenda it will be the poor and fringe community that will be the first they go after. If we allow this to take place it will lead to much much worse. We must stop the bleeding now because when the hemorrhage starts there will be stopping it. Parents if you have to pull your kids until these criminals come to their senses then that is what must happen. Do NOT allow the school to implement this policy and do not allow your children to be taught about alternative lifestyles and sex. That is your job. It is not the schools job. Teaching kids about sex does not stop kids from having sex. The rise in single mother parents proves this. What it does is just the opposite. It promotes promiscuity and dependency on the government. It promotes dysfunctional families, it sets kids up for failure. All part of the plan. On January 10, 1963 a member of the US Congress introduced into the Federal Register a list of 45 goals that if implemented in America will turn our once free republic into a Communist country. If you read those 45 items you will see that most of them have either been completed or are on their way to completion. Not one is not in the works. We failed to listen to the warnings.

Leave a Reply

UA-24036587-1
%d bloggers like this: