I think there's more to it than just some pervert wanting to play sex games. I've heard that some children are born with messed up private parts and are altered one way or another to be male or female. They are not always happy with the life they are forced to live as, so they want to be changed into what they percieve as their proper g****r. I don't have a problem with that ....BUT to allow a inmate to use tax payers dollars to do thus is ridiculous. What a stupid judge that decided this was ok. Fire that asshole.

This is the kind of betrayal you v**e for time and time again...

Remember this the next time you go to V**E !

Witness the attack on your foundations by a T*****R tried and true.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX



51 v**es: Republican Mark Kirk signals he’ll v**e for Loretta Lynch as AG, ensuring confirmation
POSTED AT 6:41 PM ON APRIL 2, 2015 BY ALLAHPUNDIT

DID ANYONE THINK ONE OF THE SENATE’S MOST RELIABLE RINOS, WHO’S UP FOR REE******N NEXT YEAR NOT JUST IN A VERY BLUE STATE BUT IN BARACK OBAMA’S HOME STATE, AND WHO SUPPORTED THE SCHUMER/RUBIO GANG OF EIGHT AMNESTY BILL, WAS GOING TO GO TO THE MAT TO BLOCK OBAMA’S PICK FOR AG TO PROTEST EXECUTIVE AMNESTY?

Conservative Republicans won’t stick up for religious liberty even in red states for fear of being called bigots. The odds of a moderate Republican opposing the first black woman Attorney General of the United States in a Democratic stronghold were precisely zero.

“I am confident from my conversation with Loretta Lynch that she will be a valuable partner in confronting the gang violence that is robbing families of their children every day in Chicago,” Kirk, a senator from Illinois, said in a statement.

All 44 Senate Democrats and two independents are expected to v**e for Lynch, who would be the first African-American woman to head the Justice Department…

Prior to Thursday, four Republicans indicated they would v**e for Lynch’s nomination, and with Kirk, there potentially would be a majority in the Senate to confirm her.

Kirk has an excuse: A no v**e here could hurt him next year in his Senate race in Illinois. What’s the excuse for Jeff Flake, Lindsey Graham, and Orrin Hatch, all three of whom come from red states and none of whom is up in 2016? (Susan Collins is the other Republican supporting Lynch.) I realize that Graham and Flake are amnesty shills, but even they should be capable of rebuking Obama for seizing Congress’s power over immigration for himself.

So yeah, we can let Kirk slide on that, if only in the interest of protecting the GOP’s Senate majority in 2016. You ready to let him slide on this, though?

Only days after a high-profile Democrat opponent announced a run to take his seat, Illinois Republican Senator Mark Kirk is coming out swinging. Not against his opponent, but against fellow Republican Mike Pence for signing Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

On Wednesday, Kirk attacked Indiana’s Republican Governor for signing his state’s much-dissected Religious Freedom Restoration Act, saying that he “strongly opposes” the governor’s actions…

“We should not enshrine bigotry under the cover of religion. It’s not just bad practice—it’s un-American,” he said in his statement.

There are tactful ways to pander to moderates on Indiana and RFRA — just ask Jeb Bush — and then there are ways so demagogic that even many Democrats are staying away from them. Why is Kirk in the latter camp and not the former? Take it from me, it’s possible to support gay rights without also thinking Christian business owners should be forced on pain of sanction to participate in gay weddings. Maybe Kirk’s convinced that nothing short of over-the-top condemnation of religious liberty will satisfy blue-state v**ers at this point. Or maybe he’s just a jackhole. Exit quotation via Sean Davis: “[Senator Kirk] says religious freedom — literally America’s reason for existence — is ‘un-American.’”

Ron Paul
Last week, the Justice Department announced it would not charge former Internal Revenue Service official Lois Lerner with contempt of Congress. Some members of Congress requested that Lerner be charged with contempt after she refused to testify at a congressional hearing investigating her role in denying or delaying the applications for tax-exempt status of Tea Party and pro-limited-government organizations.

Cynics might suggest it is not surprising that a former government official would avoid prosecution for refusing to tell Congress about how federal employees abused their power to help the incumbent administration. These cynics have a point, but the problem goes beyond mere partisanship. Government officials are rarely prosecuted for even the most blatant violations of our liberties. In contrast, federal prosecutors routinely pursue criminal charges against whistleblowers. For example, the only American prosecuted and imprisoned in relation to the government’s use of torture was whistleblower John Kiriakou.



While some officials like Lerner who find themselves at the center of a high-profile scandal or partisan dispute can expect harsh treatment from Congress, this is the exception, not the rule. Executive branch officials usually receive deferential treatment from members of Congress. I recall one hearing on government surveillance where a representative actually apologized to a government official because Congress had the gall to ask that official to testify about the government’s ongoing surveillance of the American people.

In contrast, private citizens called before Congress are harangued and even bullied. Congress should stop using the hearing process to intimidate private citizens and start using it to intimidate those government officials who are threatening our liberty. For example, Congress should continue to investigate the IRS’s ongoing attempts to silence organizations that work to advance free markets and individual liberty.

My Campaign for Liberty organization has had to battle an IRS demand that it hand over personal information regarding some of its top donors. The IRS is either ignoring, or ignorant of, the numerous precedents protecting the right of organizations like the Campaign for Liberty to protect their members’ privacy from government officials.

The IRS is drafting a new regulation that would empower the agency to revoke an organization’s tax-exempt status if that organization sends out a communication to its members or the general public mentioning a candidate for office by name 60 days before an e******n or 30 days before a primary. By preventing groups from telling their members where candidates stand on issues like Audit the Fed and repeal of the Patriot Act, this anti-1st Amendment regulation benefits those politicians who wish to hide their beliefs from the v**ers.

Since the IRS’s power stems from the tax system, the only way to protect our liberty from this agency is to eliminate the tax code. Promising to end the IRS is a popular applause line for politicians wishing to appear as champions of liberty. Last week, John Koskinen, the current IRS commissar, responded to these cries to end the IRS by pointing out that shutting down the IRS would deprive Congress of the revenue needed to fund the welfare-warfare state. Koskinen has a point. Congress cannot shut down the IRS until it enacts major reductions in all areas of government spending.

Politicians who v**e for warfare abroad and welfare at home yet claim they want to shut down the IRS should not be taken seriously. Freeing the people from the IRS’s tyranny is one of the best reasons to end the welfare-warfare state and return the federal government to its constitutional limitations.

–Ron Paul

as we grow older we sometimes doubt our ability
to" make a difference"
it is at these times our hopes are boosted
by some remarkable achievement of other seniors
who have the courage and knowhow to take on
challenges that would make most of us wither.

such a man is Harold Schlumberger
Harold says"Ive often been asked what I do with all my spare time,"?
I reply "I am fortunate to have a chemical engineering background,and one of the things I most enjoy is
converting beer, wine and Jack Daniels whiskey
into urine"!
"
this is rewarding,uplifting,satisfying and fulfilling.
I do it every day."

Mr Sclumberger also tells us to liven up our idle hours
and keep a healthy level of insanity

1--sit in your parked car with sunglasses on,and point a hair dryer at passing cars.watch them slow down
2--on all your check stubs write "for marijuana"
3--skip down the street.see how many stares you get
4--when in a restaurant,order a diet water with a serious face
5--sing along with the diva at the opera
6--when the cash comes out of the ATM scream
"I WON!! I WON!!
7--when leaving the zoo,run for your car yelling"RUN FOR YOUR LIVES THEY ARE LOOSE"

and finally
pick up a box of condoms at the pharmacy,approach the prettiest employee and (showing the box of condoms)
ask
"where is the fitting room for these?"

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/04/03/judge-orders-california-to-pay-for-inmate-sex-change/

A judge has ordered that the taxpayers get to pay for some g****r-confused puke's s*x c****e operation!!??
Our country is lost, if we don't o something to take it back from these activist hacks!

If sweetie-pie wants to change his sexual organs, let him stop committing crimes, and get ta job to pay for it his/her damned self!

I am sickened by this stiff-necked approach to governing from the bench!

I didn't forget anyone, my post was merely responding to a post that listed the names, of some individuals, that a poster thought were in the Obama administration. And the crux of that poster's post was that Obama was loading his administration up with members of the "Muslim Brotherhood". When that is not the case at all. So I'm not quite sure how Valerie Jarrett fits into this, because I only responded to the names the poster posted, and Valerie Jarrett was not one of them. Is she Muslim and a part of the Muslim Brotherhood?