Posted on 05/16/2016 7:04:58 AM PDT by Sean_Anthony
Gauntlet thrown
Surely you heard this past weekend about the Obama threat to withhold federal education funds from states who don’t immediately embrace Obama’s transgender bathroom policies. The current shell game of collecting money through the IRS and then sending it back to the states in the form of federal aid is merely a way for the federal government to dictate to the state how they must operate. It’s certainly not a new phenomenon, either. Remember the nationwide 55-mile-per-hour speed limit? That was never a law passed by Congress. It as a gambit of Jimmy Carter to deny federal highway funds to any state that didn’t play ball.
Typically, states meekly capituate to these threats because they don’t want to lose the funds. Obama knows that perfectly well, and figured he could use the threat of withholding federal funds to force his transgender bathroom agenda on the entire nation.
Obama’s Coed Bathroom Madness (links)
The operative phrase here is, “does not have the force of law.” This is a cynical exercise in pure propaganda on the part of the Obama administration.
As noted by former Assistant U.S. Attorney Frank Lipuma in the John Marshal Law Review, the “courts have defined ‘sex’ according to the traditional notions of biological sex.”
http://repository.jmls.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2206&context=lawreview
And stuff 'em where the sun don't shine...
If a State says no to Barky, then have each school do something to raise money, for free lunches, have people in that School District have donations given for that purpose..there isn't a tax on donations, do a ‘yard sale’ on the parking lot of different schools...all proceeds are to go to books, free lunches, school trips...
We need to quit relying on the Feds to provide for our needs...it's hard, I know, but come on...it's our taxes that are supporting our schools, and on that subject, NO HIGHER TAXES on property for school functions...
It would be interesting to observe what actually, really happens if the Feds stop sending money to a state. It would probably be different in a state like OK vs a state like TX, but maybe I am showing some prejudice.
I think it would be absolutely fascinating, though obviously some people would be “hurt”. Some of those would be your standard gaggle of grifters. I have no way of predicting, but the states could conceivable fight back with a PR campaign “we are immediately shutting down 20% of our schools statewide and eliminating all ESL courses statewide. We have temporarily laid off 25% of our teacher staff and eliminated all PE classes across our entire school system, statewide (would be explosive in TX with football, OMG!) The governor is declaring a styate of emergency and we are requesting $50 billion in Federal funds to allow us to construct unisex bathrooms in 5337 schools statewide.”
I mean....it would be absolutely fascinating to see the blowback and PR damage the admin would have thrown at them.
And Loretta Lynch could go “merely, merely, merely” and let’s just see the nationwide freakout reaction.
Agreed. All true.
And my statement was a little sarcastic.
Correction: Obama likes gays and transgenders more than he likes the other children.
Dorkbama the Muslim Dick can shove his silly little executive orders up his Obamahole.
That is exactly how New Mexico busted that stupid 55mph law of Carter's.
Since the feds deal DIRECTLY with the school districts, Mr. Patrick’s statement will have little, if any, effect, as the school districts are not about to do what he’s asking, considering who runs them.
Now if Texas would PROHIBIT its schools from receiving federal money, then things would get VERY INTERESTING. Among the first things that would be discovered would be that the loss of red tape may well negate the loss of funding. For example - cafeterias could cook food that kids want, and charge them for it appropriately...and God knows what else could be done with the feds off their backs.
If you are a parent, will you let your children starve if bathhouse Barry withholds funding?
Well said. IMO it would be simply a colossal FU to the Feds.
The way Montana got around it was to make violations an “environmental infraction” subject to a $5 fine. That could be paid on the spot and not subject to disclosure to insurance companies, etc.
Guy I lived near was into exotics and spent two weeks up in MT every summer with his cars and a BIG roll of Abraham Lincolns ...
Don’t forget, the Constitution DOES NOT give authority over “Education” to the Feds. it is reserved as a state’s right.
... somewhat similar to how leftists, gays and camel jockeys use our laws and goodwill against us.
free lunch program...would that be free michelle garbage?
Texas will take care of it’s own.
Would Barry starve my child? The answer is probably yes. After all, he and his ilk are willing to risk the safety, security and dignity of women and girls for “the agenda.” No doubt, he’d be willing to let “a few” kids go without food.
Secede!
Barry might starve my child, you might wait for him to feed them, but my children will not starve, I will see to that with my last breath.
This is what happens when the government pays women a per-cold stipend, changing parenthood from families who love, to a cottage business.
The children go “feral”, and we end up with the society we have today.
Montana looks and sounds like a beautiful place. If only it didn’t get so cold.
Good points.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.