In a companion article, “Call to Action-A Recent Example of Acceptance by Apathy“, my good friend, Aaron Pankacik (pictured below in the middle), brought to your attention the rather astounding story.
A 13-year-old girl reported seeing a biological boy urinating in a girl-designated room at a Milford school. Having been afflicted with lawyering in my 42-year career, I asked myself,” How can this be?”
Under RSA 654:1, New Hampshire law provides:
I. A PERSON IS GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR IF SUCH PERSON FORNICATES, EXPOSES HIS OR HER GENITALS, OR PERFORMS AN ACT OF GROSS LEWDNESS UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH HE OR SHE SHOULD KNOW WILL LIKELY CAUSE AFFRONT OR HARM.
II. A PERSON IS GUILTY OF A CLASS B FELONY IF:
(a)SUCH PERSON, UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES THAT MAY BE REASONABLY CONSTRUED AS BEING FOR THE PURPOSE OF SEXUAL GRATIFICATION OR AROUSAL, PURPOSELY…EXPOSES HIS OR HER GENITALS OR PERFORMS ANY OTHER ACT OF GROSS LEWDNESS KNOWING THAT A CHILD WHO IS LESS THAN 16 YEARS OF AGE IS PRESENT.
I ran this law by my chickens (who admittedly were not in their right minds having been assaulted by a bobcat who killed two of their numbers), and they unanimously affirm: The law is clear, applicable, and should be enforced.
“WERE THE POLICE CALLED? “They screamed (or should I say cackled?)
“DID THE MILFORD SCHOOL BOARD ENFORCE THE CLEAR MANDATE OF RSA 654:1?” Shouted two in the back who were cowering over some black oil sunflower seeds I had thrown out.
I checked and reported back to them: “Looks like, after careful deliberation, that the school board took extreme action that may be comparable to those famous shots heard around the world (you know, the ones in Concord and Lexington back when Massachusetts actually loved the USA) they put garbage bags over the boys’ urinals.”
“HUH?” the chickens respond. and then inquired:
“Where does it say, in the statute, VIOLATION OF THIS STATUTE-IN THE GIRLS RESTROOM- IS PUNISHABLE BY PLACEMENT OF GARBAGE BAGS ON THE BOYS’ URINALS?”
Confused by the failure of the Police or the School Board to enforce the law, my chickens convened another session of the CLUCKER COMMISSION to analyze the situation. They asked me to fully, fairly, and objectively present the facts for their consideration.
After listening to me, (and after a dinner of mealworms -made in China-can, you believe it? -, black oil sunflower seeds, and some NGO whole grains), they ruled:
“SOME PEOPLE FOLLOW AN AGENDA AND IGNORE THE LAW.”
As usual, the CLUCKER COMMISSION steered me in the right direction.
“Pray tell what agenda that might be?” I asked myself since the chickens had gone to bed and no one else would listen.
Right after getting into office, Joe Biden issued executive order 14021, which, amongst other things, ordered the Secretary of Education (you know his name, right? since you voted for him, right?) to come up with new rules that repealed all of Trumps ‘rules that said that boys were boys and girls were girls and each is entitled to privacy when dressing or urinating. New rules that protected the “right” of any boy to parade his wiener anywhere he pleased but especially in front of 13-year-old girls getting ready for gym class. (I have to be careful here as my chickens have been parading naked for thousands of years. Animals do that, you know.)
The Secretary of Education got together with his staff of unelected folks and talked to their unelected lawyers and came up with a d00zy: “LET’S REVIVE THAT OLD DEFENSE TO RAPE THAT SAYS ITS THE VICTUMS FAULT, AND SHE NEEDS TO BE PUNISHED.”
Then, the lawyers, like all good lawyers, turned to a Supreme Court case and perverted its decision to their advantage.
In BOSTOCK V CLAYTON, the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT ruled that TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF, 1964-which barred discrimination based upon “sex,”- extended to protect the employment rights of gays, lesbians and transgenders. The exact wording of the statute is important, so here it is:
(a)Employer practices
It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer
(1) to fail or refuse to hire or discharge an individual or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
In BOSTOCK, the employer fired a transgender female because her claim to being female did not match her birth certificate, wherein she was identified as a boy.
The COURT ruled that this firing was based upon the factor of “sex” and therefore it violated the 1964 CIVIL RIGHTS ACT.
The COURT held that an employer simply cannot hire, fire or promote based on the factor of “sex” which included gender identity.
A person’s “sex”(including gender identity) simply cannot be considered by an employer for any purpose related to employment.
The COURT however specifically said that such a ruling was limited to the employment setting and that it had no application to the issue of boy/girl bathrooms or gym lockers. The COURT simply held that how a bathroom was designated was a completely different issue than firing someone who claims to be transgender.
The DOE missed that admonition and decided to adopt the “BOSTOCK” reasoning and determined that “SEX” cannot be used as basis for decision-making when it comes to bathrooms, locker rooms, or sports. They drafted their new rules under Title IX to provide that a school-whether elementary, high school or college- cannot allow any consideration of “sex” in any of its policies. 13-year-old girls cannot complain about naked boys. If they do, they are to be punished both civilly and criminally.
Boys’ bathrooms or locker rooms-Gone.
Girls’ bathrooms or locker rooms: Gone.
Boys’ sports? Girls’ sports? Gone
Woman’s rights- nope–they are gone.
Here’s how it works:
The new rules bar any form of harassment based upon “sex”. They outlaw…
“(ANY FORM OF HARRASSMENT BASED UPON SEX)”WHICH SUBJECTIVELY OR OBJECTIVELY CREATES A HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT IMPAIRING THE VICTIM RIGHT TO FULLY PARTICIPATE IN SCHOOL-RELATED ACTIVITY.”
If a biological boy decides to parade naked into the girl’s locker room or the girls’ gyms or decides he wants to be on a girls’ team, anyone who complains about his decision, or prevents him from taking the action he wants to take, is “harassing “him based upon his “sex.”
All the boy “victim” has to say is say that “I feel I am a girl” (even though he still has all the boy parts and has no intent of parting with them), and I want to use the girl’s bathroom or gym or play on the girl’s team, and since you barred me from doing what I want, I am upset, I cannot do my homework, or I cannot listen in class. This “complaint “invokes the full force and effect of the new law, and those who interfered or prevented the “victim” from his “into the girl” world adventure are to be punished-including any witnesses who did nothing (yea, the new rules punish bystanders who do not come to the aid of the boy who wants to parade naked in front of the 13-year-old girl.).
Let’s use the use MILFORD INCIDENT to explain the details of how these new rules will work once implemented in the next few weeks:
The young boy who chose to expose himself to the 13-year-old girl is the “victim” under the new rules. The “criminal” is the girl. (Gee, I wonder what happens if the boy-instead of just exposing himself- engages in sex with his friends in front of the 13-year-old girl?)
Not letting him use the girl’s bathroom-or locker room- or not allowing him to play on a girls’ team- is to make a decision to exclude him from something he wants to do based upon his profession of his “sex” and as a result, it is harassment” based upon a consideration of “sex.”
” Under BOSTOCK (according to the DOE), such action is illegal. Criminal. “You are going to jail” bad.
THE 13-YEAR-OLD GIRL WHO COMPLAINED IS VIOLATING HIS RIGHTS UNDER TITLE IX OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964.
She is harassing him based upon his sexual preferences.
THE MOM WHO COMPLAINED ABOUT THE BOY IS ALSO IN VIOLATION OF THE SAME LAW AND IS SUBECT TO THE SAME CRIMINAL AND CIVIL SANCTIONS.
She too is harassing the boy-based upon his sexual preferences.
MY CHICKENS ASK: Who the hell would enforce such a law against the 13-year-old girl and her mom?
Under the DOE rules, enforcement is taken out of the hands of the local authorities. A federal “cop” answerable only to the DOE is implanted in each school-elementary, middle, high and college. This federal “cop” is the investigator, the arresting officer, the judge and the jury in enforcing any perceived violations of the new rules.
Teachers, students, even janitors are duty bound to report any “suspicious” circumstances-whether on school grounds, during school events or even in non-school grounds, non-school events that might affect the “learning ” experience of the victim( thus, if a mom is in line at Market Basket and comments in the negative about the boy in the above scenario-and if that gets back to the students, that is a violation. And failure to report the events that are suspicious is itself a violation of the law and fully punishable.)
Here is a fun fact: THE YOUNG GIRL HAS NO RIGHT TO AN ATTORNEY; NO RIGHT OF CROSS EXAMINATION. SHE IS NOT EVEN ALLOWED TO KNOW WHO ACCUSED HER. ANY APPEAL IS TO WASHINGTON DC.
FUNNY THOUGHT: (Again, coming from the CLUCKER COMMISSION who asks)
What if this incident in MILFORD was all a staged event (NOT THE 13-YEAR-OLD GIRL AND HER MOM PART) and all the protesters were organized as a staged event?
And how about the Police: were they all told to stand down and not enforce RSA 654:1 because this whole thing with the boy and the incident was pre-planned to advance the about-to-be-enacted new rules from the DOE?
HAS the MILFORD SCHOOL BOARD already openly welcomed the new rules with open arms with a fit of “GOD, I LOVE THESE NEW RULES?” (Did you know that there are 17 school districts in New Hampshire that I found that have already and voluntarily adopted the same rules that we are about to see from the DOE?)
FUNNY ANSWER: A big fight is coming- I hope. There are a whole lot of people who think this Title IX set of rules coming from the DOE and the “HAIR SNIFFER IN CHIEF” JOE BIDEN are just plain wrong. As best I can tell, there is a group of upstart dissidents who seemingly pose a real threat to these new rules. I cannot tell if they have as yet organized themselves, but they have at least gotten labeled by the “woke” crowd. They are called MOMS.
The people in Washington-the DOE and the Ruling class-are, as usual way ahead of the population as to the evil they want to dump on us.
But, in the video provided by my friend Aaron in his article, I saw what obviously has to be one of these dissidents. I saw a Mom who said “ENOUGH.”
Well said, MOM.
The DEPLORABLES ARE WITH YOU.
AND FOR THOSE WHO ARE STILL ASLEEP, IF YOU NEED HELP WAKING UP, FOR THE MERE SUM OF 19.95$, I CAN SEND YOU A RECORDING OF MY CHICKENS SINGING “YANKEE DOODLE DANDEE.”
GOD BLESS!
