Good grief, crazier and crazier. WND:

“‘Gender liberation’ will likely be the new vogue term used to describe the tidal wave that is fast approaching the shores of the California public school system,” writes Robert Tyler, founder of Advocates for Faith & Freedom, a non-profit law firm dedicated to protecting religious liberty. “And you can be sure that it won’t stop there. It will spread throughout the nation and have disastrous consequences on the innocent.

“In other words,” Tyler explains of what “gender liberation” means, “male-female distinctions must be eliminated in order to ‘liberate’ children from unnecessary ‘stereotypes.’ This is not a movement seeking ‘equal rights,’ but a movement seeking to obliterate our God-given distinctions between male and female.”

So how would this be put into pracice?

Tyler reports in the Christian Examiner that his group received literature distributed to public school teachers at the conference, including the following instructions on proper “gender etiquette” in schools:

NY is getting some attention with this.  Another case, similar circumstances.

Ryan Jerome was enjoying his first trip to New York City on business when the former Marine Corps gunner walked up to a security officer at the Empire State Building and asked where he should check his gun.

That was when Jerome’s nightmare began. The security officer called police and Jerome spent the next two days in jail.

The 28-year-old with no criminal history now faces a mandatory minimum sentence of three and a half years in prison. If convicted, his sentence could be as high as fifteen years.

Jerome has a valid concealed carry permit in Indiana and visited New York believing that it was legal to bring his firearm. He was traveling with $15,000 worth of jewelry that he planned to sell.

The online gun-law information Jerome read was inaccurate, however, and his late September arrest initiated what may become a protracted criminal saga. He hasn’t yet been indicted by a grand jury, but there may be little legal wiggle-room if he is.

Once again, common sense takes a back seat to protocol. What is wrong with these people to think the appropriate course of action is sending a kid to juvi because he disrupted class by belching. 

A 13-year-old was handcuffed and hauled off to a juvenile detention for burping in class, according to a lawsuit filed against an Albuquerque school principal, a teacher and city police officer.

The boy was transported without his parents being notified in May after he "burped audibly" in PE class and his teacher called a school resource officer to complain he was disrupting her class.

The lawsuit also details a separate Nov. 8 incident when the same student was forced to strip down to his underwear while five adults watched as he was accused of selling pot to another student; the boy was never charged.

The suit was one of two filed Wednesday by civil rights attorney Shannon Kennedy, who says she has been fighting the district and police for years over the use of force with problem children.

In the other case, the parents of a 7-year-old boy with autism accuse an Albuquerque police officer of unlawful arrest for handcuffing the boy to a chair after he became agitated in class.

New Mexico law prohibits officers and school officials from restraining children under 11.

There is absolutely, positively no conflic of interest here. Move along, people...

With the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee set to begin congressional insider trading hearings today, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, whose husband trades stock options, has proposed a bill that would legalize, not ban, insider trading by members of Congress.

“This is just nuts,” says UCLA Law Professor Stephen Bainbridge.

The controversy surrounding Sen. Gillibrand’s version of the STOCK (Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge) Act involves a curious omission of a conjunction that  CNBC.com editor John Carney calls “shocking” and a “scandal” because it would “gut the law” entirely.

In Sen. Scott Brown’s version of the bill, the law reads:

This is one of the most idiotic things I have seen (recently) coming out of the EU. I fully expected this to be from the ONN, but sure as shootin' it's on The Telegraph. The governing body states that there is no evidence to support the claim that water will prevent dehydration. Therefore, it is now illegal for bottled water manufacturers to publish that claim. Never mind that our bodies are composed of up to 60% of the stuff... unbelievable. 

The last sentance is very telling. The ruling is to counteract claims that there is something "special" about this H²0 thing. Fairness dictates that nothing should ever be more special than anything else, which is justification enough for the government to step in and fix it.

EU officials concluded that, following a three-year investigation, there was no evidence to prove the previously undisputed fact.

Producers of bottled water are now forbidden by law from making the claim and will face a two-year jail sentence if they defy the edict, which comes into force in the UK next month.

Last night, critics claimed the EU was at odds with both science and common sense. Conservative MEP Roger Helmer said: “This is stupidity writ large.

It's not about the food, it's about control. They want it all; it is not for us regular folk. via SHTFPlan.com:

"He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance."

The Declaration of Independence
July 4, 1776

With 48 million Americans on federal food assistance we are bewildered by the latest government outrage from Nevada, where a  group of private citizens gathered together at Quail Hollow Farm for a Farm-to-Fork dinner consisting of an organic spread prepared by Chef Gio were forced to dispatch and sanitize hundreds of pounds of food with bleach.

As invited guests began to arrive, mingle and satiate their appetites, one unexpected individual, operating under the auspices of the Southern Nevada Health District, had another plan in store for dinner.

The following outrageous first-hand account of the incident should make your blood boil. If it doesn’t then we don’t know what will.

Via Laura Bledsoe of Quail Hollow Farm:

[Video of the Event Can Be Viewed Below]

What a sweet deal this is.

1. Author a few books
2. Use taxpayer money to purchase a metric ton for "gifts"
3. ???
4. Profit!

From Hot Air:

According to various reports last week, the State Department spent $70,000 on copies of Barack Obama’s three lauded literary masterpieces (Dreams from My Father,  The Audacity of Hope andOf Thee I Sing) to stock library shelves or to pass out as Christmas presents from U.S. embassies. The administration claims the book distribution helps to “broker talks on important foreign policy matters.” That especially makes sense as a defense of Of Thee I Sing, which just happens to be a children’s book (although, to be fair, royalties on that book go to charity).

Supposedly, the White House had no knowledge of the State Department decision to spend taxpayer dollars on purchases that personally benefit Obama. (As one writer put it, “You pay … Obama reaps the royalties.“) Sheesh, not a lot of communication goes on in the Obama administration, does it?