Bisexual Hollyweirdo Actress Angelina Jolie’s Daughter is “Gender Assigned” at 8 Years Old

PJMedia.com:

According to Refinery 29, Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt’s oldest biological child, Shiloh, has decided to identify as a male at the tender age of 8. The painfully politically correct story attempts to paint a picture of the child, who now refers to herself as “John” although born a girl, as gender-confused at an early age:

Jolie told Vanity Fair in a 2010 interview that John has been exploring their identity since the age of three. ”She wants to be a boy,” Jolie said. “So we had to cut her hair. She likes to wear boys’ everything. She thinks she’s one of the brothers.” 

Here’s the actual quote in context:

“She wants to be a boy. So we had to cut her hair. She likes to wear boys’ everything. She thinks she’s one of the brothers. Shiloh, we feel, has Montenegro style. She dresses like a little dude. It’s how people dress there. She likes tracksuits, she likes [regular] suits. Shiloh’s hysterically funny, one of the goofiest, most playful people you’ll ever meet. Goofy and verbal, the early signs of a performer. I used to get dressed up in costumes and jump around,” the actress explains.

tylists at the time balked at Jolie’s attempt to coin the term “Montenegro style” stating, “she was trying to say something intellectual or funny, and it just sounded dumb.” Probably about as dumb as the Advocate grasping at straws via the stale tale of Shiloh Pitt, who apparently has been dressed in boyswear and given boyishly short haircuts by her parents since she was a toddler. Four years later, why wouldn’t an 8-year-old girl think she ought to be called “John”? If anything she’s aiming for a more defined gender identity than her parents have yet to give her, either through her name, her hair, or her clothing, let alone the gender-neutral pronouns being used to identify her in the media. As the Advocate explains:

Editor’s note: This article uses “they” as a gender-neutral, singular pronoun in an effort to respect the young Jolie-Pitt’s gender identity, whatever that may end up being. 

Children begin to develop a sense of gender roles mere months into life. Politically correct culture, largely influenced by contemporary feminism, instructs that gender roles are strictly the stuff of stereotypes. However, family and parenting influences, not cultural stereotypes, have the greatest impact in a child’s understanding of gender roles:

…gender role behaviors, in­cluding the toys children play with and activities, in which they engage, are in­fluenced by how youngsters are raised and what expectations are made of them. …Perhaps more than any other factor, the subtleties of every child’s relationship with his or her father and mother—and the attitudes of the parents toward each other and toward the child—will influence his or her gender-related behaviors.

For girls like Shiloh who express the desire to be a boy and prefer to be around other boys instead of girls:

These traits suggest a conflict or confusion about gender and relationship with peers of the same sex. The possible causes of these variations are spec­ulative and controversial. Research demonstrates a role for both biological factors and social learning in gender-identity confusion. Family and parenting influences also might contribute to gender confusion.

What pop culture presents as quick and easy evidence to demonstrate their trendy social theories regarding gender and stereotyping is really an example of incredibly poor parenting that leaves a young child in desperate need of structure confused about themselves and their role in the world.

But who’s going to have the guts to say Brangelina are bad parents?

RELATED:  Angelina Jolie’s daughter is “gender assigned” at 8 years old

Five Ways Barack Obama Can Mess with Republicans in 2015

Bloomberg.com:

President Barack Obama knows how to get under Republicans' skin (in so many ways, but in this case we're talking about going around Congress to get things done), and he ended 2014 with a bang: A climate deal with China. Executive action on immigration. A move to normalize relations with Cuba.

As he makes his New Year's resolutions, the liberated, second-term, post-midterm president's list may well include some new maneuvers to enrage the opposition party. Here are five ways he could do it again in 2015.

Keystone

You already know more than you ever thought you would about oil-sands crude, right? TransCanada Corp. wants to complete an $8 billion, 1,179-mile pipeline starting in the Canadian province of Alberta and running 830,000 barrels of oil per day through Nebraska into a network to refineries in Texas and Louisiana. While Obama cares about the Keystone XL project in the context of foreign policy and maintaining good relations with neighbor, ally and trading partner Canada, in 2012 he blocked it because of concerns in Nebraska and kicked it to the State Department for more study.

Now, incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, said he wants to start the new Congress by taking up a bill by Senator John Hoeven, a North Dakota Republican, to approve Keystone under congressional authority. Environmentalists and major Democratic donor Tom Steyer are fighting the project, saying it will worsen global warming and could trigger toxic spills. Republicans largely back the project, saying it can create jobs and reduce gas prices. Opponents say such benefits are greatly overstated or downright irrelevant, given how low gas prices have fallen lately.

Obama was coy throughout the midterms about which way he'll go, maintaining that it was in the State Department's hands and that he would weigh the pros and cons. But he doesn't want Congress to tell him what to do. And in recent weeks, he's hinted strongly that he's turned against Keystone XL. He told comedian Stephen Colbert that while it would be good for Canada, “it's not going to push down gas prices here in the United States,” and that any economic benefit must be weighed against contributing to the warming of the earth, “which could be disastrous.” In his year-end news conference, the president said that “it’s not even going to be a nominal benefit to U.S. consumers.” Asked whether he was issuing a veto threat, he demurred. “I'll see what they do,” he said of Republicans in Congress. “We'll take that up in the new year.”

Campaign finance reform

So-called dark-money nonprofits, such as those affiliated with the Koch brothers, could find it much harder to muck around in elections. Under current practices, up to half of these groups' money can be spent on politics. Changes to the Internal Revenue Service regulations governing 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations could shrink the percentage they can devote to election activities such as advertising. Overall, the aim would be to make it more difficult for any nonprofit group to engage in campaign politics; in practice, it would likely be perceived as a disproportionate handicap of conservative donor-backed organizations. These are among the reforms that the administration, regulatory groups or Congress could take on if so inclined (which Congress probably is not).

Climate change

Think power plants and methane.

Last year, Obama proposed power-plant standards Republicans oppose to reduce carbon dioxide by 26 percent by 2020 and 30 percent by 2030 from 2005 levels. The standards are set to be issued in June, and then states will have another year to adopt their own plans to carry the standards out. McConnell will make it a top priority to try to stop Obama, either by blocking funding to carry out the policy or by changing provisions of the Clean Air Act, said David Doniger, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council climate and clean air program. “It will be fought over by the Republicans all through the year,” he said. “There will be lots of lawsuits and so on. But the administration's very committed to this.”

RELATED:  Obama readies veto pen and the new paradigm of obstructionism

Jeb Bush Is Dismissing The GOP Base At His Own Peril

NationalJournal.com:

Six months after President Obama's 2008 landslide victory swept Democrats into power across the country, Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney, and Eric Cantor sat down at a suburban Washington pizzeria to talk policy. They spent that May weekend arguing that the GOP's best path back into power was to improve the party's battered image by advocating reforms for education, immigration, and the economy. Cantor saw the session as a rebranding exercise, offering mostly platitudes about having a conversation with the American people. Romney used the event as early preparation for his second presidential campaign, mostly sticking to talking points. But Jeb Bush came prepared with a slew of creative proposals to test out at the town hall, like charging lower tuition to students pursuing high-end degrees in engineering and science.

After the event ended, several reporters (myself included) chased after Bush to ask him the inevitable questions about his interest in running for president. He was visibly annoyed, lamenting that Washington reporters only ask about the political horse race and have no interest in policy.

With Bush's announcement Tuesday that he's forming an exploratory committee for president, he'll be testing the proposition that being a policy wonk sells politically. In discussing preparations for a run this week, Bush confidently declared he wouldn't pander to Republican voters, sticking to his principles on immigration and education reform. In principle, the argument is refreshing. In practice, however, it ignores political reality.
The organization that Cantor launched (the National Council for America) never got off the ground despite the hype. Republicans won back control of Congress simply by running against an unpopular president, not by offering a set of solutions to fix the country's struggling economy. Despite being House majority leader, Cantor lost his primary to an obscure opponent—in part because he overestimated the political reward of pitching lofty reforms and ignored the day-to-day dissatisfaction from his own constituents. In his second presidential campaign, Romney struggled to lock up the nomination against a deeply conservative field and was unable to capitalize on Obama's mediocre approval ratings.

Other Republicans have talked in high-minded fashion about selling conservative reforms to GOP voters, but found there wasn't much political benefit in doing so. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie became famous for his tough talk against wasteful government and teachers unions in his first term, but has all but abandoned advocating new ideas since campaigning for reelection. Lately, the famously outspoken governor has avoided policy questions on immigration (despite traveling in Mexico!) and on the Senate report on the CIA's interrogation techniques. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal has gotten little political traction promoting reforms on health care, energy, education, and national security, and he's careful to frame his ideas in opposition to Obama. Once a supporter of the Common Core educational standards that Jeb Bush champions, Jindal now compares them to Soviet central planning.

Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, a Jeb Bush acolyte who is mulling a presidential campaign of his own, learned firsthand the political risk in embracing change. By championing comprehensive immigration reform, Rubio alienated much of the conservative base and got sidetracked from other issues that could also broaden the party's appeal. Bush is an equally enthusiastic proponent of immigration reform, but unlike Rubio, he plans to continue pushing it in a GOP primary. Rubio responded this year by delivering a series of speeches centered on economic opportunity, but now Bush's planned candidacy puts a crimp in his path to the nomination.

Candidates want to be seen as having a detailed blueprint on how to get the country back on track, but it's those very details that lead to unintended consequences. Republican officials confidently promoted comprehensive immigration reform as a surefire way to improve the party's standing with Hispanics, but blowback from the base and resistance from the public tempered the enthusiasm. The political benefits of courting Hispanics was offset by the risk of alienating the GOP's base of working-class whites.

RELATED: Jeb Bush: I’m going to try to persuade Republican voters to back immigration reform

Federal Judge: Barack Obama's Immigration Move Unconstitutional

CNN.com:

A federal judge in Pennsylvania ruled Tuesday that President Barack Obama's move to halt deportations for millions of undocumented immigrants violates the Constitution -- but it's not clear that the ruling will have any immediate impact.

Pittsburgh-based U.S. District Judge Arthur Schwab, a George W. Bush appointee, became the first judge to rule on the legality of Obama's executive overhaul of immigration rules when he issued his unusual opinion in a criminal case.

The Justice Department shot back that the judge was "flatly wrong" and his ruling wouldn't halt the implementation of Obama's immigration policies.

The decision -- which came in a criminal case against Honduran immigrant Elionardo Juarez-Escobar, who'd been deported before, returned to the United States and faced charges of unlawful re-entry after a drunk driving arrest -- was unexpected, and is unrelated to the legal challenge dozens of states have launched against Obama's move.

Prosecutors in the case argued that Obama's immigration policies were only meant to apply to civil proceedings, and don't have any impact on criminal proceedings like what Juarez-Escobar faced.

Still, Schwab said in his 38-page ruling that Juarez-Escobar could have benefited under Obama's action to halt deportations for some undocumented immigrants.

Obama's action violates the Constitution's separation of powers and its "take care clause," Schwab said.

He wrote that Obama's action "goes beyond prosecutorial discretion because: (a) it provides for a systematic and rigid process by which a broad group of individuals will be treated differently than others based upon arbitrary classifications, rather than case-by-case examination; and (b) it allows undocumented immigrants, who fall within these broad categories, to obtain substantive rights."

The judge also quoted several of Obama's statements, asserting that, prior to issuing his executive action in November, the President personally considered such a move beyond his authority.

Schwab said Juarez-Escobar didn't fall within any of the priority categories Obama identified for deportation, so it's not clear that removing him from the country would be a priority -- potentially blurring the lines between civil and criminal proceedings.

The Justice Department blasted the opinion, with a spokesperson saying it was "unfounded and the court had no basis to issue such an order."

"No party in the case challenged the constitutionality of the immigration-related executive actions and the department's filing made it clear that the executive actions did not apply to the criminal matter before the court," the spokesperson said. "Moreover, the court's analysis of the legality of the executive actions is flatly wrong. We will respond to the court's decision at the appropriate time."

RELATED:  Nearly half of U.S. states now suing President Obama over immigration order

YouGov Poll: Plurality of Americans Oppose Barack Obama’s Executive Order on Amnesty, 38/45

HotAir.com:

Interesting, and encouraging. Now convince me that either the White House or its friends in Congress really care. Immigration for them is about pleasing one particular demographic group long-term even if it ends up irritating other demographic groups short-term. They can probably tolerate a backlash among white working-class if it’s broad but ephemeral or durable but narrow, knowing that the gains they make among Latinos will offset those votes.

But what if the backlash is broad and durable?

This may be a nation of immigrants (and 82% of the public agree that it is), but the President’s plan for executive action on immigration clearly does not sit well with many Americans.  Democrats support the President’s decision to use an executive order to delay deportation proceedings for parents of U.S. citizens, but 51% of independents and 80% of Republicans oppose it.

Most independents and nearly all Republicans say the President should have waited for Congress to act on immigration – even though majorities think it is unlikely Congress will take action soon.

The President’s immigration actions has helped him at least with one group – one that was clearly disappointed in his previous activity on immigration – the country’s Hispanics.  Two in three Hispanics consistently have supported a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants and approve of the plan President Obama put forth in his speech last week.

By more than two to one, they approve of the President’s executive order. 

Ten months ago, 55 percent of Americans favored a path to citizenship for illegals. As of last month, that number had dropped below majority support and landed at 47 percent. After the summer’s border crisis and O going rogue on executive amnesty, go figure that people would be more skittish about normalizing citizenship for lawbreakers any further.

In fact, there’s another political scenario for Democrats: What if the backlash to O’s order is short-lived … but so is the boost they’ve gotten for it from Latinos? Scrolling through the crosstabs, I was surprised by how equivocal some of the reactions to various immigration policies were among that group. For instance, when given a choice of letting illegals stay and apply for citizenship, stay but not be allowed to apply, and sending illegals home, just 51 percent of Latinos favored the first option. Another 20 percent favored the second and 29 percent favored the third, meaning that even among that demographic, the split on whether a path to citizenship should be offered is just 51/49.

RELATED:  White House: When Obama said he changed the law on immigration, he was speaking “colloquially”