Bathroom Nonsense

‘And Now for Something Completely Different’

Many of us are well aware of the heights that can be achieved by virtuous human nature; the achievements possible given opportunity, skills and desire. We are surprised though, when we are faced with examples of the depths. Perhaps shock is a better word, although the cultural perversity we see on an increasingly regular basis has left us questioning, “How bad can it get?”

With the new victimhood culture built by progressives, no depth is unreachable, no behavior unacceptable. This time, they have manufactured chaos out of a desire to reorient bathroom biology, creating new victims of…restroom discrimination.

Can men frequent women’s restrooms? “Of course,” say Leftists. Could a woman use the men’s facilities? “Why not?”

Right, wrong, and the entire concept of absolutes have been replaced with an illegitimate political construct, drawn from nothing factually determined. It’s what you feel at a given time; truth is relative. The permanence of tradition has been replaced by expediency. Reason and common sense have been overturned by emotion.

The objective of progressive ideology is to dismantle morality; remove the cultural foundation based on truths and human experience. Replace it with the construct of a random system based on whatever is popular, preferred, or accepted at the time.

Do you hold a belief or have an opinion that is contrary to progressive orthodoxy? Or simply have no opinion one way or another because, as in the bathroom follies, the whole premise is ridiculously obnoxious? Then brace yourself for an onslaught of epithets from those on the Left who despise your “indifference.” Words such as “bigot,” “extremist,” and “racist” will be launched at you with unrelenting regularity, for any perceived sleight against any dogma of the Statists. These recent examples illustrate the increasing “push” by the Left:

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia just overturned a local school policy that determined access to restroom facilities based on biology. In other words, where you take care of “nature’s business” is determined by Nature… your God-given gender.

What students perceived themselves to be on any given day didn’t enter into the school’s policy, as it shouldn’t. According to the radical Left, however, that was the school’s error. The administration didn’t consider changing conjecture, so the school is now deemed to be full of bigots.

The court’s ruling was, of course, unconstitutional. But no attention was paid to that inconvenient fact, so it wasn’t addressed. Our courts no longer deal with things lawful or unlawful; no respect for reality or the basis for the law is seen. Everything is gray; perceptions and feelings.

British Prime Minister David Cameron, during President Obama’s recent visit, warned gender-uncertain Brits that they may be “discriminated against” should they decide to travel to that bigoted colonial backwater of North Carolina and use a restroom. No mention was made of vacations to the NC Outer Banks five years ago, when no problems were noted. What had changed since? An agenda had been launched, to create chaos and division in the U.S.

Parents of a child in Great Britain, enrolling their four year-old in school for the first time, were asked to assist in deciding which of 23 gender “identity” choices fit their child best!

If one asks for proof of any prior discrimination, denying restroom access to a “transgender,” progressives will stiffen, accuse, and launch epithets once more. You are not allowed to question their agenda. They claimed it happened, so it must be true; and rights were certainly abridged or abused… even if those “rights” never existed before today.

Once you push a culture beyond the bounds of credibility, past the boundaries of reason, it may not snap back.

It’s time to stand and stop the nonsense.

Originally Published April 25, 2016


Judicial Clarity

There really are no court decisions that are “controversial,” if a justice adheres faithfully to the written intent of the U.S. Constitution. He or she simply cannot err if they stick to the law.

All their decisions will be legally and constitutionally sound, therefore correct under U.S. law.

If one is a strict originalist concerning things constitutional, as in the case of Justice Scalia, one’s decisions cannot be called, in any sense, extreme

So where do progressives get this strange idea that conservatives on the court are extreme?

Law school?

Nomination Hypocrisy

The Left’s ‘Living, breathing’ Constitution

Responding to Justice Antonin Scalia’s untimely demise and urging his replacement, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) took to the podium on February 15, pontificating on the current judicial situation concerning the vacancy of a Supreme Court Justice. She also exposed her knowledge vacancy regarding things constitutional.

First, Senator Warren recited the obvious: “Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution says the President of the United States nominates justices to the Supreme Court, with the advice and consent of the Senate.”

Basically, yes; but she didn’t leave it as a statement of fact, done for effect. She had to launch into the legendary Warren sarcasm, revealing how little she cares for Senate procedure and her lack of understanding of the U.S. Constitution, for which by her record, she cares even less.

“I can’t find a clause that says, ‘except when there’s a year left in the term of a Democrat president.’ Senate Republicans took an oath just like Senate Democrats did.

“Abandoning the duties they swore to uphold would threaten both the Constitution and our democracy itself. It would also prove that all the Republican talk about loving the Constitution is just that – empty talk.”

Contrary to Senator Warren’s shallow understanding of the Constitution, however, it gives the president the power to nominate, not the opportunity to appoint; the Senate does that, as instructed by the Constitution.

The Senate Republican Majority upholds their oaths by doing exactly what they are doing, because of their love of the Constitution (well, in this case). And, as far as “our democracy itself”… we don’t have one, Senator Warren. The correct term is a republic, used since its inception.

About that comment, “took an oath just like the Democrats did,” Senator Warren: Can I provide some very recent “Democrat history” to correct your recollection?

In 1992, Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) spoke from the Senate floor, warning senators not to approve or consider any nominations for the Supreme Court during an election year. He was determined not to allow President George H. W. Bush a chance to put forward a nominee to the court during an election year.

Senator Harry Reid (D-NV), then Senate Majority Leader, said in 2005, “The duties of the Senate are set forth in the U.S. Constitution. Nowhere in that document does it say the Senate has a duty to give presidential appointees a vote.”

Also in 2005, Barack Obama, then a Democrat senator from Illinois, filibustered the nomination of Judge Sam Alito to the Supreme Court. Now he rails against the “obstructionist” Republican Senate Majority for suggesting the same thing.

In a speech at the American Constitution Society on July 27, 2007 New York Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer emphatically stated that, “We must not confirm any George Bush nominee to the Supreme Court.” That comment came a full 15 months before the election of 2008.

Yes, the Scalia departure from the court is serious, particularly with the cases to be decided this session and also the cases spinning up for the next year. But the Constitution does not mandate the number of justices required or when vacancies must be filled. Those decisions are the Senate’s.

Once more, the U.S. Constitution tells the Congress that they control the composition of the courts, not vice-versa. Congress decides how many justices and when, including the highest court. Not the president, no matter the party.

Let’s end the nomination hypocrisy.