DOUGLAS V. GIBBS<---------->RADIO<---------->BOOKS<---------->CONSTITUTION <---------->CONTACT/FOLLOW <----------> DONATE

Thursday, May 12, 2016

Curt Schilling, North Carolina, the Feds, DOJ, and Transgender Bathroom Bills

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Baseball Great Curt Schilling was fired by ESPN for daring to share the image and message to the left on his personal social media page.  The sports network considers Mr. Schilling's personal opinion about the perverted mental illness of transgenderism to be discrimination.  I don't care how nice these people may seem to liberals, and how much they want to pat themselves on their own backs for having a good feeling about bending over backwards for transgenders, the reality is Bruce Jenner's chromosomes did not change when he put on a dress, and nether did the chromosomes of the dude in Schilling's post when he put on whatever that is.

The propaganda in politics and media has been so effective regarding this issue, even I had a little voice in the back of my mind calling out to me as I wrote the first paragraph of this article that said, "Aren't you being a little harsh?"

It is as if the liberal left Democrats have scales over their eyes, and are incapable of recognizing simple truths.  The truth is unseeable to them.  They are blinded by ideology, agenda, and something else that is very dangerous spiritually.  What was once considered a mental illness is now being celebrated, and it is being legally thrust upon the society whether they like it, or not.  Does the guy in Schilling's image look to be mentally stable?

In all of this argument, perhaps we should have three bathrooms for the public.  Label them, "Male," "Female," and "Other."  Of course, it wouldn't be long before the word "other" would be stricken from our language by political correctness because of the "offensive connotation" it would carry (according to the champions of sexual insanity).

Researching past fallen civilizations, we observe that invaders were not usually the total cause of the fall of the greatest empires.  It was the weakening of the empires that enabled the invaders to conquer them. We learned in school (whether or not they still teach this is unknown) that Rome fell to the barbarians, but in truth their fall was because of internal decay.  Under the Caesars the Roman Republic fell away, and the system became a dictatorship.  Subsidies and welfare programs were enacted.  Production fell sharply.  And the moral compass began to spin out of control.  Orgies and homosexuality became normalized in the society.  As moral decay heightened, political decay followed.  Dependency on government, and the desire for personal pleasure overshadowed any desire to return to the rule of law, or defend the lands from an encroaching enemy.

The liberal left Democrat's defense of transgenderism has become quite hypocritical.  As States like North Carolina pass laws giving places of business the freedom to keep their bathrooms "biological gender" specific, giant corporations have been threatening these States, pulling their business out of these States.

Double standard.

While Democrat governors and mayors sign travel bans to North Carolina and Mississippi, and corporations pledge boycotts and relocations out of the States, the NBA has decided not to let their All-Star Game next time be in North Carolina as originally intended over the bathroom law, and both Bruce Springsteen and Bryan Adams, who complain that big corporations have too much influence on our society and political world, have followed the exodus and have canceled scheduled concerts in those states.

The Mississippi law is designed to protect the rights of religious charities, small businesses, and select public servants.  The North Carolina law is not as narrow, but is designed to reasonably protect privacy and safety in public restrooms, but at the same time gives private institutions the freedom to set their own bathroom policies.

I thought big corporations with all of that wealth they throw around influencing issues was bad?

Democrats constantly scream that corporations and the wealthy have no business sticking their money into politics.  Isn't that Bernie Sanders' big appeal?  "Get the money out of politics!" they scream.  They believe, they say, that big corporations should not be using their riches to engage in advocating regarding the issues of the day.  Politicians, they say, must be accountable to the people, not corporate money.

Yet, the liberal left Democrat slaves out there in the voting public are celebrating the fact that big corporations like Apple, PayPal, Salesforce, and countless other giant corporations are threatening legislators and governors with boycotts if they pass transgender laws (or any other laws) that are popular with the people, but disagrees with the leftist narrative.

There was no discussion.  There was no reasoning this out regarding what the "will of the people" was, or what is within the rule of law.  Big corporations are bullying these States because their laws, which are supported by a majority of the State's constituency, are counter to what the big corporations want.  "Do as we say, or we will boycott you and transfer jobs out of your State."  The politicians in North Carolina are being told to do what the bullies of the corporate world are demanding, regardless of the consent of the governed.

Economic coercion and hypocrisy, in my opinion.

How is this different from the "money in politics" issue that the Democrats scream so loud about?  Crony capitalism?  Or is this worse?  The website "The Federalist" calls it "cultural cronyism."

In North Carolina, big business is using its market share leverage to pressure the State government to do its bidding.  It doesn't matter what the legislators of that State think.  It doesn't matter where the constituency stands on the issue.  The "right thing to do" that is best for the "good of the community" in the eyes of big corporate leftist money is not being followed, so the corporations, and members of the music industry, and now the federal government, are doing what they can to "force" North Carolina into compliance with liberal left Democrat demands.

And the Democrat voters, who swear up and down this kind of thing is the kind of stuff Republicans do, are cheering the leftist corporations - because to them it is not hypocrisy.  It's not a double standard.  The ends justifies the means.

Through economic and legal bullying State legislators are being forced to comply with the leftist narrative.  Through economic and legal bullying bakers, florists, photographers, adoption agencies, and marriage counselors are being told to do as the liberal left Democrats demand regarding an issue that screams in the face of religious freedom, or else they will be punished, put out of business, and destroyed financially.

Freedom is being denied.  Not the freedom of people's sexual behaviors, but the freedom of religious businesses to "reserve the right to refuse service to anyone."  To make sure the smaller businesses and legislatures of these States comply, big business is using its market freedom to deny small businesses and charities their religious freedom.

Entertainer Bryan Adams wrote, regarding his decision to deny North Carolina and Mississippi of his concerts (which he has a right to do. . . but what I am pointing out here is the hypocrisy), “I cannot in good conscience perform in a state where certain people are being denied their civil rights.”

Civil rights?  The decision on if to wear a dress or a pair of pants is a civil right?

At the crux of the problem is that homosexuals and transgenders argue that this is a debate over who and what they are.  In reality, it's a fight over what they do.

As for any denial of civil rights, isn't religious freedom important?  While Springsteen and Adams are exercising their freedom of conscience by boycotting States (deciding not to do business with those they disagree with), doesn't adoption agencies, religious schools, bakers, and florists have that same right?  Can't they exercise their freedom of conscience by boycotting doing business with those who they disagree with?

And, never mind that these same big businesses boycotting North Carolina and Mississippi do business in foreign countries with terrible records on human rights in general, and in some of those countries gays are killed for what they do in the privacy of their bedroom.

The governor of North Carolina, Pat McCrory, pointed out the hypocrisy. McCrory visited the microphone after New York Governor Andrew Cuomo issued a travel ban for State employees to North Carolina.  He asked how it was consistent with Gov. Cuomo’s trip to Cuba—with State business leaders—to promote trade with that country.  Cuba, after all, has a terrible human rights record.  Much worse than North Carolina.

Ah, but you see, Cuomo has something in common with Cuba, so that was okay.  Like Cuomo, Cuba uses big government to try and force the citizens into compliance - and the leadership in that country hates Christians.

The CEO of PayPal announced that the company wouldn’t expand in North Carolina because of “PayPal’s deepest values and our strong belief that every person has the right to be treated equally, and with dignity and respect.”

However, PayPal's international headquarters is in Singapore.  Private consensual same-sex acts in Singapore can be punished with as much as two years in jail. Oh, and PayPal announced in 2012 that it would open offices in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The UAE jails gay and transgender people, and it is not uncommon for private citizens to kill gays and transgender people and not be punished for the action.

Missouri is considering a similar bill.  The hypocrites are ready to spring into action in that State, as well.
I suppose it could be worse.  A friend of mine recently went to Taipei and showed me a picture he took where they had three bathrooms.  One for the Muslims, one for the Buddhists, and one for the Christians.  My first question was, "What happens if a Hindu has to pee?"

The federal government, which was created by the United States Constitution to protect and preserve the States, and their State Sovereignty, is now suing North Carolina. . . sort of like they did to Arizona for its immigration law.  And, as in Arizona, the Department of Justice (headed by a different loon, now) filed the case in the local district federal court.  North Carolina also filed its own case against the federal government.

Before I dip into the cases, let's discuss Article III of the United States Constitution.  In Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution it reads, "In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction."

There are two kinds of jurisdictions when it comes to taking a case: Appellate Jurisdiction and Original Jurisdiction.  If the lawsuit is against North Carolina for its law (as was in the case over Arizona's immigration law) then the Attorney General (in this case Loretta Lynch - it was Eric Holder when it came to Arizona) filed unconstitutionally.  The Supreme Court, according to the Constitution, has original jurisdiction, not appellate, when it comes a case where a State is party to the case. . . oh, wait, wait - the liberal left has done it again.  In Arizona the case was against the State, but now it seems Loretta Lynch learned her lesson.  She's not suing the State.  She's suing McCrory, the governor of the State.  That's sort of like calling a treaty an agreement to get around the Constitution.

They, the liberal left Democrats, need the case to go to district court first, because without a lower court decision, a 4-4 tie in a Supreme Court that has been shorted by one Scalia would have done nothing for them.  Now, if the last lower court decision is in the liberal left's favor, and the U.S. Supreme Court is hung at 4-4, the most recent ruling will reign.

But, the filing is still unconstitutional.

The issues regarding marriage, bathrooms, or anything else regarding sexual behavior or one's perception of their identity is not an external issue, or an issue brought about because of a dispute between two States - therefore, it is a State issue.  Transgenderism is not expressly enumerated, nor are the States' prohibited from making laws regarding the issue.  So, it is none of the federal government's business.  There is no Constitutional clause that allows the federal government to interfere in a State's internal affairs in this manner.

The Department of Justice is threatening to cut off federal funding for education (which is also unconstitutional, because they shouldn't be funding education anyway - especially with money stolen from the State through direct taxation).  I am waiting for a State to outlaw W-2 withholding.  Then, the State could keep its money, and tell the federal government to pack sand.

Again, from the federal government, the threat of withholding money from the State is another bullying tactic.

And, come to think of it, was the civil rights legislation that was written because of racial discrimination include gender, sex, or bathrooms in it - because that is what the DOJ is using as its excuse to sue North Carolina's governor.

As are the big money corporations, the Democrats are using government power to coerce their opposition into compliance.  And it won't stop here.  It began with homosexuals.  Now it is cross-dressers, and people who have used medical procedures to mutilate their genitals.  What's next?  Government protection for pedophiles?  Government protection for people who have sex with animals?  Polygamists?  Perhaps, if I decide I feel like I should have been born as a vacuum cleaner, I should demand special treatment!

With gender alone, according to the knuckleheads of the Democrat Party and the leftists who love them, there are 60 possible gender identities.

The true victims are those being forced to participate in this madness.  The victims are students whose privacy is at risk because people with a mental problem (or those seeking to take advantage of the laws) want to be in the same bathroom or locker room with them.

Are these transgender people capable of predatory behavior?  Perhaps some of them.  I suppose we'll find out.  Despite the lack of evidence one way or the other so far, one thing is for sure; female victims of sexual abuse have explained that, while they are careful not to associate transgender people with predatory behavior, they cannot deny that seeing any stranger of the opposite sex undressing in intimate settings can be traumatizing and trigger memories of past abuse. Do their voices matter? And though the data is only now starting to come together, the reality is that we have seen abuse of these laws.  We are already seeing allegations of men not even identifying as women taking advantage of laws that have mandated access to locker rooms and bathrooms based on gender identity.

That these laws will be abused are not unfounded fears.

I thought the liberal left Democrats, in their arguments against Christian morality, have said "you can't legislate morality."  Isn't that what they are doing?  Aren't they legislating their morality?

Despite the moral and legal implications, the fact is that this is a local issue, and big corporations and the federal government are doing all they can to bully local governments and State governments into compliance. . . or else.  Is that freedom?  Is that kind of coercion what our American System was founded upon?  Or is that kind of coercion and tyranny okay because the liberal left Democrats support it?

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

No comments: