Monday, April 24, 2017

Why Trump Supporters are Still Solid

The American Thinker ^ | 04/24/17 | Karin McQuillan 

Trump voters can see that the president has had both successes and failures in the first months in office. That’s normal. The successes have been ignored by the Democrat press, but we inform ourselves by going to our own, more truthful, news sources. There is much to celebrate. When we focus on our side’s accomplishments, this is a happy time for our country.
We know full well President Trump is not perfect, nor is his team, and his first 100 days have brought disappointments, too. Support for Trump is not like the creepy hero-worship that Democrats gave Obama. Conservatives have God to worship. We do not confuse politicians with the Messiah. We do not need to think our president is the most brilliant man in every room, or that all his failures are the fault of others.
The reason we are so happy is that the big picture is astoundingly positive. Perhaps this is why the Democrats have to scream so very loudly and continuously, in their effort to drown it out. There are so many things to celebrate, in a few short months, it is hard to remember them all. Jobless claims are at a seventeen-year low. Illegal border crossings are at a 20-year low. The stock market had the longest winning streak since 1987. Our trade deficit is down and exports are up. Companies are hiring. We are beginning a sane energy policy. Job-crushing government regulations and waste are being rolled back. Four thousand illegal Somalis have been deported, and embassies told to slow down and do their job in vetting. The speed of change to rational, pro-America policies is dazzling.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...

Despite Reports, Fmr Fox Guest Now Claims She Was Never Sexually Harassed by Sean Hannity

Law Newz ^ | April 24, 2017 | Rachel Stockman 

While Schlussel stands by her description of the incident, Schlussel told us that she doesn’t believe what happened between the two amounted to sexual harassment by any legal definition.
“I would never accuse him of that. Sexual harassment has a special meaning under the law, and I would never accuse him of that,” Schlussel, an attorney herself, said. Schlussel said the interaction happened in the early 2000’s when Hannity was in Detroit taping a show.
“He tried to get me to go back to the hotel after the show after he and his executive producer Bill Shine treated me horribly,” she said on the radio program. Schlussel later clarified that it wasn’t his hotel room, but rather his hotel...

“I never thought I was sexually harassed by Sean Hannity, I thought he was weird and creepy not someone I liked,” Schlussel said...

Following the radio interview on Friday, Hannity issued a strongly worded statement denying Schlussel’s claims saying he plans to take legal action against Schlussel for possible libel.

“LET ME BE CLEAR THE COMMENTS ABOUT ME ON A RADIO SHOW THIS WEEK by this individual ARE 100% false and a complete fabrication,” Hannity said in a statement obtained by LawNewz.com. “This individual is a serial harasser who has been lying about me for well over a decade...
(Excerpt) Read more at lawnewz.com ...

Trump slams pollsters as survey buries sustained popularity over Clinton

Fox News ^ | April 24, 2017 

President Trump took a few more shots Monday at his old nemesis — the pollsters who confidently predicted his loss last year — after new surveys were released playing up the president’s low approval ratings at the end of his first 100 days.
But the same polling also buried some more positive news for the president: he’d still beat Hillary Clinton in a head-to-head matchup, according to one survey.
The Washington Post-ABC News poll showed that 43 percent said they would support Trump if the election were held today, compared with 40 percent for the former Democratic nominee, Clinton.
Trump touted the finding (which was within the margin of error) on Twitter on Sunday, saying: “ABC News/Washington Post Poll (wrong big on election) said almost all stand by their vote on me & 53% said strong leader.” …
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...

Trump Wins YUGE in a Government Shutdown

American Spectator ^ | April 24, 2017, 12:04 am | LARRY SCHWEIKART 

We’re looking at a possible government shutdown next Saturday, and that’s got some conservatives nervous. They shouldn’t be. Admittedly, past government shutdowns — or threats of shutdowns — have worked against conservatives. With Trump, however, it would likely be a different story....
even a partial shutdown plays precisely into the Trump agenda and his campaign promises of draining the swamp. Trump’s base, as well as “swing voters” who are fed up with out of control spending, would, of course, be cheered by such a move. Moreover, such a shutdown plays into Trump’s hands by giving him every excuse to slash funding to “sanctuary cities,” to bloated university programs, to global warming science grants, and on and on. Social Security checks will continue, the military will be funded, and necessary services will hum along while grants to study the sex life of the fruit bat will not. Deep State bureaucrats who so depend on the federal government for their very existence would be the ones most hurt. In short, Trump can not only make even a partial shutdown look like the Democrats’ fault but shield many of the (normally) loudest voices from the pain.
More important, every minute the bloated government is shut down reinforces the perception of Trump as a businessman who cuts the fat, extracts more efficiency, and makes the U.S. government more like a business. Unlike the Clinton/Gingrich shutdown battle, the control over what sectors of the government get their money is in the hands of a Republican president, not a Democrat who held up funds on the most visible and sympathetic programs. Trump would relish starving all the non-essential offices like PBS and NPR or global-warming science grants.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...

If only!

Third-Term-Wish-600-CI.jpg

Let me know!

202133.jpg

It's Over!

202138.jpg

On a pedestal

RnD6otY.jpg

Taco Bell

esgToQT.png

The Media

202146.jpg

The Safest Restaurant

C95cj-YUwAAiS30.jpg

Sunday, April 23, 2017

13 Most Ridiculous Predictions Made on Earth Day, 1970

Ricochet ^ | 4/21/2017 | Jon Gabriel 

Saturday is Earth Day — an annual event first launched on April 22, 1970. The inaugural festivities (organized in part by then hippie and now convicted murderer Ira Einhorn) predicted death, destruction and disease unless we did exactly as progressives commanded.
Sound familiar? Behold the coming apocalypse, as predicted on and around Earth Day, 1970:

  1. “Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” — Harvard biologist George Wald
  2. “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation.” — Washington University biologist Barry Commoner
  3. “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.” — New York Times editorial
  4. “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.” — Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich
  5. “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born… [By 1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.” — Paul Ehrlich
  6. “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” — Denis Hayes, Chief organizer for Earth Day
  7. “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions…. By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.” — North Texas State University professor Peter Gunter
  8. “In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution… by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half.” — Life magazine
  9. “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.” — Ecologist Kenneth Watt
  10. “Air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” — Paul Ehrlich
  11. “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate… that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, ‘Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, ‘I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’” — Ecologist Kenneth Watt
  12. “[One] theory assumes that the earth’s cloud cover will continue to thicken as more dust, fumes, and water vapor are belched into the atmosphere by industrial smokestacks and jet planes. Screened from the sun’s heat, the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze, and a new Ice Age will be born.” — Newsweek magazine
  13. “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.” — Kenneth Watt

I never want to hear from Bernie Sanders again!

deathandtaxes ^ | April 22, 2017 | Steve King 

I was always a big Bernie Sanders fan. In the darkest days of the Bush administration, he was a big deal. I still remember in 2006 when he won his U.S. Senate seat and thinking it was just the beginning; democratic-socialism was finally blowing up the way it should and that he was a legend in the making.
Last year I learned some things that made me question why I always loved Bernie Sanders. He was playing dumb about knowing or helping up-and-coming populist Democrats such as himself, and was instead letting the DSCC and the Obama administration pick safe, boring, centrist primary candidates who could barely skate by to win a close election. Many of them went down in flames, but Sanders had crossed a psychological rubicon of betrayal. His silence spoke volumes. How could a man who claimed to be leading a revolution leave so many of his own people on the field and still maintain the veneer of being a man of the people?
He did endorse a couple candidates in 2016 — after the primaries, of course. Among them, two congressional incumbents, one of whom is pro-life, and the other Russ Feingold, an old Senate friend and perfect human.
It ruined my whole idea of not only what kind of man Sanders was but what goes into making a heroic politician. I waited until the primaries were effectively over and wrote a post about it, calling Trump and Sanders cult leaders. I started trying to tell my friends that he wasn’t the saint they thought he was, but a charlatan masquerading as a revolutionary. What I encountered (and still do) was a mix of either blind hero worship, outright denial, or a form of bargaining. Or I was just called a neoliberal shill.
Now, after the disastrous defeat of Hillary Clinton at the pussy-grabbing hands of Donald Trump, the Democratic Party is slowly pulling itself back together. New Obama-approved DNC chair Tom Perez has purged the party of the idiots who missed the boat last year and is again reassembling the old Howard Dean 50-state strategy that won Democrat majorities in 2006 and 2008. Except now Bernie Sanders is being trotted out with Perez in their “unity tour” to hopefully quell the Democratic civil war.
And, wouldn’t you know it, the man who spent a lifetime never calling himself a Democrat is botching the whole unity thing. He can’t help but turn the whole operation into something about himself. Politics is a business of relationships and compromise, neither of which Sanders seems very good at. The only thing he’s shown a true talent for, besides last year’s incomprehensible treachery, has been pointing out what he perceives as the insufficient values of people who would otherwise be his allies.
While Democrats have started cursing more (Perez, Gillibrand, Waters, Lieu), and taken a more aggressive stance against Trump, Sanders is still the jonny-come-lately to primary endorsements, and a lukewarm supporter of those who would stand a chance in these off-year special elections, most recently with his botched Jon Ossoff support. And his “Our Revolution” PAC has done next to nothing in broadening what would be the progressive comeback. There still has been no sharing of his massive email list with the DNC, something nearly every politician does with their political party.
The other thing that kills me about the numskullery of Sanders and his obnoxious true believers: They make the deadly mistake of ignoring that there is an equal number of people on the other side of the ideological spectrum who wholeheartedly believe the complete opposite of what they do, and they are just as passionate about it. Let’s say Sanders hadn’t lost to Clinton by three million votes, had somehow beaten Trump, and won the presidency — there still would have been a ton of Republicans in Washington and around the country who are diametrically opposed to everything he stands for. Left-wing magical thinking isn’t about to make the Republican half of the country just disappear, and playing to white anger over economic insecurity only gets you so far.
After years of doing next to nothing to help his fellow progressives broaden their appeal, Sanders stands today as the most popular senator in the country. Yet there is still no difference between Sanders and Trump. In fact, Trump is more virtuous because when he picked a party in which to run for president, he actually took the name “Republican,” committed to it and ran with it. He even campaigned, without question or qualification, up and down the ballot for other, lesser-known candidates. The same can’t be said for Sanders, who only took the name “Democrat” to run for president, and when he failed, went back to being an Independent, even while attending these silly unity rallies.
Which brings us back to where we began and where Sanders ends. Now, here’s the thing. Is it okay to lie and say you’re part of a revolution and get people riled up — even to the point of abandoning their own party — while thinking you’re the hero leading a movement when you’re doing nothing to actually help that movement? This is the cold pragmatism of Sanders’s red-hot radicalism. Is it fair to lie to millions of people if it’s for a good cause, like universal healthcare or free college? The answer would be yes, of course. He’s obviously not doing it all for money. And if we’re naive enough to think it’s not all for ego, then it must be the furtherance of his populist agenda, right? Yet that agenda is no closer to reality now than it was when he ran in 2016, and being the cynical operator he is, Sanders knows this.
Therefore, his pursuit isn’t his stated goals; it’s his unstated goals. It’s his own station in history, ego, and popularity. It’s his desire to be a liberal Goldwater; a standard of uncompromising political courage and rock hard superior values. To be generous, we could say that his goal to inspire countless generations of progressives makes him an honorable man. He just so happened to go about achieving that goal in the most dishonorable way possible by backstabbing, lying, and sacrificing his own people, and helping hand the country over to a creature like Trump. Maybe that’s what makes political legends in America. You can’t make a historic omelet without breaking a few contemporary hearts and, if you’re really good at it, they won’t even notice.
Last year, a couple days after I called Sanders a cult leader, when he was still refusing to leave the race and rallying with his deluded and self-serving supporters, slightly different chants broke out from the normal ones. His supporters leaned pretty hard into the whole cult thing and started shouting “shun the non-believers.” It was surreal. These people will never be able to be reached. Sanders’ lies and Clinton’s loss guarantees that. But rather than railing against reality and pretending their revolution is pure (or even existent), maybe they could do something really radical. Listen to the non-believers.

Pollsters and the media still have a glaring anti-Trump bias!

The Toronto Sun ^ | April 22, 2017 | Anthony Furey, Postmedia Network 

You’d think the leading voices in the media and among pollsters would have learned their lesson after being so off the mark in their coverage of Donald Trump.
They’re losing their grasp on both reality and their readers. But instead of correcting course, many of them are doubling down in the sanity.
Just last week we saw this in play in the pages of – where else? – The New York Times.
As if not content to let their November election night prediction that Hillary Clinton had a 92% chance of winning the presidency, the English-speaking world’s liberal paper of record reached a new low in overtly politicizing their sports section.
On Wednesday, the New England Patriots visited the White House for a ceremony with President Trump customarily held for Super Bowl champions. The Times posted online and to social media pictures, allegedly showing the turnout for the 2015 event with then-President Barack Obama and the 2017 turnout with Trump.
The 2015 picture shows people crowding around the president and then overflowing up the stairs of the White House. This year’s picture shows fewer people, with only a crowd around the president and nobody standing on the adjacent stairs. At face value, it appears that fewer people attended the ceremony with Trump. The Times was clearly implying that the Super Bowl champions disliked Trump compared to Obama....
(Excerpt) Read more at torontosun.com ...

This Earth Day, Remember How Often Environmental Alarmists Are Wrong

The Federalist ^ | 04/22/2017 | Daniel Payne 

Today is the 47th annual Earth Day. On this day, it is worth reflecting on how completely, totally wrong environmental alarmists often are. Few things tell us more about the environmental movement—where it’s been and, more importantly, where it is now—than its dismal track record in the predictive department.
Case in point: Paul Ehrlich, who is as close to a rock star as you’re apt to find among environmentalists. Ehrlich is most famous for his 1968 book “The Population Bomb,” in which he famously predicted that, during the 1970s and 1980s, humanity would suffer mass famine and starvation due to overpopulation. “At this late date,” Ehrlich wrote, “nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate.”
Spoiler alert: Ehrlich was wrong—so wrong, in fact, that not only did his doomsday predictions fail to materialize, but the exact opposite happened. Readers who were alive during the 1970s and 80s will recall that there was plenty to eat, there was no mass die-off, everything worked out fine, and humanity’s lot continued to improve as it had throughout the rest of the 20th century.

Ehrlich Is Still Making Incorrect Doomsday Predictions

This kind of humiliating embarrassment would be enough to cow even the proudest of men—unless that man is an environmentalist, of course. Incredibly, as NewsBuster’s Tim Graham pointed out this week, Ehrlich was still making his doomsday predictions in 1989—well after the point when it was clear his previous predictions had been utter failures. Ehrlich claimed that, during the 1990s, “We’re going to see massive extinction;” he theorized that rising ocean waters meant “we could expect to lose all of Florida, Washington D.C., and the Los Angeles basin.”
Another spoiler: none of this happened. I visited Florida several times in the 1990s; it was not underwater. I visited Los Angeles shortly after the turn of the century; it, too, was fully above ground. Washington D.C., alas, remains as un-inundated as ever.
For Paul Ehrlich, unfortunately, twice-humiliated does not mean twice- or even once-chastened. Just a few years ago he was predicting that human beings would have to resort to cannibalism to cope with the coming famine. He also claims that “The Population Bomb” was “much too optimistic;” this was a book, mind you, that predicted hundreds of millions of deaths that ended up not happening.

This Earth Day, Rest Assured That Ehrlich Is Wrong

You might imagine that such unprofessional behavior and a miserable track record would render a man unfit for professional scientific society, and that he would be looked upon by his colleagues (if he had any) as “that guy who keeps predicting the end of the world and who keeps being wrong.” Not so: Ehrlich is a well-esteemed professor at Stanford, as well as the president of that university’s Center for Conservation Biology.
A man continually makes outlandishly fake predictions and beclowns himself on the global scientific stage: in what socio-scientific subculture could such a man find any purchase? The answer: environmentalism.
This Earth Day, consider reflecting on the bizarre dichotomy of (a) Paul Ehrlich’s mortifying history of predictive failures regarding the environment, and (b) his continued relevance in the field of environmental studies. Reflect on what that tells you about the environmental movement as a whole, particularly its hysterical climate change wing. And then consider the possibility that you can safely ignore the hysterics and simply live your life without worrying that Tampa, Florida is going to be washed away sometime over the next few decades.
Happy Earth Day!
Daniel Payne is a senior contributor at The Federalist.

Saturday, April 22, 2017

Saturday Snickers

unknown | 4/22/2017 | self 

There I was sitting at the bar staring at my drink when a large, trouble-making biker steps up next to me, grabs my drink and gulps it down in one swig.

"Well, whatcha' gonna do about it?" he says, menacingly, as I burst into tears. "Come on, man," the biker says, "I didn't think you'd CRY. I can't stand to see a man crying."

"This is the worst day of my life," I said. "I'm a complete failure. I was late to a meeting and my boss fired me. When I went to the parking lot, I found my car had been stolen and I don't have any insurance. I left my wallet in the cab I took home. I found my wife with another man .. and then my dog bit me."

"So, I came to this bar to work up the courage to put an end to it all, I buy a drink, I drop a capsule in it and sit here watching the poison dissolve; and then you show up and drink the whole damn thing!

But, hell, enough about me, how are you doing?"

Obama Organizing Group Pressures GOP On Border Wall Funding

politico.com ^ | 04/21/17 

The progressive group that grew out of former President Barack Obama's campaigns is making its first big move since Obama left office, targeting potential swing votes in Congress with digital ads ahead of a government funding fight over President Donald Trump's proposed border wall.
Organizing for Action's digital ad campaign is focusing on heavily Latino districts and states represented by Senate and House Republicans. The aim is to pressure members not to go along with the White House's demand for funding for a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, which the administration has said will cost $21 billion. (Senate Democrats estimate the actual cost is closer to $70 billion.)
The Trump White House is pushing for the border wall in a new government funding bill, but Senate Democrats have said they can't support additional cash for one of the administration's biggest priorities. Government funding runs out next Friday, giving both parties little time to find a solution.
The group's ads, which will start appearing on Facebook on Monday, tell users to call their representatives and ask them "not to fund the administration's wall and deportation force." The ads target Nevada Sen. Dean Heller and Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake, the two Senate Republicans considered most vulnerable to Democratic challengers in 2018.
They'll also run in a slew of districts represented by House Republicans: Arizona Rep. Martha McSally; California Reps. Jeff Denham, David Valadao, Devin Nunes, Steve Knight, Ed Royce and Darrell Issa; Colorado Reps. Scott Tipton and Mike Coffman; Florida Reps. Brian Mast, Mario Diaz-Balart, Carlos Curbelo and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen; Pennsylvania Rep. Charlie Dent; and Texas Reps. John Culberson, Will Hurd and Pete Sessions.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...

Why can’t the Clintons just go away?

New York Post ^ | 4/22/2017 | Maureen Callahan 

Since losing the most winnable presidential election in modern American history, Hillary Clinton has, among other things: given a series of high-profile speeches, joined Gov. Cuomo at his public unveiling of tuition-free college, refused to rule out a run for mayor of New York and issued an online video message exhorting fellow Democrats to fight on in her name.
“The challenges we face,” she said, “as a country and a party, are real.”
Clearly, Hillary still sees herself as the leader of the Democratic Party. And why shouldn’t she? Democrats have been locked in an abusive relationship with the Clintons for decades, enabling, explaining, convincing themselves that next time will be different. Party faithful hew to Hillary’s excuses for losing to Donald Trump: It’s James Comey’s fault, plus the Russians, white supremacists, misogynists, the deplorables and immobilized millennials, among other things.
Her losses in 2008 and 2016 have been framed as things that happened to Hillary —not one, but two Black Swan events that stymied her historic destiny.
How is it that Democrats have fealty here, let alone sympathy? How is it that Hillary routinely walks into standing ovations at Broadway theaters? Where is the realization that Hillary is to blame or the rational rejection of a two-time loser?
Any debate about what happened last November ends with Tuesday’s publication of “Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton’s Doomed Campaign.” Journalists Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes spent the past two years talking to Hillary’s most trusted advisers, and what emerges is damning.
Every mistake made in her 2008 run was compounded in 2016: the paranoia, the staff infighting, the underestimation of the intra-party wild card, the self-righteousness, the failure to connect with average voters, the belief that because it was her turn the presidency would be hers. It’s “Groundhog Day” with global consequences.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...

Trump is making manufacturing great again

The Baltimore Sun ^ | April 22, 2017 | Drew Greenblatt and Chuck Wetherington 

This past election, then-candidate Donald Trump came to Dundalk, a community that resembles so many towns and neighborhoods in Rust Belt states that have seen their manufacturing jobs base erode. He received a hero's welcome because residents heard him acknowledging what they lived and what they knew: When manufacturing jobs left many other problems arose. His words resonated — and now his actions are giving manufacturers the real change in Washington we've been looking for.
Manufacturers in the U.S. are feeling more optimistic about the economy and business environment than we have in 20 years, according to a new National Association of Manufacturers' (NAM) survey. This is in large part due to President Trump's bold commitment to lead a manufacturing jobs surge in America.
In fact, this month we had the opportunity to meet with President Trump in person, and it's clear that he is resolutely determined to boost manufacturing jobs in America. So whether you live in Cumberland, Laurel or Cambridge — anywhere in our state — you'll have more of a chance at a good-paying, long-term career. The president is particularly concerned about providing jobs to those in our cities like Baltimore — to individuals who've been left behind by politicians who made promises but haven't delivered results. And he knows how to start the turnaround because he's listening to manufacturers....
(Excerpt) Read more at baltimoresun.com ...

Monday, April 17, 2017

Will Texas Cave like North Carolina?

Townhall.com ^ | April 17, 2017 | Katie Kieffer 


Let’s talk toilets—specifically, transgender-designated toilets in Texas.
Democrats are messing with Texas, pushing hard against SB 6, the Texas Privacy Act, which makes an individual’s biological sex the determining factor for accessing bathrooms, locker rooms and shower rooms in the Lone Star State.
“Essentially what they’re arguing about is, Should trans people be allowed to exist?” 18-year-old Rowan says of politicians looking to pass legislation like SB 6.
Rowan seems to be conflating legalized abortion (the only U.S. law condoning murder) with metal placards denoting “male” or “female” outside of bathroom stalls.
Clarifying bathroom rules is a pragmatic, loving, and ethical approach to an extremely politically correct society. Consider the basic fact that less than 1% of the adult U.S. population identifies as transgender. No one is arguing the inherent dignity due to all persons. SB 6 is about making 99.4% of people comfortable, while still treating the remaining 0.6% with dignity because they are human beings.
The Fluids
“Fluid” is a key word that individuals who identify as LGBTQAI employ to assert their resistance to committing to either the male or female gender.
‘I’m a moving target. I don’t know—or refuse to admit—what sexual orientation I will identify with in the future.”
That is what every person who calls themselves “gender fluid” is really saying.
Yes, free speech allows you to call yourself “fluid.” But your right to free speech doesn’t force the rest of us to take a bulldozer to our bathrooms. When you say you’re “gender fluid,” you’re really conceding that you’re impossible to please. The legislation that you claim to want today will—by your own admission—not necessarily please you forever.
Small businesses—from gas stations, to pizza parlors, to local pubs—should not be mandated to go bankrupt gutting and remodeling their restrooms every few years based on whims of the Fluids. Indeed, if we were to tell someone from another country that our country passes laws based on 0.6% of the population—they’d probably laugh out loud.
Long-Term Thinking: Economics 101
Obviously, in a moral society, our first and strongest argument against allowing biological males to share a communal restroom with biological females would be an appeal to natural law, or the conscience.
In reality, the United States has lost her moral underpinnings to the point where law-breaking 1-percenters like Hillary Clinton call themselves “victims” to the applause of celebrities like Katy Perry, regardless of how many times Clinton herself victimized others.
So, I recommend we employ an economic argument. After all, those who oppose SB 6 are employing an economic argument of their own. Texas’ largest cities will lose $407 million in revenue from conferences and sporting events!, SB 6 opponents claim.
Dallas, for example, will supposedly lose $157 million in potential convention revenue; Houston will lose $100 million and Austin will lose $110 million. And a whopping two groups have told the City of San Antonio that they will reconsider hosting events in San Antonio if the bill passes.
Such claims, however, represent short-term thinking. And basing important decisions on short-term thinking is generally a great way to make a fatal mistake.
Why are we presuming that—10 years from now—businesspeople will still want to gather in hotels for conferences? Nothing about the typical conference (expensive prices; boring topics; outdated PowerPoint presentations; rubber chicken dinners; and dorky name tags on lanyards) resonates with my generation (Millennials are cheap; tech-savvy; picky eaters; and nonconformist).
When all the Baby Boomers eventually do retire, the next generation of CEOs is more likely to gather their forces for a remote yoga retreat center in the Rocky Mountains than a stiff and formal conference at a swanky hotel in a densely-populated downtown area.
So why would we pass a law—and force thousands of businesses to spend millions of dollars retrofitting their bathrooms—based on a corporate activity (traditional conference-going) that may be extinct within the next decade?
Writing bathroom legislation on the possibility of losing the next NCAA championship; World Series; or Super Bowl in Texas is also silly, short-term thinking. The NFL never pulled Super Bowl 2017 from Houston, despite the fact that Houston voters shut down a piece of legislation that would have added sexual orientation and gender identity to anti-discrimination rules.
Moreover, all the major research shows that Millennials are not planning to replace their parents as ticketholders to professional, live sporting events (tickets are too expensive for a generation that’s still living at home with their parents) or even in front of a screen (there’s too many entertainment alternatives).
Equality at Stake
Transgender bathrooms, interestingly but not surprisingly, are the brainchild of President Obama. Last May, he issued an order via the Justice Department which arbitrarily stated that “As a condition of receiving Federal funds,” schools must not discriminate on sex—and must allow transgender students to decide which bathroom works best of them, regardless of the views of the majority of the student body.
Obama set a dangerous precedent with this directive such that transgender students have more rights than those who identify as heterosexual or homosexual. How long is it before a new protected class displaces the transgender class?
Bathroom legislation such as SB 6 actually recognizes the equality that every American has before the law better than directives such as Obama’s. SB 6 treats people as equal by taking into account the one factor we can know with certitude about every human being: their biological sex. By considering a known factor that we were all born with—rather than a fluid, moving target—namely the sexual identity with which they identify on any given day—we are treating everyone equally before the law.
Determining bathroom access by biological sex is not a judgement against someone who identifies as transgender. It’s as matter-of-fact and impersonal as a birth certificate. Private stalls will surely become the wave of the future, allowing every individual to have privacy in the bathroom. Until then, we can’t force small businesses to go bankrupt catering to the constantly fluctuating sexual orientations of their patrons.
Texas, don’t follow North Carolina’s lead and cave on this important issue. Stand up for true equality and tell the Democrats to “Come and take it.”

NEXT!

tqdVLw3.jpg

Actually

ZyLr9cf.gif

Leading from behind?

87MWiAk.jpg

Mothers Day

Ge4V9RG.jpg

CHANGE!

EfvaGFi.jpg

T-Shirt