Hitting A New Low

Governor McCroryMoral Decay In America

After the past weeks’ media furor over what I like to call, “bathroom gate”, it is evident that America has hit a new low. For those who choose not to tune into the national news, North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory made headlines with House Bill 2 (HB2), signed into law in late March, which essentially states that a person may only use the public restroom which corresponds with his or her biological sex. WOW! Crazy stuff! Even crazier: they had to pass a law to state the obvious. Crazier still: People act like this is something new and different.

Haven’t we always had to use the public restroom that corresponded to our biological sex? As long as I can remember, I’ve looked for the door with the figure in a triangle dress. In restaurants, I’ve looked for the sign that says, Male or Female. I’ll admit, some restaurants are tricky. The signs might be in Spanish, French or Italian, so you have to really think before you just open the door. Basically though, it’s a no-brainer.Restroom sign

Apparently, a lot of folks and businesses out there didn’t get the memo. I guess they’ve been unsure all these years about which door is appropriate for them to open. As far as the “LGBT” community and sympathizers are concerned, this is total discrimination. Bruce Springsteen is so distraught over this law that he cancelled his concert in North Carolina. Companies like American Airlines, Bank of America, Google, Marriott, Apple, etc., have written letters expressing their extreme displeasure with Governor McCrory for stating the obvious. PayPal came absolutely unglued, and reversed their plans for an expansion project in North Carolina, which will cost the state 400 jobs.

The Target Corporation; well, they just got even. They came out last week and announced that trans genders can use whatever restroom they “identify” with. It doesn’t matter what kind of plumbing they have. They should feel free to use the restroom or dressing room that suits their inner-self. Really? Why is this an issue? To quote Governor McCrory, “I don’t even know why we’re talking about this.”

As far as I’m concerned, if a woman wants to dress, act and think she’s a man, go for it. If a man wants to dress, act and think he’s a woman, go for it. I don’t care. That is their decision; their business; their right. However, when they begin to think that their rights take precedence over everyone else’s rights, we have a problem. From the beginning of time, it has been male and female, period. The end. For as long as stores or restaurants have had more than one restroom, they have been clearly marked, “male” and “female”, period. The end. This is not a new concept, folks.

What this is though, is another example of the Liberal Left trying to shove their twisted views down the throats of the Conservative Right. They are taking something that has never been an issue or a concern, and spinning it into their go-to word, “discrimination”. However, like Newton’s Third Law of Motion, (for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction) every time the Left screams “discrimination”, the Right can scream, “reverse discrimination”. That is exactly what’s going on here. Those of us who accept ourselves as God made us, far outnumber those who do not. Their needs do not trump ours. (No pun intended)

The bigger issue here is protecting everyone’s right to privacy. The biggest issue is protecting our children’s safety. Parents have the right to take or send their son/daughter into a public restroom or dressing room without worrying they will be traumatized by seeing a half-clothed member of the opposite sex. In Governor McCrory’s words, “It’s the basic expectation of privacy that I hear from Moms and Dads, that when their daughter or son goes into a facility, they expect people of that gender to be the only other ones in there”.

Having this policy in public venues is an open invitation to sex offenders. They can walk into a restroom, a dressing room or a locker room, presumably in keeping with their transgender identity, and perpetrate heinous acts against children and even adults for that matter. This is just a risk that is not worth taking.

The critics say there have been no documented cases of abuse, but they are mistaken. To name just a few, in February, The Daily Wire, reported that a Seattle man cited the new law and entered a women’s locker room when young girls were changing into their swimsuits for swim practice. A Toronto man, claiming to be transgender, sexually assaulted several women in a women’s shelter.

Appearing on The Kelly File Thursday night, Governor McCrory found himself in a debate with host Megyn Kelly, as she argued that there is a “misconception that transgender people are more likely to molest”. That may be true, but the concern is not focused strictly on the transgender. This is about anyone who would take advantage of a situation that gives them easy access to the opposite sex in a private setting.

There are some things that are better left unchanged, and this is one of them. I applaud Governor McCrory for having the courage to stand up for what is right, regardless of the fallout. He has a spine, a conscience and a mind of his own, and those are rare these days. The outrage that this issue is causing is another reminder to all of us how fundamentally our country has changed over the last eight years. Think about it. Were we discussing these kinds of things when President George W. Bush was in office? Or his Father? Or President Reagan? I don’t think so. Whether or not we realize it, our president has a lot to do with setting the moral tone for the country. We may not like or approve of him, but he still holds the ultimate leadership position in America, and his power and influence extend far beyond the beltway.

A president who has liberal social views is more likely to encourage changes in this area, or at the very least, not discourage them. Under Barack Obama’s watch, we now have legalized gay marriage. He is complicit in attempting to redefine traditional marriage, something that has been understood and accepted since the beginning of time. He has pushed the LGBT agenda by forcing school districts to allow boys who identify as girls to have full access to girl’s locker rooms. Sound familiar? He has condemned counseling for those students who struggle with same-sex attraction.

Shortly after taking office, Obama repealed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, and called for an open gay policy in our military. We now have states with legalized recreational marijuana use. We are releasing convicted drug offenders early, because President Obama thinks their prison sentences are inordinately long. We are struggling for our religious freedom due to the birth control and abortion policies of Obamacare, and the list goes on. Little by little, Obama has worked to undermine traditional values in America and set us on a path of moral decay.Emperor's New Clothes

We now have a pervasive “Emperor’s New Clothes” syndrome in this country. Remember that story? Swindlers convince a vain, clothes conscious Emperor to let them weave a fine garment for him from special cloth only visible to the highly intelligent and those well-suited to their rank. Since no one, including the Emperor, wants to appear stupid or unfit for their position, the townspeople pretend he is clothed in splendid attire. Of course, the whole time he is walking around naked. Finally, a little child has the courage to point and say, “he hasn’t got any clothes on”.

That is how so many Americans are reacting to what is happening in our country. No one wants to be singled out for being a “bigot” or “anti-inclusivity”, so we just go along to get along. We pretend the outrageous is now acceptable. The problem with this attitude is that sooner or later, you find yourself in a society you no longer recognize; a society where anything goes, and where there is no standard of decency. As my very wise Mother has frequently said, “The more you are exposed to immorality, the more you become inured to it, and things begin to lose their shock value”. I think we are coming dangerously close to that point.

How The Constitution Should Influence the 2016 Election

by contributing author

Dr. James Harlanimage

We are in the midst of an election cycle in which the two parties could not possibly be more opposed. On virtually every single issue, one party’s view is the exact opposite of the other party’s view. There is almost zero room for compromise. One party wants to abolish abortion, the other wants to increase access to abortion and extend the time frame in which it is legal. How do you compromise on that? Only allow abortion in odd-numbered years? One party wants to expand gun rights, the other would gladly send the police door-to-door to round up all the guns if they thought they could get away with it. How can you compromise? One party wants to abolish government-funded healthcare, the other wants to not only expand it, but to establish it as the only healthcare. How can you compromise? One party wants to deal with the national debt by cutting spending and decreasing taxes, the other wants to raise taxes and increase spending. We couldn’t possibly be more opposite.

At the end of the day, when two views are completely opposed, only one can be right—or at least, more right. So how do we decide? Fortunately, the Founding Fathers saw this moment coming. They were all educated people who had experienced firsthand what happens when a government becomes corrupt. The greatest empires in history—including the British Empire which the colonists overthrew—all became corrupt or too big to sustain themselves and eventually failed. Likewise, the Founding Fathers knew that, given enough time, the United States government could become corrupt. Hard to believe, I know. So, rather than doom future generations to a violent revolution, they decided to create a list of rules constraining the government, and a list of rights granted to the citizens which could not be constrained by the government. In so doing, they provided us a document—in essence, a rule book—to define what is “right.” Or at least, what is legal. They outlined the structure of the central government, and more importantly, the rights of the people. The latter subject is defined in the Bill of Rights, the former in the Constitution. Our government was never intended to be strong, and it was never intended to rule We the People. It was never intended to provide for us, nor to take from us (other than what it needed to carry out its day-to-day work). However, with each new administration and each new Congressional session, the government has grown. New laws are enacted while old ones remain on the books. The government creates new departments without removing existing ones. And every year the budget increases. The government we have today is vastly different from the one established in the late 1700’s.

Which brings us to our present conflicts. Today we really have two separate conflicts going on in politics, which many people (myself included) often forget to separate. One is the argument about what is ethically and morally just, and the other is about what is legal. Each party demonizes the other using a different argument. Unfortunately, what is legal is not always morally just, and vice versa. Is it moral to split apart immigrant families and deport those that are here illegally? No. Is it legal? Yes. Is it moral for evil people with no criminal or mental health records to buy guns and use them to kill others? No. Is it legal? Well, up until the killing part, yes. Is it moral to have an abortion? Many would argue that it is not. But is it legal? Yes. What we have to realize is that our government is not in the business of deciding what is moral and immoral. This is why we have religion and a conscience. The government is only in the business of deciding what is legal. The Founding Fathers were mostly religious people, and all of them assumed that the average American citizen would let their religion or their conscience be their guide. Boy were they wrong.

So, let’s simplify matters, and take both arguments separately. Setting aside morality for a moment, let’s examine just the legal argument. The Republicans argue that it is not legal, and that the federal government has no authority, to provide or mandate healthcare coverage. They are right. Nowhere in the Constitution is the government granted this power. Likewise, nowhere in the Bill of Rights are citizens granted the right to be provided with healthcare. Democrats demonize Republicans for being elitists and not caring about the millions of Americans with no access to healthcare, but they are using the moral argument. Republicans are against government healthcare because of the legal argument. It is illegal. Period.

Republicans—or at least, most of them—support gun rights. They support the 2nd Amendment. Most Democrats oppose it. Democrats appeal to our emotions, and they accuse Republicans and the NRA of not caring about the children dying in our schools. Again, this is a moral argument. Republicans support the legal precedent set by the Bill of Rights. Is it legal for the government to infringe on our right to bear arms? Let’s examine the text of the 2nd Amendment: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” No, it is illegal. Period.

The concept of “political correctness” has run amuck in recent years. College campuses and even some city governments (I’m looking at you, San Francisco) are now declaring which gender pronouns are accepted, which flags are not allowed to be flown, and what qualifies as “hate speech.” Individual special interest groups are declaring everything that does not sync up with their views to be “offensive,” and offensive language is being virtually banned from social media, Hollywood, schools, workplaces, etc. It seems any statement today can be misconstrued by somebody to be offensive, and therefore, not allowed. And, in an effort to appear inclusive, many entities—most notably colleges and primary schools—are cracking down on “offensive speech.” Of course, what constitutes offensive speech can apparently only be defined by those whom it offends. It comes as no surprise that the liberals and progressives in our society have jumped all over this bandwagon, and it is largely conservatives who are portrayed as racists and bigots and told to eliminate “hate speech,” whatever that might mean today. Is this legal? I believe the Founding Fathers can help us here, too. The 1st Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” Granted, the restriction specifically applies to Congress, not local governments, but the right itself is granted to The People. And any right granted to The People cannot be overridden, by any other group of people or municipality. It is illegal. Period.

Many issues of today can easily be solved by looking at the Constitution or the Bill of Rights for the legal answer to the question. This is why we have a Supreme Court. The problem arises when the line between what is legal and what is moral become blurred, and there is no specific mention in our founding documents. Take, for example, abortion. The act of abortion is something that the Founding Fathers could never have imagined. Nobody in their time had even thought of it. Abortion was officially deemed legal by the Supreme Court on January 22nd, 1973, based on a vague interpretation of abortion as being somehow related to medical privacy issues and due process under the 14th Amendment, and based on an interpretation of the 9th Amendment, which states, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” In other words, the Supreme Court didn’t actually say abortion is legal, they just said that it isn’t illegal. And it isn’t illegal because it didn’t exist when the United States was formed, so it falls under the vague “other rights retained by the people” clause of the 9th Amendment. Therefore, it is purely a moral argument, and we really should write legislation either specifically allowing it or specifically prohibiting it, rather than continuing in this gray area of “it is legal only because it isn’t illegal.” That’s a job for the next administration.

Marriage is a similar issue. Like abortion, the Founding Fathers never fathomed the concept of gay marriage. It simply didn’t exist in the 1700’s. They just assumed—like we all did up until about the 1980’s—that marriage is between one man and one woman. Republicans largely support this definition of marriage. Democrats largely support legalizing gay marriage, which they recently accomplished through the Supreme Court using a similar judicial precedent as abortion: it’s legal because it isn’t illegal. And, like abortion, the problem lies in the fact that nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government granted the power to define, legalize, illegalize, or otherwise say anything about marriage. Well then, who is? The Founding Fathers, in their wisdom, wrote the 10th Amendment for this reason: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Is it legal for the federal government to define marriage? No, it is illegal. Period. Whatever your views on gay marriage, the power to legalize it lies with the States or with the people. Not with the federal government or even the Supreme Court. Again, we have a purely moral argument, with no real legal guidance.

The problem with morality is that there is no one, single source for determining what is moral and what is immoral. It used to be that people were guided by their religions. Of course, now we live in a brave new world of progressivism, secularism, and political correctness, so our society can’t rely on religion to guide us anymore. Plus, our country was founded on the strict principle of separation of Church and State, a principle which I support. So how do we decide what is moral? I think in the case of determining morality for society, we have to look at nature. Since it is typically the progressive left that likes to think of humans as simply another species of mammal, formed by evolutionary processes, then this view should make sense to them. Is there any species of mammal that purposely kills its offspring while still in the womb? Is there any species of mammal where an individual willingly refuses to procreate with a member of the opposite gender and pass on their genes to the next generation, instead deciding to settle down with another individual of the same gender? After four years of studying biology in college, I can’t think of a single instance where this was the case. Therefore, in cases where there is no legal definition of morality, if it isn’t natural, then it probably isn’t something we should be encouraging our society to accept. At the very least, we should follow the 10th Amendment and leave it up to the States. Just because the citizens of the Democratic People’s Republik of Kalifornia want to legalize abortion and gay marriage, doesn’t mean the rest of America does.

Going through every important issue of the day in this manner could fill an entire book, so I won’t. My point is, in this election cycle, we as a people have to remember what the government is supposed to do, not what we want the government to do. Free college tuition and healthcare sound great, but the Constitution was written specifically to prevent the government from being powerful enough to do this and many other things the liberal left want this year, lest it become too big to sustain itself. I’m not saying the Republicans have the best answer on every issue, but at least what they want is more in line with what the Founding Fathers had envisioned.

Remember: A government big enough to give you everything you want, is a government big enough to take away everything you have.

SHOCK VALUE: How America Is Inured to Violence and Immorality

shock value

Growing up in the 1970’s, we didn’t have Cable TV. You watched ABC, NBC, CBS, or you found something else to do. I remember the highlight being the “Movie of the Week”. If it was the slightest bit “racy”, you would see a viewer warning across the screen, and hear, “Due to mature content, parental guidance is suggested”. My sister and I would lunge for the television set, hoping to turn the volume down before my Mother could hear it. She rarely watched television, but she had a strange way of overhearing this announcement from several rooms away. If we were not successful, we could hear her coming down the hall, and after listening to our begging and pleading, her response would always be, “the more you are exposed to immorality, the more you become inured to it, and it loses its shock value.” I hated it when she said that, because it usually meant that we were going to have to find something else to watch. Fifteen years later, I was saying the same thing to my children.

We have come a long way from what censors considered inappropriate in those days, and it is not a good thing. We have access to hundreds of channels, but most are filth. The majority of television is violent or sexually explicit, and that is just network TV, never mind cable. Even the commercials are bad these days. You might be watching a relatively benign program, but then you have to sit through advertisements for Viagra and Cialis. It is disgusting, but we are so used to seeing it, that it doesn’t surprise us anymore. Kids these days entertain themselves with violent video and computer games. They have the internet, which gives them access to just about anything you can imagine, including pornography. How many parents these days monitor what their kids are watching or doing? My guess would be not a whole lot. They have Facebook, Twitter and smart phones, and they can send or receive pictures of anything to or from anyone in the world.

 Our nightly news has some of the most disturbing images and information imaginable. We hear about child abuse, rape, murder, drugs and gang violence; it is rampant. Too many people have lost their sense of right and wrong, and they place no value on human life. A few months ago, after an undercover investigation, we learned that Planned Parenthood is selling fetal tissue and organs harvested from aborted babies. We saw videos on the news of their employees discussing how much money they make off them, and how they alter the abortion procedure to ensure they get usable organs. This is depravity. It also happens to be illegal, so some in Congress have called for the defunding of Planned Parenthood, but the government will not do it. They claim that it provides needed healthcare for women. Excuse me, but bullshit! Our country is going to hell in a hand basket, and we just sit around and watch it happen. We will not look out for or protect the most innocent among us, but we will look out for and protect illegal aliens and radical Muslims. Wake up America! The “powers that be” are taking us down.

The terrorist group ISIS, films the gruesome execution of their prisoners, many of whom are Christians, and releases it over the internet. We can now turn on our televisions, or get on our computers, and watch these barbarians behead people, or burn them alive, or force them to kneel on top of bombs. What are we doing about it? Is there anything that shocks us anymore, any behavior that we find unacceptable? How bad do things have to get in our country or in our world before we will shake off the apathy and say “enough”?

The United States has always been a force for good in the world, despite what our President would have us think. It has been our policy since World War II, to support and assist countries that cannot defend themselves on their own against the forces of evil. Our so-called leaders in Washington are not leaders at all; they are immoral, dishonest and quiescent, and they obviously have no regard for the future of the country. We have given them the power to lead us, and they have squandered it. They have diminished us around the world. I wonder what President Reagan would think of his “shining city on a hill”? We have an opportunity this next year to change the trajectory, but if we don’t step up and take back our identity as a Christian, yes Christian, God-fearing nation, well then…God help us.

“If we ever forget that we’re one nation under God, then we will be one nation gone under.”   Ronald Reagan