Well, that didn’t take long. The disastrously unconstitutional same sex marriage Supreme Court decision of June 2015 has already claimed its first Christian martyr. Not that Kim Davis, the thrice divorced 30 some-odd year career government drone of a Kentucky county clerk is the ideal representative of the faith. But once she began advancing religious liberty objections to processing marriage licenses to local couples (heterosexual or homosexual) at her Rowan county office, everyone has been off to the races.
The Summer of PC Bullying Ends With a Bang
As of early September, Davis has been plopped in jail, once the gay marriage litigators instantly rolled in a federal judge to order her to “comply with the rule of law” and issue the licenses, or else be held in contempt. When she declined, instead of being fined, the “conservative” judge threw her straight into the cooler. A compromise was offered where she would be released if she allowed her deputies to issue the licenses. Translation: That’s a ‘compromise’ that says she doesn’t have to desecrate God’s law concerning the sanctity of marriage, so long as she acts as an accessory by having her subordinates do it. She refused the ‘deal,’ and as a result, she’s the first nationally known Christian in jail for exercising her belief that a marriage is between a man and a woman.
The technical legalese aspects of this are more complicated, but that is how the case feels to a lot of Christian conservatives, who are absolutely tired of the summer of PC bullying, and have accordingly rallied around Davis. Among Republican Presidential candidates, that support has included Ted Cruz, Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee and KY Senator (as well as Tea Party/pro-liberty leader) Rand Paul, all of whom have cited the episode as a prime example of religious liberty under siege. Even an atheist acquaintance of mine supports her fight. The ever reliable, culturally PC compliant mainstream media (MSM) and pols, by stark contrast, have acted like “huh, don’t these people know how to stay conquered?” in response to the controversy. Nor did the obvious point of “why didn’t the inconvenienced couples just go to another county?” dominate the media’s discussion. As usual, the coverage takes the tack of declaring “hey, this highly divisive issue was resolved by a Supreme Court decree that turned the Constitution on its head five minutes ago, so that’s the end of it! Anyone who dissents is lawless and bigoted!” This is the same self-serving triumphalism the social left brought to the Roe abortion ruling 40 years ago. How well did that turn out, to “settle the matter?”
Which Rule, of Which Law?
The main valid-sounding point latched onto by Davis’ opponents is she is an elected official, and as such is expected to just follow though with the functions of her position (which in her case includes issuing licenses), for as long as she is receiving a government check. If she can’t deal with the conflict, she should just get another job. Gays pay taxes, after all, to get the state to force everybody to accept and accommodate them–so Christian clerks need to shut up and conform (note that this is, at best, an egalitarian argument based on equal access to licenses, not a real liberty argument for proving the clerk’s rights MUST be set aside). But Kim also pays taxes, so the protection of her exercise of her religious liberty matters too, by that logic. The Constitution says her exercise of speech shall not be abridged by Congress, not that it can be abridged because a federal court says so, nor can it be abridged because she’s working as a public clerk, instead of as a private clerk, nor abridged because of the changing whim of finger-in-the-wind politicians, etc.
Yes, rule of law should prevail, but which rule, of which law? The issue is over the application of the correct view of the rule of law, not taxes. The version most liberty people support is the original intent/constitutional one, where the states check the federal entity, not the incorporation doctrine or supremacy notion, where the federal government trumps the states. The Founders did not intend to have the federal entity enforce the Bill of Rights over the states. They were concerned with strictly limiting the size and power of the federal government, not with giving it immense, unlimited enforcement powers over every other level. If anything, it gave the states nullification powers to reject the excessive or lunatic abuses of the federal zone, as an additional check on its power. On this basis, for example, free men and states in the 1800’s refused to participate in enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act, a federal law mandating that people had to turn in escaped slaves they were harboring. Do Christian clerks now have less freedom to exercise their conscience than whole states did in the 1800’s?
A license is a privilege the government can choose to grant OR deny at its whim. Davis WAS exercising her elected duties when she decided not to grant the licenses. Her duties give her the power to choose to grant, OR to choose not to. Clerks and bureaucrats make ‘determinations’ to deny licenses and permits all the time, across the land. If people don’t like her decisions, they can vote her out at the next election. Instead, the denied applicants ran to a federal judge to immediately and needlessly escalate the matter. THEY created this standoff, but didn’t count on Davis standing her ground, or obtaining martyr status.
The laws of Kentucky (which favor the historic/traditional/preponderant understanding of marriage) are the relevant law controlling the clerk’s action. A government license is a privilege, not an inalienable right (regardless of what an absurd court ruling says), so the clerk’s decision not to issue a license should be supercedent, especially if it’s based on her exercising her first amendment rights. Technically, the Supreme Court’s June decision only has binding relevance to the parties in the specific case, and only serves as a basis for individuals suing a given state in order to win another specific case. And believe it or not, Gov. Huckabee actually has a point when asserting that without the legislative rules, also known as implementing regulations, the law (or in this case, a ruling about the law) arguably has no force.
The Real Answer, and Real Politics
The purist in me says, “no marriage licenses should be issued by the state at all, problem solved. Let’s be libertarians here, and stop playing into the statist’s hands.” That’s all well and fine, and the cleanest liberty position–until of course, somebody decides to sue, or otherwise assert that the federal government must block states even from electing not to issue marriage licenses. The promoters of central tyranny ultimately think whole states can be treated like the poor clerk, if they don’t fall in PC line. So at some point, we do have to instinctively stand up for tough broads who resist federal tyrants and bullies, and their MSM enablers. Given this hostile setting, a pro-liberty response requires both a principled answer (keep government and marriage separated), and a tactical approach that grows its base.
The main points to make to fight back with are indeed to end all government licensing and the states rights arguments, but more importantly, to lead with emotion, ala pushing the victim framework with regards to people of faith or conscience. The plaintiffs who called for the county clerk to be held in contempt were visibly not happy that the judge moved to put her in jail (and not simply fine her), because they knew it created a high profile martyr in public perception. The PC forces prefer to attack or silence the religious right in the dark, away from media scrutiny. The clerk’s religious liberty argument is shaky (given her conflict of interest as an elected government official), but it provides an opening for supporters to advocate for people in her situation to be covered by a broader Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in each state.
An expanded RFRA would prevent such workers from being threatened with jail or suits for standing up for original-intent federalism, cultural tradition or historic moral law. The current case has exposed that the cultural left is clearly intent on criminalizing or litigating into oblivion any public exercise of religious or traditional speech regarding gays, just as they have done to censor school prayer, abortion protests, and on other fronts. Once protected by RFRA, people in all states could more easily exercise their liberty without the immediate threat of jail or financial ruin, resulting in a lot more people acting as protestors after the example of Kim Davis.
One other emotional trigger Rand and others could use to carry this issue (instead of using technical and historical reasons that would probably bore the masses) is to simply point out the hypocrisy of the cultural left whenever they talk about officials complying with the rule of law. They could say “I’m sure you would be saying the same thing if the Supremes had ruled 5-4 the other way, right?” Or point out, why haven’t they complained when elected officials in sanctuary cities defied the federal immigration laws, or officials in states legalizing marijuana defied the federal war on Drugs? What about Obama’s Dept of Justice refusing to abide by the DOMA federal law during the first six years he was in office? Are only Christian officials supposed to be fined or jailed when they defy the feds?
What it Means
“We, the enlightened, can ignore or violate laws passed by Congress, but you evangelicals have to shut up and take it, or even quit your jobs when five Supreme Court social liberals issue decrees.” This realization that the whole “rule of law” canard is a one-way scam to pistol whip and punish the cultural right, but never, ever, the PC factions for stressing states rights, is part of what is fueling a rebellion by the “little people” against the whole establishment racket, as displayed in the current Presidential primary season. Kim Davis will not be the last rebel, but more like the first of a new wave of resistance to this latest edition of case law tyranny. As with abortion, this culture war battle will be going on for decades, if not longer.
For every action there must be an equal and opposite reaction, in politics as in physics. With all the ‘summer of PC bullying’ going on, it has caused the public (in reaction) to now embrace a guy who does not appear to back down, his history of positions and personality issues be darned. Hence the emergence of Donald Trump as the American hero of the summer, for standing against the mainstream. The MSM is aghast at this, as it doesn’t like a person who doesn’t bend a knee to their shaming games on race, sex, or other cultural divides. Accordingly, Trump comes off to them as having the ‘wrong’ tone, and worse, to have sided with the peasants out of sheer run amok ego. Worst of all, he’s energizing the rabble too much, as a fabled libertarian remarked years ago:
“It is important to realize that the establishment doesn’t want excitement in politics, it wants the masses to continue to be lulled to sleep. It wants kinder, gentler; it wants the measured, judicious, mushy tone, and content, of a James Reston, a David Broder, or a Washington Week in Review. It doesn’t want a Pat Buchanan, not only for the excitement and hard edge of his content, but also for his similar tone and style.” –Murray Rothbard
The Presidential Primary Debates have arrived, and have escalated the ‘silly season’ originally commenced by Donald Trump’s entry into the Republican race. Since the last post on the Trump phenomenon, a “crazy like a fox” aspect to his machinations has emerged that shows what the secret of his appeal is, despite lacking any nuance, tact, or shame over his self-absorbed blusterings. Ron Paul has commented on his thoughts about the first debate of August 6:
From a principled standpoint, and in terms of the tactical issue as to whether anything is being accomplished by the one mainstream liberty candidate, Rand Paul, what I saw at the FOX News hosted debate was Trump taking the brunt of the hostile questioning, and Paul holding solid for the time he was given. The others repeated shopworn cant on foreign policy to get cheap pops from the hawk-entranced audience. There were too many rat-a-tat-tat answers in general flying off the lips of too many politicians to produce an overall impact, pro or con, for any candidate. Rand surprisingly got a good audience response to his comment on de-funding Israel, and closed strong. There was no discussion of decidedly non-GOP talking points or issues of the last year like income inequality, police brutality or misconduct, or civil rights (though the upcoming Democratic debates in turn will probably not touch non-Democratic issue memes such as those horrid Planned Parenthood videos, protecting gun rights and religious liberty, etc).
But it was Trump’s magnetic egomania, and politics-shattering put-downs of the FOX attack panel of “journalists” that rocked the evening. Why has he won over so many people in so short a time, despite having a political history that is all over the map? It all comes down to a confession on MSNBC last week by former RNC Chair Michael Steele: “If you look at the whole Republican Party, from libertarians to evangelicals to the Tea Party,” says Steele, “you have a group of people who’ve been lied to for 35 years. Republican [presidential candidates] have said, ‘Elect us and we’ll do these things.’ Well, they haven’t. And that frustration is manifesting itself in Trump.”
A true quote, though it doesn’t change that Trump is a fatally flawed vehicle for voicing the rank and file’s frustration. The comment also explains why Trump’s decidedly non-liberty and non-conservative views on most issues have been given a pass by many on the right and the grassroots—since the GOP has failed to deliver on conservative promises for decades, they believe, why does it matter for Trump to express them?
Trump is running an attitudinally correct campaign that rejects the smooth professionalism, tact and polish that the lying phony pols have given voters for a generation. If Trump isn’t right intellectually, and is low on having background facts, he’s dead-on in matching the mood of the electorate. At this point they want somebody who feels real, somebody with backbone, and somebody who prioritizes cultural issues like immigration. The public doesn’t want somebody who will only mouth focus group perfected lines that offend no one, or addresses only the surface of the issue, but somebody who hits the subject square on the head, and doesn’t back down. They want a confrontation on these matters, and Trump is clearly eager to deliver the train wreck.
Has the Stalking Horse Gone Rogue?
Or is he? Is the train wreck really just the mark of a phony campaign, that is not truly disrupting the establishment at all? Some have speculated that Trump’s ascendancy is actually all an establishment ‘controlled opposition’ plan, with his candidacy serving as a false flag to protect the elite’s chosen frontrunners. While I certainly believe things started that way, events of the last few weeks suggests their operation has gone sideways. The original elite plan (I believe) is for Hillary to face Bush next year, or failing Jeb, Scott Walker. Trump is interfering with that plan by seeking to be the nominee instead, and yes, that is disrupting the plan. Trump is now leading in all four of the early critical states (IA, NH, SC, FL). That can’t be part of the plan, so yes, that is disruptive.
I think something changed from when Trump first announced, as in all the pounding his business ventures took due to his immigration stance—Trump may have took that as the establishment breaking its word about not going after him for speaking his mind, so his ego took over (“Well, I’m in the race after putting it off for decades, and I am better than these other losers, so I might as well go for it.”).
The FOX attack questioning at the first debate was, first to last, about controlling his wild card status or marginalizing Trump if he didn’t comply, yet he resisted it all. That outcome was not the FOX panel’s intention at all—thus, Trump is being disruptive. The establishment wants to be assured Jeb gets nominated, yet has no assurance of that, with Trump leading in all demographic categories in the polls. That total dominance could not have been part of their plan, hence, Trump is disrupting their plan.
For a real example of a phony campaign serving as a stalking horse, see Sen. Thompson’s run in 2008. He got in the primary race late, yet to much MSM manufactured hype and fanfare, campaigned half-heartedly, and never led in any national poll or in any state. He quit the race promptly after SC, where he helped divide the evangelical vote so moderate McCain could win that ‘firewall’ state. Once his friend Mac had secured his “prospective nominee” status, Thompson realized his job was done, which is why he got out.
I believe Rick Perry was set up to serve the same vote-splitting purpose in 2012, to benefit Mitt, but his candidacy was so inept he drew no voter support, thus did not split the social right vote in SC, which is why Gingrich won the primary (thus delaying Romney’s media coronation by months). At any rate, that is how the establishment actually uses a controlled opposition candidate—their appeal is only supposed to be partial, and subordinate to building up the elite’s chosen one. Whereas Trump has been utterly destroying Bush’s credibility, momentum, media attention and poll numbers, while hogging all those factors for himself.
Standing Up to Poodles
In addition to standing his ground on immigration and trade, Trump made two major strides to amp up the train wreck at the debate, the most spectacular of which was his refusal to adopt a “loyalty pledge” to accept whomever the GOP nominee ends up being, and promise not run on a third party line if losing the nomination battle. His refusal to do so, even at such a high profile venue as the debate, has sent shock waves through both the media and GOP.
Thus the attempt by the FOX “media attack poodles” (as Lew Rockwell has delightfully called them) to use the debate to deactivate the tycoon as a threat to Bush or Walker has backfired disastrously. Yes, Trump is an establishment creation, but apparently their Frankenstein is loose, and no longer obeying his master (kind of like the story of the US and its Mideast fostered monster, ISIS). Instead of neutralizing the threat of an independent run, he’s openly embracing it as his leverage to arm-twist the party into taking him seriously.
Trump has showed the power of that particular card by playing it flat out preemptively, saying “TREAT ME FAIRLY, or I may go independent.” Because he’s using this leverage, rank and file GOP voters aren’t falling for the normal “let’s go with the establishment front runners because they’re ‘electable,’ and let’s ignore all the others” routine. It also serves to threaten to properly punish the party for rigging the game as usual, and thus put a stop to such practices. Pain has a way of deterring people.
The Trump wild card is allowing voters to see through the Emperor’s new clothes, right NOW during primary season, instead of the day after the election, when it will be too late. Without the aura of inevitability, or the perception that Bush is the only candidate with deep pockets, Jeb is just a bland, totally uninspiring guy who gaffes a lot. Without that same “electable” aura, Walker is just another boring midwestern politician. By potentially making all the candidates unelectable, Trump has leveled the playing field.
So Trump’s presence in the race, and his threat to go third party, is buying time for Rand to get more traction, and to be heard out on the merits by voters who would have otherwise ignored or discounted him. Rand could have done this himself by threatening an indy or fusion candidacy, but by having the Donald do it, he’s the one who is taking most of the flack instead. You could say Trump is thereby running resistance for Rand, and every other candidate who wants to get a fair shake in the race. Will voters choose based on the merits, instead of the GOP leadership’s “electability” sleeping spell? We’ll see.
Looking past Rand (in case his candidacy fails) we may have to see which remaining person, in a field of non-liberty major party candidates, can succeed in a way that furthers the cause in making progress of some kind. In this Plan B scenario, Trump fits the bill because he is seemingly disrupting or breaking the establishment’s control over the primary process. He is, de facto, taking most of the heavy fire that might otherwise all be concentrated on Rand. Thus for now, Trump is inadvertently buying time for Rand to build his campaign.
The Democratic War to Win Back Women
Trump’s other breakthough came in the form of resisting being sucked into placating contentious PC factions such as the feminists, over the wrong and “right names” to call women. FOX attack poodle no.1, Megyn Kelly, tried to humiliate Trump on exactly this basis, but Trump returned the volley with some of the strongest comebacks of the debate. Who’s side of the culture war is FOX fighting for, anyway? Through such questions, Megyn is practically handing the “war on women” issue to Hillary to beat her opponents with. What promoters of this meme don’t ever mention is that it is really a Democratic war to win back women, or enough women to do well in the Presidential election.
Their dirty little secret is, Republicans won the women’s vote 49%-48% in the 2010 midterms, only barely lost it (47%) in the 2014 midterms, and the GOP won the white women’s vote outright 56%-43% in 2014. That’s why they’ve rolled out the war on women rhetoric each time we go into a Presidential cycle. Trump is teaching the milquetoast moderates to not buckle and cower when that meme is pushed on them again in 2016.
The war on women hucksters will have more rhetorical problems, moving forward, in pushing the “women’s health” meme in light of the Planned Parenthood videos that have (brilliantly) been released in a staggered fashion by a pro-life group, showing fetal body parts are callously traded for cash at PP clinics. Until now, the public has been in the dark about this ugly disposal process, in part due to the way the word magic of “women’s health” has served to cover the brute fact that abortion usually involves burning or chopping up unborn children. That’s why propaganda and emotion ‘trump’ arguments (okay, couldn’t resist). The imagery and verbal spin create a framework that is hard to rationally overcome, unless one wages a counter-infowar to displace the mindset.
Supporters of legal abortion have succeeded in perpetuating a dialogue on the issue built on abstractions and bloodless euphemisms like “reproductive health” or “choice,” that keeps the substance of what abortion actually involves (burning, dismembering, and trading dead unborn children) out of the picture. The PP videos bring us back to the concrete lethal reality that abortion involves killing, then disposing of real body parts—which with time, and more staggered video releases, will change the rhetoric and emotion on the issue (including black audiences, who have been disproportionately subject to abortion). This will in turn make it harder to cover-up the bloody truth from women, for the purposes of attracting them to the pro-legal abortion side.
The Liberty Approach to Women
This discussion of the info-war and women brings up the question that keeps dogging libertarian circles–how do we attract more women to the movement? I’ve always suggested you engage people about liberty from the exact point of their own concerns, as in:
If you are among people concerned about education, you talk about the liberty approach to education.
If you are among people concerned about the lack of jobs, you talk about the liberty approach to job creation.
Etc, etc. This way you are not ignoring people’s issues, since you are engaging them at the very point of their concern, while not fudging on your own principles. Soooo, when it comes to women…
If you are among people concerned about security, you talk about the liberty approach to improving their security. This may involve talking up the reasons why more women should buy firearms, and support the concealed carrying of same. You might make the case for increasing the ability to provide a safety net by eliminating government subsidy programs. Or point out violent criminal and mass murdering shooters were captured or killed through traditional good police work, not intrusive bulk surveillance or watch lists. And so on.
This may require us to research our positions in more detail to better dialogue, but it would lead to truly reaching other groups, including women. Otherwise, I suggest approaching women politically as a man often does personally, that is, from a position of not needing them. Convey that ‘you know what you want, you know where you are going,’ and they can either get on board or get out of your way. This translates to ‘confidence’ with women, be it for dating purposes or for political engagement, and thus more women becoming attracted.
The media barrage descending upon billionaire Presidential candidate Donald Trump for speaking too bluntly on non-legal immigrants reinforces the point (among other trends) that the summer of PC bullying continues. From historically insouciant campaigns to bring down the Confederate flag, to constitutionally bogus court decisions to force gay marriage on all the red states, down to calls to replace Andrew Jackson with Rosa Parks on the twenty dollar bill, the cultural left has been going at a full speed steamroller pace with one “go with this, or you’re racist” agenda item after another.
The Donald has simply pointed to incarceration statistics from ICE showing the illegal or undocumented immigrant population (5% of the general population) is committing 27% of the federal crimes. He has also noted data admitted by the General Accounting Office that 70% of the nation’s southern border is unsecure. Speaking only about last year, Breitbart reports that “thanks in part to deadly ‘sanctuary city’ policies, 347,000 convicted criminal immigrants remain at large in the U.S. — and illegal immigrants accounted for 37 percent of all federal sentences handed down in 2014.” Of course, the unscripted, self-obsessed tycoon has not let any handlers polish his attempt to raise this subject in a non-incendiary fashion, hence the furor over his impolitic bluntness in talking about Mexico “sending us” rapists, murderers and the like. He’s also not been shy about challenging a cultural Marxist media that would like to shame him back into conformity on this and other issues. Katy Tur’s encounters with him have been not exactly relaxing sniffs of lavender oil:
So Trump is currently making the neocons and GOP leaders squirm, but is not otherwise disagreeing with their interventionist, big government agenda. Trump really does think his rivals in the race are incompetent dummies and fools, who can’t get the job done, whereas he would bomb and knock enough heads around to get things done. He’s apparently an establishment water carrier in most other respects, which is why you see him picking fights with the frontrunners, to keep them in the news, not real pro-liberty contenders in the Republican race like Rand Paul.
Trump is both currying to and protecting himself from the statist establishment, as shown by his bipartisan contribution habits, and (at other points) by his paying that establishment off to leave his big business ventures alone. Yet look at how fast they’ve been trying to clobber him financially anyway, over his comments on immigration. Trump has a business empire that can be busted like a big piñata to suit the needs of the elite to control him and other tycoons who enter politics.
Trump has been as independent as he has mainly because a large fraction of his fortune is in real estate, thus not as subject to boycotts, endorsement withdrawals, naked short options and other maneuvers used to destroy wealthy outsiders. This may be a reason why Ross Perot kept just about all his money in municipal bonds across the 50 states. Despite the lousy low interest, it kept him from being threatened with sudden financial ruin if he spoke too much out of line. Most politicians, who have less or no money, are controlled even more completely with the prospect of total destruction if they stray from the mainstream, and establishment media sources are threatened with exclusion (no access to officials for interviews, press conferences, or leaked info) if they pursue the “wrong” stories or questions.
In this manner, the entire “mainstream” usually runs in smooth conformity, from the pols to the pundits, with everyone in between cowed into compliance. It becomes a one-two punch, of the candidates not wanting to touch certain aspects of the “no-no” issues, and the establishment media not wanting to raise them. Even bringing up measures to address the crimes of the deported would draw too much attention to the issue for elite comfort. The real reason much of the establishment is in an uproar over Trump is that he is discrediting Jeb Bush’s credibility (Trump is more charismatic, hitting issues the base cares about, and has deeper pockets) much more than they would like. Jeb is the selected sacrificial lamb who is designed to lose to Hillary in 2016, and they don’t want their pigeon replaced by somebody who might actually beat her.
Changing the Framework
Trump has changed the discussion framework (emphasizing the criminal aspects the PC and establishment side wanted to ignore), but not the policy debate (which is stilled geared around the “so when are we giving them amnesty” sense of inevitability). Trump himself appears to support the “pathway to citizenship” euphenism for amnesty when pressed on the subject, so he represents no real change on the substance. This confirms my view Trump is an establishment tool whose job in the race is to poison the well, by making a flawed or comical case for legitimate issues, like the negative aspects of illegal immigration, or meeting the constitutional criteria for President, so the media and candidates can dismiss dealing with them. If we had a liberty candidate who argued we had to end the NSA surveillance program because “the Martians may be listening in,” it would have the same effect.
I note more and more pundits are catching on to this “false flag” nature of Trump’s candidacy. Someone on FOX recently noted the same thing I’ve mentioned, that Trump takes a widely held position among conservatives (be it on Presidential qualifications, or on immigration) and contaminates it by making it seem ridiculous. Is he doing so deliberately? Probably, since the effect keeps rebounding to the mainstream media’s (MSM’s) benefit in each case. Trump’s purpose is thus to marginalize populist sentiments on these issues, making the world safe for the GOP moderates to dismiss them and advance the establishment agenda. He’s largely revived the Pat Buchanan agenda of the ’90’s, precisely in order to wreck it.
But in the meanwhile, on the surface at least, it’s fun watching somebody seem to stand up to mainstream framework makers. Trump handles or ‘trumps’ the PC immigration barrage by pushing back the junk of male and female media figures alike–whereas when Rand Paul happened to be aggressive with female interviewers early on, he gave the MSM an opening to say he was bullying women (even though it’s men writing basically all the leading questions they feed to the on-camera people of either sex). But there is definitely a need to be assertive in blasting the establishment’s PC framework on issues to smithereens, which is what Trump is hilariously doing.
Rand may yet be able to use Trump’s macho bluster to triangulate himself as a bold, but real statesman, if he plainly calls out the media on their over-reactions, while re-stating Trump’s views on immigration etc more reasonably. Rand has played the chess game to protect himself, but you can only castle the king once. He’s made compromising rhetorical and political gestures to cover himself long enough—post his Patriot Act victory, it’s time for him to go after the enemy.
But what is the reasonable pro-liberty path on this matter going forward? Are 3,000 mile border fences and mass deportation of at least 11 million illegals the answer, or even logistically feasible? Probably not. Is wholesale amnesty, or its polite code word “a pathway to citizenship” the answer? Certainly not, and it’s already been done in the past, leading to the greater wave of lawless immigration we are currently experiencing. Well, what about the practice of individual responsibility, on the part of the migrants, to do what’s right? Bingo. Basically, the issue is freedom of association, or liberty right of current citizens to set the rules of their consent for immigration to protect all parties, vs. illegal immigrants having forced access to American resources against the consent of native citizens.
There already is a pathway to citizenship, called the naturalization process. Immigrants should be able to transfer their citizenship freely, but they should follow the rules–just like people should be able to rent property freely, but they need to sign a lease, otherwise their occupancy is trespassing. It is the individual responsibility of those immigrants to themselves complete the process for obtaining legal citizenship or residency, not that of the government the citizens delegated to establish a “non-process,” or special “pathway” for them. Whether or not the state should or can logistically perform mass deportation, or put up border fences, it is still the responsibility of the migrating individuals to follow the naturalization process. This approach, combined with deportation of violent offenders, balances retaining free immigration (which supports the liberty interests of those who want to become citizens) with protecting the borders (which defends the liberty interests of current citizens).
Some ‘open borders’ libertarians (who sometimes express “there are no borders,” or there are no “illegals”) object to government regulating immigration, arguing that anything the government does with regard to immigration is a violation of property rights, since anything the government does requires funding, meaning the action requires confiscation of private property. But this is valid only if one presumes there is no legitimate way to fund government apart from confiscation, and/or think there is no legitimate function of government. That is a disputed view, which is too often presented as if it is self-evident. Supporters of this concept go as far as asserting it is the only “real” libertarian view about borders, which amounts to exclusively embracing anarchism, instead of minarchism as the libertarian approach to government.
In the end, the ‘open borders’ view doesn’t believe the people can legitimately delegate their rights to a civil government, and that the state can have no delegated self-defense basis for legally defining citizenship. My point is, this basis for an open borders position is thereby anarchism, not libertarian principle. A consistent libertarian approach would be at least as much concerned with the migrant’s violation of private property, not just the state’s. And it would focus on the responsibility of the migrant as to what to they should be doing, which the open approach does not.
The latest Supreme Court unconstitutional decisions on Obamacare, and especially gay/same sex marriage, rendered at the end of its 2015 term, represents the usual mishmash of left-oriented judicial activism, rhetorical “jiggery-pokery” (a term I first heard on Dr. Who, but here used by a flustered Justice Antonin Scalia in his heated dissents), and other basic breaches of rational jurisprudence. Once again, at least from this Christian libertarian’s perspective, rulings that involve (at minimum) severe and unprecedented re-inventions of constitutional understanding, have been resorted to in order to impose a one size fits all “politically correct” solution on a divided country.
Court Overreach, Liberty Conflations
This overreach confirms the impression of many that the current court is staffed by the Devil’s favorite demons, to borrow a WWE line, determined to hasten the slide of the society and nation into lawless and amoral chaos. But if this has been the trend for years, why does yet another year ending with laughably flawed decisions count as breaking news, some would ask? The answer: It matters in terms of the long standing, but broken promise of the Republicans to fix the activism problem with constitutionally sound Justices. They’ve had 35+ years, and 4 of the 7 appointees they delivered have turned out to be totally compromised (with Roberts seemingly under out and out blackmail when it comes to Obamacare). Meanwhile, on every big ruling, there has been no deviation by the Democratic appointees whatsoever from furthering the activist agenda.
Kennedy appears to have been bought off since at least ’92 (when he initially ruled to overturn Roe in the Casey decision, making him the 5th vote after oral arguments, then magically flipped by the day the ruling was announced). This last minute flip has happened only 3 times in the last three decades (O’Connor with Webster, Kennedy with Casey, and Roberts with Obamacare), in each case by a GOP selected “conservative.” As with the politicians, until the one way cave-in syndrome and compromise stops, there is no remedy to or relief from the ongoing SCOTUS slide into PC tyranny.
Libertarians have supported the freedom of gays to exercise personal liberty as a matter of tolerance, and leaving people alone. The key unifying point is that homosexuality is personal behavior that is not bothering other human beings, and as such does not need to be a concern of the state. This comes down to being a neutral “social libertarian” approach to their behavior that neither presumes “they are sinners” who must be shunned (the social right dogma), or that “they’re born that way” and must be embraced or approved, and hold civil rights class status (the social left dogma).
Some libertarians have wrongly conflated the social libertarian view with social liberalism. Many such libertarians, having come from a “Democratic liberal” or “moderate Republican” background, equate the liberty diversity approach (tolerate it and protect personal liberty) with social liberal advocacy (approve, embrace and promote it). This has in turn led to many unfortunate campaigns to “recruit” social liberals through issues like marriage equality. These efforts have failed for the same reason they usually fail to persuade social conservatives—both the right and the left are usually authoritarians, who want to impose their views and disputed presumptions (through law or through the courts) on everybody else. In terms of the current crusade, gay advocates do not want to live and let live, they want state enforced legitimacy, and the power to marginalize and punish the social right.
What’s the Issue?
Let’s concentrate on the gay marriage decision to get to the heart of the problem. Exactly why is it alright to the left for a federal edict and one Justice (Kennedy, who has written the last three gay-related decisions) to govern the approach of 350 million Americans from diverse states? More pertinently, how is this acceptable to libertarians, who supposedly believe in getting government out of divisive areas of life— except of course, for left-leaning federal decisions it likes? Neither a federal law like DOMA, nor a constitutional amendment, nor a Supreme Court decision should be defining marriage for the entire country, in either a traditional nor modernist direction.
Nothing in the original intent of the 14th Amendment guarantees a right to marry, be it heterosexual or homosexual, making the question of what is or is not allowed state to state moot. At the time of the amendment’s passage, marriage itself was understood to be a private institution or sectarian ritual, much like baptism or communion, thus not a matter of law. And the 14th amendment protects individual rights, not the privilege claims of a group that they need to be treated as a protected class. Gay advocates want a government privilege (a government marriage license) extended to them as a group as if it was an inalienable right, based on collectivist claims of being a civil rights category (which is itself disputed, since half of us do not agree “they are born that way”).
Regardless of the above reasonable considerations, gay marriage advocates have tried to pack their disputed presumptions into the law, and into the framework of the public dialogue on the subject. The gay lobby has spent billions in marketing to re-characterize immorality as a variety of civil rights, in order to get people to buy into the normalization, including marginalizing opponents as “bigots” or “homophobic” (not a DSM defined psych term, but a put-down epithet designed to chill debate). A full court press effort of over a decade has resulted in the current court decision, that has apparently succeeded in intimidating pols, pundits and justices alike into compliance with the “correct” view.
If you doubt there has been propaganda going on, ask yourself 1) why, in one news story after another, there’s always video shown of gays celebrating or kissing when they get a victory, but no video showing religious conservatives celebrating when they win? 2) If you replaced all the known gay news figures, gay actors and gay-friendly situations shown in current movies and TV shows with conservative evangelicals and Catholics, wouldn’t it seem obvious the media was over-stacking viewers with social conservatives? So if that’s the case, why is it okay to saturate the viewers by over-representing gays?
Benefit, insurance and other support issues involved with alternate relationships should be resolved through private contract. Gays should be free to identify such a contractual bond as ‘marriage’ but people should also not be forced by the state to recognize it as such. Gays can do whatever they want and can call it whatever they want, just so they don’t expect to impose their relationship on someone else. They can’t make me personally accept what they do, and gay couples can do whatever they want.
I regard much rhetoric about ‘rights’ in politics to be illegitimate, and often simply a pretext for demanding group privileges or subsidies that increase overall state aggression, in a manner that comes at the expense of the real liberty rights of others. I support individual personal liberty in sexual matters, but oppose efforts to further expand group rights by using government to codify legitimacy or approval for behavior that remains highly disputed. Initiating force through laws that de-facto coerce people to accepting behavior they see as immoral, is not the way to solve this, or other social issues.
Last but not least, the traditional and preponderant understanding of marriage is that it is a union God sanctifies and consecrates, or makes holy, for His glory–which is why the ceremony is most often done at a place of worship, and conducted by a cleric. That same historic tradition understands that homosexuality is sin, or a form of sexual immorality. Since it is impossible for God to make sin holy, to believers, the entire concept of same sex marriage is at least impossible, and at worst an attempt to ‘demand’ that God consecrate something that is immoral, or patently contrary to His law. This principled commitment to the sanctity of marriage is why cultural traditionalists reject the idea of gay marriage, not hatred.
The issue is not private contracts, or recognizing man’s love for man’s sake, but government conferring false legitimacy to a version of a private institution (and imposed on everybody) that runs contrary to the preponderant understanding of that private institution. Are gay baptisms or communions valid, if somebody gets a government license saying they are? The government does not have the right to treat a government marriage license (a privilege, that is dependent on the state’s approval) as if it is a right (something human beings have that is recognized to derive from outside, or beyond the state).
Nor should the state have the power to use its issuance of a privilege (a license) to fraudulently convey or curry legitimacy for gay marriages that could not be obtained by the culture or history. The decision this week confuses or conflates individual rights with group privileges, and is in essence a back door statement that the state recognizes no source or authority for rights outside of itself.
Culture Wars 2.0
At the moment, I see there are two clarifying strategic considerations for true advocates of liberty, here understood to be inclusive of cultural tradition:
1) The culture wars are geared to go into 2.0 mode, as the PC side will (as they did following Roe) presume this latest imposition of social liberal concepts on a divided country “settles the matter”–only to find it fuels divisive elections for the next several decades, as abortion has. The best overall approach, given the current circumstances, is to elect more constitutionalists to Congress who will use their direct powers to vote to remove the court’s jurisdiction on gay marriage, abortion and other cultural wedge issues, which would vacate the bad decisions made in each area, thus de-federalizing these issues.
2) This further exposes the complete failure of the Republican Party’s cowardly, half-hearted strategy of waiting for vacancies in the Supreme Court to appoint conservative replacements. For 40 years the GOP has strung the social right out with promising to reform the courts in this manner, while not prioritizing putting reliable appointees to the Court (compared to the perfect record of Democratic administrations in appointing social liberals). It’s clearly time to abandon this as a primary method going forward. (As an aside, I think it’s also time Republicans stopped running for President leading with an emphasis on interventionist foreign policy, which I believe cost them the election in ’92, ’96 and since ’08, and thus cost them more chances to make court appointments, but that’s another issue.)
Reagan appointed O’Connor and Kennedy, GHWB appointed Souter, GWB appointed Roberts, meaning 4 out of the 7 GOP appointees to SC have been duds, since 1980. Their failed approach has only emboldened the left to continue to pack the courts in the other direction, and continue to impose a left-authoritarian agenda through the courts and bureaucracies. The federal government should be out of these issues on both the legislative and judicial sides, so a successful removal of the court’s jurisdiction would send a stinging warning to the justices to not overreach their constitutional boundaries, as they have just done with these current decisions.
Rand’s New Mousetrap
GOP presidential candidate Rand Paul has written an amazing editorial for Time on the court’s gay marriage decision that suggests this exact path for getting the government out of marriage, and for giving cultural traditionalists the principled high ground on the moral issues without resorting to authoritarian measures (more laws, regulations, court decrees and other initiations of force) to counter the PC authoritarians of the social left. His approach mousetraps both the right and left’s self-contradictory attempts to settle the matter on the federal level in the first place:
…While I disagree with Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage, I believe that all Americans have the right to contract.
The constitution is silent on the question of marriage because marriage has always been a local issue. Our founding fathers went to the local courthouse to be married, not to Washington, DC.
I’ve often said I don’t want my guns or my marriage registered in Washington.
Those who disagree with the recent Supreme Court ruling argue that the court should not overturn the will of legislative majorities. Those who favor the Supreme Court ruling argue that the 14th amendment protects rights from legislative majorities.
Do consenting adults have a right to contract with other consenting adults? Supporters of the Supreme Court’s decision argue yes but they argue no when it comes to economic liberties, such as contracts regarding wages.
It seems some rights are more equal than others…
Perhaps the time has come to examine whether or not governmental recognition of marriage is a good idea, for either party.
These remarks would be consistent with a three part approach of 1. Calling for eliminating marriage licenses. 2. Calling for defending religious liberty. 3. Removing jurisdiction of the federal courts concerning abortion and homosexuality, which would have the effect of vacating all of their unconstitutional rulings of the last generation to impose social liberalism on a largely conservative country. Some states, like Mississippi, are already considering ending their issuance of ALL marriage licenses. Rand himself may or may not openly champion all of these specific remedies, but he has opened up a specifically pro-liberty plan for the non-PC side of the culture wars to take up. That plan is, simply: restore morality, by removing government from all these areas.
In terms of how this plays into his primary chances, Rand could shave some votes off the statist social conservatives if the pro-liberty side did not appear to be stone-faced aloof, or outright hostile to moral issues. Just because we want to avoid getting sidetracked by wedge issues, doesn’t mean there is NO connection between moral decline and the loss of liberty. A culture that allows the legal slaughter of the unborn, for example, shouldn’t be surprised that not long after, it sees its government allow torture, rendition, no-due-process detention, and drone assassinations of civilians as well.
While standard or hack social right pols don’t acknowledge these connections, they do bring up the relevance morality has as a partial explanation to our general blight. The voting bloc that can be culled by doing so can also be mined by Rand and the movement, but liberty advocates need to lose the wholesale contemptuous attitude towards those voters in order to win over a faction of them.
The Road Ahead
In general, Rand’s op-ed is the guide for getting the social right onboard with fighting for their agenda on a non-authoritarian basis. Central (especially federal) government encroachment on private or local matters is the problem. Cultural conservatives have missed this by trying to lock state force in their direction, and hitching their wagon for decades to a GOP leadership that, as is now plainly obvious, was never trying to deliver for them on these issues. At this point, they should realize that the social left authoritarians are much better at getting state force to go their way, and the “waiting for the Supremes” or new judicial appointments to save the day game has run its course.
With the SCOTUS path seemingly blocked off to them now on both abortion and homosexuality, they now need to embrace the libertarian path of stripping the federal government of jurisdiction on these issues, and dumping the pols, Republican or Democrat, who won’t stay in line. They also need to back away from the rigid partisan thinking that isolates the Christian right in the GOP from those in the Democratic party (in other words, bring back the landslides of the Reagan years, where the less-government candidate united the social conservatives of both parties behind him).
That faction in the Democratic party still exists, as demonstrated as recently as a few years ago in CA, where most black voters rejected gay marriage by referendum and caused its defeat in that state. This cross-party re-unification of the cultural right is one of the things the elite fear the most, which is why they so quickly moved to co-opt the Tea Party within the GOP, and why they have boxed or blacked out any candidate who could have revived the Reagan coalition, from Buchanan to Ron Paul. If Rand leads them along the new strategy of de-federalizing the issues, the more thoughtful of them may realize they have no other place to go than the liberty route to make progress going forward.
Time Horizons and the Poker Face
For those fellow Christian libertarians who feel disheartened by the events of recent weeks, think on this: My metaphor is, we’re in the middle of one of the Rambo movies, where the triumphalist establishment figure says “Rambo’s done, it’s over. He lost.” Rambo here stands for liberty, the Constitution and cultural tradition. What we need to do is maintain our Col. Trautman poker face, and while conceding things do look bad, quietly suspect a turnaround will happen.
The last time they told us “Rambo” was done, was after the Sandy Hook shootings, as the cheerful gun control freaks chortled over how many legislative goodies they were going to get from riding that tragedy to victory. Three years later, no victory, since Americans loaded up buying more guns, residents of even liberal states like NY are not complying with gun control laws, and the Tea Party and liberty people in Congress have beat back the gun control drumbeat. The PC crowd is cheering over the ‘bring down the Confederate flag’ and ‘impose gay marriage acceptance on all’ victories now, but will they be laughing after the next elections?
That’s the longer time horizon we have to have. The statist and cultural PC forces always presume their winning a battle means they’ve won the war, when all it actually means is, we’re at the end of a round. Then when they get blown out at the last two mid-term elections, they turn to us flustered and say, “you knew, you KNEW Rambo would come back!” That’s when we get to have a little victory and reply, “I suspected.” The battle continues, but I say, liberty will come back from this.
There were highly tragic, and very comic disasters this past week related to race, from Spokane to Charleston. One relates to a deluded Caucasian woman, whom we’ll get to later. First and foremost, though, the heinous mass murder of nine churchgoers at a bible study in Charleston June 17 appears to have been a ‘perfect storm’ device to push a number of agendas the NWO has lost momentum on. The menu of issues this story feeds into is just too efficiently uniform, to wit:
—Gun control (note how Obama prominently threw this into his first press announcement)
—Hate crimes (hold the massacre not just in a black church, but in SC, one of the few states with no such law)
—Racial tensions/division (note the cable news banter linked this immediately to the Confederate flag in Charleston, the historic black church in SC, “coded language” on FOX news excusing racism, etc).
—Terrorism (calls for upping the surveillance, equating all extremists with terrorists, which would immediately make them subject to all the same legal gestapo provisions created for that population)
If the murders were just a random event by a stray lunatic, the odds those issues would all just happen to line up in the same cultural left direction, are astronomical. The fact there was almost no delay by talking heads in going into the PC political rants on all of the above, and the pattern of “yet another drug-controlled patsy” that the killer Dylann Roof appears to fit, confirms this is very likely a false flag, built to push these policy memes simultaneously. I have gone into the mechanics and rationale behind covert ops of this kind recently in discussing the Charlie Hebdo shootings in Paris, so I won’t go into all details about Roof or the chain of evidence that don’t make sense. But in brief, the apparently orchestrated effect is the same: a highly emotional tragedy is used to drive a framework or mindset leading to a change in policy, or acceptance of it that otherwise would not have rationally occurred.
Waiving the White (Confederate) Flag
What the episode exposes is how efficiently the establishment can put a delphi campaign together that pours saturation coverage onto what The Powers That Be have decreed must be the one and only mainstream view on the above four issues. Using their control over both parties, they ordered the Democratic minions to go into uniform charge mode, especially with regards to the “put the Confederate Flag in a museum” sing-song meme, while coordinating the GOP leadership to crumble and cave like a house of race cards. What a craven farce of a party the Republicans are at this point, with Governor Nikki Haley, Sen. Lindsey Graham, Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney etc being hailed as “heroes” for calling for the flag’s removal from the public square, when their backtracking is more accurately a classic act of sheer cowardice under drumbeat pressure. Some corporations have joined in the move to marginalize the flag such as Walmart and eBay, who now state they will no longer sell Confederate flag products (but you can still buy certain items sporting the Confederate flag design on eBay as of this writing).
Note how, even with polls plainly showing that 74% of Republicans in a Republican state support keeping the flag up on display at the state capital, and a current poll showing 57% of Americans see the flag mainly as a symbol of southern pride, the national media paraded a cascade of “take it down” advocates almost non-stop, to create the massaged impression that the South Carolina public had entirely reversed itself on a long standing position. All that was actually happening was the forces of political correctness had bullied a state and its pols into marginalizing their view, and crying “yes, I Toby” to the smear charge their Confederate-friendly stand was mainly about race and hate.
This is not to say the flag had no associations with racism, since the flag was at times used by hate groups (though not nearly as often as the regular US flag). But that minor key aspect of its history does not justify the absolutism displayed by the ardent Confederate opponents, who deny the very existence of any other symbolism behind the flag. That absolutism is the smoking gun evidence no healing is going on, as the cultural left is never satisfied, and will promptly move on to still other fronts for crushing the spirit of resistance to federal tyranny. A more complex breakdown of the flag issue can be found here, and here, as the many aspects of the war between the states are too involved to fit into this blog post. The truth is, if the cultural left had its way, every viewpoint held by cultural conservatives would be marginalized and consigned to a museum. As one forum writer sums it up:
“My concern is that it basically is trying to sweep the history of the civil war under the rug. Yes, slavery was horrible, yes many people who love the confederate flag may very well be racists, but there were also atrocities committed against the confederates during the war as well like being allowed to starve and freeze to death while captured in union POW camps. Not all of those soldiers were slave owners…many of them were teenagers not even old enough to enlist. One of my own distant relatives fought on the side of the union and used to raid the camps of his own townspeople and rob and murder them. There are a lot of stories that will just no longer matter because only one side of the story will matter and once again, history will get re-written.”
The PC agenda is, always and forever, to normalize the modern ‘correct’ view, while marginalizing and making taboo any other view. The attempt to discredit or whiteout any history pointing to the self-determination desires of the south as the real thing symbolized by the flag, is par for the course for this agenda. While the PC advocates will cite white supremacist quotes from selected Confederate leaders to buttress their position that the flag was conceived in hate, they will leave out the detail that most US Caucasian people in the mid 1860’s, be they yankee or confederate and including Lincoln, believed blacks were not the equal of whites. Nor will they bring up other miscellaneous fun facts such as General Grant’s owning slaves, while General Lee owned none. Or, the fact that on the morning of Lincoln’s Inaugural in 1861, there were more union states practicing slavery than confederate states. And what about the fact that many free blacks were slave owners (indeed, a third of slave-owners in Louisiana were themselves black)?
Could it be that the real purpose is to lock away any social memory of the self-determination basis for the south’s secession? Statists do not like people remembering they are free, after all, including being free to secede. The PC police want a monolithic mainstream culture, that entertains no notion unapproved of by their controllers. These days (from a deep politics approach), is there any PC cultural issue where senior Democratic figures will deviate from “the line” set by their masters? These days, is there any PC cultural issue that top Republicans won’t cave on, when intense emotional pressure is applied? Of course not, they both have their marching orders. So long as everybody is getting properly wedged over the flag, all is well as far as the elite is concerned, because we aren’t thinking about the TPP, the imminent collapse of the financial markets, and other matters they don’t want you to focus on.
Or put another (traditional partisan) way, the GOP now appears to stand for nothing except a militaristic foreign policy–it’s the one area it won’t budge on (Rand Paul excepted), and can be otherwise expected to throw their conservative base vote to the wolves on the rest of the issues, once the heat gets too hot. This one-area fixation on foreign intervention, will likely continue to de-energize the Republican base and lead to more loses for them in Presidential years. Democrats are likewise stuck in “when you’re losing, convert every issue into race” in order to turn things around. We’re only half a year removed from a mid-term election where Democrats suffered huge losses in Congress (losing control of both houses) and in state governments. Isn’t all this huff and puff just window dressing for setting up race wedge issues, to help the party get back on its feet nationally in time for the 2016 elections?
What gets lost in the midst of all these political considerations is the tragedy, the truth, and liberty. The tragedy of nine dead victims, used as false flag fodder to push an overall stalling Democratic election agenda, and to distract from the larger establishment agenda. There was a similar opportunistic attempt to demogague the Sandy Hook school shootings of 2012 into massive expansion of gun control regultions, that backfired on the control freaks. The truth that bullying marginalization doesn’t heal anything, you don’t end a divisive issue like the Confederate flag by defining everyone you disagree with as “haters” and packing them into a museum closet. Might be interesting to see if a southern state or city, in response to the high-pressure intimidation campaign to bring down the flag, had the stones to actually run up a second Confederate flag, to double down on their commitment to resisting a bullying central government. And it goes without saying that liberty is not served by fostering cultural censorship, performed through intimidation and falsely smearing whole states. Different states have come to different conclusions about whether it will or won’t honor Confederate history, so freedom and tolerance supporting people should respect those differences, instead of trying to impose a single “mainstream” position concerning what a flag means, or doesn’t mean on the entire country. Respecting diversity cuts both ways.
Meanwhile, in the other related race matter, a just-resigned white local NAACP head apparently lied about her race upon applying for the job, later using the goofy cover of stating she “identifies as black.” Unlike the Roof case, this story appears to embarrass the PC narrative, thus seems to not be an orchestrated event. The strange Rachel Dolezal case that just preceded the SC shootings has given further exposure to the disingenuous nature of PC word magic, where one’s claim to “self identify” as something is supposed to end any discussion. For some reason, saying “I self-identify as gay, I was born that way and I can’t change” must be accepted, but thousands who say “I self-identify as a former homosexual, as gays are not born that way, so I can change my behavior” must never be acknowledged. And somehow the “I was born that way” gay people who self-identify that they can’t change, don’t ever consult with the transgender people who self identify as being able to change, regardless of the way they were born.
As my ally in liberty Becky Akers has asked, exactly why is it perfectly OK for a man to pretend he’s a woman, but not for a Caucasian to pretend she’s black? So social liberals are concerned that the NAACP white lady shouldn’t self identify as black, but we must accept all the other, more politically-correct self-identifications? And these same people seem to be concerned about the woman lying on the application forms in order to get a “black” job, but they’re not concerned about non-legal immigrants who lie on the paperwork in order to get “white” jobs?
And still others seem upset over the misrepresenting extremes Dolezal went to land the job, since it breaks the narrative of “white privilege” about the best jobs being on the “white” side? Oh my, how confusing the self-serving, selective game of “I am what am, if I just self-identify” gets. How about we instead accept that actual facts are more central to apprehending reality than PC word games, and individual choice and rights are more central to our humanity than is racial identity?