In 1992, Republicans wanted to re-elect President George H.W. Bush, who had succeeded Ronald Reagan in 1989.
But they had a problem: Whipping up voter enthusiasm for him.
Bush wasn’t charismatic like Reagan, so he didn’t inspire the intense loyalty Reagan had. He was seen as drab, even wimpy.
George H.W. Bush
Ironically, Bush had performed heroically during World War II.
On August 1, 1944, Bush piloted one of fouraircraft that attacked the Japanese installations on Chichijima.
Bush’s aircraft was hit by flak and his engine caught on fire. Despite this, Bush completed his attack and released bombs over his target, scoring several damaging hits.
Reagan, by contrast, spent World War II on a Hollywood sound stage as part of the First Motion Picture Unit, turning out propaganda films to boost civilian morale.
Yethewas seen by millions as a genuine war hero.
Then there was the stalled economy.
Early in his term, Bush faced leftover deficits spawned by the Reagan years. Reagan had given tax-cuts to the rich, bloated the military budget and cut government programs to aid the poor and middle class.
As a result, the deficit had grown by 1990 to $220 billion, three times its size since 1980.
In 1991, many corporations, claiming the need to reorganize, laid off hundreds of thousands of workers, who had believed that their jobs were secure.
By mid-year, the unemployment rate reached 7.8%, the highest since 1984. In September 1992, the Census Bureau reported that 14.2% of all Americans lived in poverty.
Bush’s Democratic challenger in 1992 was Bill Clinton, who had been the Governor of Arkansas from 1979 to 1981 and 1983 to 1992. At 45, Clinton was young, vigorous, and for many evoked memories of an equally young and vigorous John F. Kennedy.
To overcome these disadvantages, Republicans needed a way to generate enthusiasm among their base.
The answer: “Family values.”
Supposedly this meant support forvalues traditionally learned or reinforced within a family, such as those of high moral standards and discipline.
In reality, it was a Right-wing excuse for the failed economic policies of the Reagan-Bush years.
By citing “a decline in family values,” Bush’s re-election team could blame jobless Americans for their own misery: “If onlyyouhad lived up to the high standards set by your Republican superiors, you wouldn’t now be in this position.”
“Family values” carried a sexual subtext as well. Since abortion had became legal in 1973, Republicans had appropriated re-criminalizing it as their pet sex-related issue.
During the Reagan years, Attorney General Edwin Meese had launched a crackdown on pornography. And much of Reagan’s support had come from sexually-obsessed Christian Right evangelists such as Jerry Falwell of the “Moral Majority.”
Thus, a Bush supporter held up a sign reading, “Woody Allen is Clinton’s Adviser on Family Values,” at the 1992 Republican Presidential convention. Allen had recently become notorious for an affair with the adopted stepdaughter of his lover, actress Mia Farrow.
The slogan wasn’t enough to get Bush re-elected. Bill Clinton was elected President.
But “family values” lived on for decades as Republican code language for: “Only Republicans are sexually upright.”
Throughout the eight-year Clinton Presidency, Republicans focused on his longtime reputation as a sex-crazed Rasputin. When the news broke that Clinton had been diddling a White House intern named Monica Lewinsky, Republicans demanded his resignation.
When Clinton refused to resign, they unsuccessfully tried to impeach him. Meanwhile, they ignored the extramarital affairs of their own members—such as then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich.
Gingrich had been boffing a mistress while demanding Clinton’s impeachment for similar adultery. After Gingrich resigned from the House of Representatives in 1999, his would-be successor, Bob Livingston, was forced to resign from Congress. He had been outed byHustlerpublisher Larry Flynt as a serial philanderer.
In 1996, Republicans pushed through Congress the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which defined marriage for federal purposes as the union of one man and one woman. It allowed states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages allowed in other states.
DOMA was advertised as a necessary defense against “predatory homosexuals” who, like vampires, were thought to be preying on innocent heterosexuals.
A major backer of anti-gay legislation was Dennis Hastert, Republican Speaker of the House from 1999 to 1007.
Dennis Hastert
In 2006, Hastert spearheaded a bill to toughen punishments for sex crimes against children.
“We’ve all seen the disturbing headlines about sex offenders and crimes against children,” said Hastert. “Protecting our children from Internet predators and child exploitation enterprises are just as high a priority as securing our border from terrorists.”
On April 29, 2016, a federal judge repeatedly damned Hastert as a “serial child molester” for sexually abusing several boys he coached on the Yorkville High School wrestling team in the 1960s and 1970s.
Having targeted the poor, blacks, Hispanics, women and gays, Republicans are now training their sights on transgenders.
And Target Corporation’s April 19 announcement that its customers could pick the bathroom that “matched their gender identity” gave Republicans a new venue for their attacks on sex-related issues.
There is no known epidemic of transgender attacks on heterosexuals in bathrooms. But Republicans will ride this issue so long as there are citizens willing to believe it.
The 1960 Kirk Douglas epic, Spartacus, may soon prove to be more than great entertainment. It may also turn out to be a prophecy of the end of the American Republic.
In the movie, Spartacus (Douglas), a Roman slave, entertains Marcus Crassus (Laurence Oliver) the richest man in Rome. He does so by fighting to the death as a gladiator.
Poster for Spartacus
While Spartacus and his fellow gladiator/friend, Draba, slash and stab at each other in the arena, Crassus idly chats with his crony, Marcus Glabrus.
Crassus has just secured Glabrus’ appointment as commander of the garrison of Rome. Glabrus is grateful, but curious as to how he did it.
After all, Gaius Gracchus, the leader of the Roman Senate, hates Crassus, and stands ever ready to oppose his every move.
“I fought fire with oil,” says Crassus. “I purchased the Senate behind his back.”
Draba defeats Spartacus in their gladiatorial bout, but refuses to kill him. Instead, he throws his spear at Crassus and is immediately slaughtered by Roman guards.
Soon afterward, Spartacus leads 70 other gladiators against their Roman masters, forms an army of freed slaves, and marches against Rome.
Just as Crassus bought the Roman Senate in Spartacus,so, too, are billionaires now buying the 2016 Presidential election.
In 2016, Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House of Representatives, ran as the pet candidate of casino billionaire Sheldon G. Adelson. Since 2007, Adelson had spent millions in support of Gingrich and his causes.
Newt Gingrich
Adelson put up seed money and, ultimately, $7.7 million between 2006 and 2010 for a nonprofit group that served as a precursor to Gingrich’s presidential campaign.
Sheldon Adelson
Such a contribution is no small amount to the average American. But Adelson is listed by Forbes as the eighth-wealthiest American, with a net worth of $21.5 billion.
Naturally, Adelson denied he had any selfish motives for shelling out so much money to a candidate for the most powerful office in the world:
“My motivation for helping Newt is simple and should not be mistaken for anything other than the fact that my wife Miriam and I hold our friendship with him very dear and are doing what we can as private citizens to support his candidacy.”
Unfortunately, Gingrich was not the only candidate of the rich, by the rich and for the rich seeking the Presidency.
Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney relied heavily on a small group of millionaires and billionaires for support.
By February, 2012, a quarter of the money amassed by Romney’s campaign came from just 41 people. Each contributor gave more than $100,000, according to a Washington Postanalysis of disclosure data. Nearly a dozen of the donors had contributed $1 million or more.
Some of Romney’s biggest supporters included executives at Bain Capital, his former firm; bankers at Goldman Sachs; and a hedge fund mogul who made billions betting on the housing crash.
Like Adelson, Bain has directly profited from the losses of others.
Fast forward to 2016:
In early May, Adelson met privately with Republican Presidential nominee-in-waiting Donald Trump. Nevertheless, at least this much has leaked:
Adelson promised to contribute more to secure Trump’s election than he had contributed to any previous campaign. This could exceed $100 million.
Meanwhile, Trump is bragging that he’s “not beholden” to any “special interests” because “I’m really rich.” This myth has been a main reason for his popularity as a candidate.
Donald Trump
All of this can be directly traced to the 2010 “Citizens United” decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that ended limits in corporate contributions to political campaigns. The decision is so named for the group that successfully sued over federal campaign finance laws.
The 5-4 decision led to the rise of Super PACs–outside groups affiliated with candidates that can take in unlimited contributions as long as they don’t directly coordinate with the candidate. The overwhelming majority of this money goes for negative ads–that slander opponents without saying anything about what a candidate proposes to do.
Former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia brushed aside criticism of the corrupting role money played in politics: Change the channel or turn off the TV.
“I don’t care who is doing the speech–the more the merrier,” Scalia said. “People are not stupid. If they don’t like it, they’ll shut it off.”
On the contrary: A fundamental principle of propaganda holds that most people arestupid–or can be made to behavestupidly. If they are ceaselessly bombarded with mind-numbing lies, they will eventually substitute these for reality.
In Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler laid out his formula for successful propaganda: “All effective propaganda must be confined to a few bare essentials.
“These must be expressed as far as possible in stereotypical formulas. These slogans should be persistently repeated until the very last individual has come to grasp the idea that has been put forward.”
During the early 1960s a series of movies about the Roman Empire–like Spartacus and Cleopatra–hit the big screen. In these, rich criminals like Marcus Crassus openly bought the favors of ambitious politicians like Julius Caesar.
No doubt millions of moviegoers thought, “Boy, I’m glad that couldn’t happen here.” But it has happened here–and it’s happening right now.
They were triggered by the chain’s announced policy on April 19 that its customers can use any bathroom or fitting room that matches their gender identity.
“We welcome transgender team members and guests to use the restroom or fitting room facility that corresponds with their gender identity,” read the official Target statement.
“Everyone deserves to feel like they belong. And you’ll always be accepted, respected and welcomed at Target.”
Target corporate headquarters
The announcement won Target much praise on social media. On Target’s Facebook page, the following posts appeared:
“I want to tell you that I will forever be a Target shopper.”
“You have, again, shown that your stores are inclusive and meant to be a safe haven, and I intend to repay your loyalty with my own.”
But others were enraged, and made no effort to hide it.
“Shame on Target,” read one post. “Restrooms have placards depicting gender on them for a reason. I will not step foot in another Target.”
Since its April 19 announcement, more than 1.2 million people have signed a pledge to boycott the store owing to its transgender policy.
The protesters’ goal: Force Target to reverse its policy–or, failing that, to hit the retailer in its pocketbook by persuading customers to shop elsewhere.
But Target CEO Brian Cornell has refused to budge: “We took a stance and we are going to continue to embrace our belief of diversity and inclusion,” he said on CNBC.
Critics have been holding protests at Target stores across the country. And they show no signs of ending.
Many are demanding access to bathrooms of the opposite sex to prove that “perverts” can now prey on women and children as a result of the policy.
One male protester entered a Target store and asked an employee if he could use the women’s bathroom because that’s where he felt comfortable. The employee gave him permission and said that if any women complained, “they can come and we will speak to that.”
Continuing with the video:
The porcine, pony-tailed woman, wearing a purple blouse, and accompanied by about a half-dozen children and adults, continued to yell as she strode through a Target store.
Her movements and shouts were filmed–clearly by a member of the group.
“Mothers, get your children out of this store. Mothers, have enough decency to get out of this store. It’s a dangerous place.”
“This is not loving. What Target has done is very hateful. It’s hateful towards families. It’s hateful towards mothers. It’s hateful towards children.
“America, when are you going to wake up? When are you going to stand up for the right things, America?”
Sales may drop for at least a short period, speculated YouGov BrandIndex, a firm that measures consumer perceptions of major brands on a daily basis.
Before the boycott, 42% of consumers said they would consider shopping at Target the next time they had to visit a department store. In the last two weeks, that share has fallen to 36%.
But the boycott may prove short-lived.
Eighty million Americans shop at Target’s stores every month. So a loss of 1.2 million shoppers would amount to 1.5% of Target’s customers.
And being able to buy affordable goods will eventually overcome the boycott, said LarryChiagouris, a professor of marketing at Pace University’s Lubin School of Business in New York:
“The boycott is not going to last very long. There is a big difference between signing a petition compared to not taking advantage of a big sale at Target. People will always take advantage of the sale.”
And when insults, threats and boycotts fail to gain the results they desire, Right-wingers can always be counted on to resort to violence.
Anita Staver, president of the Orlando-based Liberty Council, a theocratic law group, says she will be taking her gun inside the restrooms at Target stores from now on.
On April 22, she posted on Twitter: “I’m taking a Glock .45 to the ladies room. It identifies as my bodyguard. #BoycottTarget@Target“
Meanwhile, the Bible-waving Christian fundamentalist angrily strode out the Target store, still shouting:
“Are you going to let the Devil rape your children, America? It’s time to stand up and have a voice instead of bowing to the homosexual perverted agenda that’s taking over this nation!
“You need to run and flee this place. I wouldn’t spend a penny of my money here.
“This is wicked. This is confusion. This is twisted. This is abominable in the sight of God.”
With Donald Trump, the presumed Republican nominee for President, making hatred and violence socially acceptable for the Right, a peaceful resolution of this controversy is by no means assured.
On February 6, 2011, Ronald Reagan, if he had been alive, would have been 100 years old.
Publishers rushed to put out worshipful tributes to his eight years as President. Network political programs such as “This Week” and “Meet the Press” assembled surviving members of his administration to re-live the “glory days” of Reagan’s—and their—time in power.
This is where it all started going wrong for America—a Right-wing legacy of huge Federal deficits, tax-cuts for the rich, bloated military budgets and cutbacks in government programs to aid the poor and middle-class.
Ronald Reagan
The Republican party, of course, has done the most to create and promote this “cult of Reagan.” And it has done so for the same reason the Communist party of the Soviet Union created and fostered the “cult of Lenin.”
No two men could have been more different than Vladimir Lenin and Ronald Reagan. Lenin created the Soviet Union in 1917 and became its first in a series of absolute dictators. Reagan spent his life fighting Communism, most notably as President.
Vladimir Lenin
So it’s ironic that both men, in death, got essentially the same funeral—and for the same reason: To sanctify and legitimize their respective organizations—and the authority of their potential successors.
Lenin died in 1924 and was immediately succeeded by Joseph Stalin. Stalin knew that, despite Communism’s official atheistic stance, most Russians remained loyal to the Russian Orthodox Church.
So in giving Lenin’s funeral oration, Stalin used the language of religion to confer sainthood upon a militant atheist–and upon his successor, Stalin himself.
Funeral for Vladimir Lenin
Stalin and his fellow Communists immediately launched the “cult of Lenin,” depicting him as a fatherly, all-wise leader whose genius could only be bestowed upon his closest disciples.
Lenin’s extensive political writings were treated as divine writ, and were used to justify everything Stalin and his own successors wanted to do.
A classic example: Although Lenin died 20 years before the Americancreation of the atomic bomb, Lenin was hailed by the Soviets as the “father” of “Soviet nuclear physics.”
Similarly, the Republican party wasted no time turning its own former leader, Ronald Reagan, into a modern-day saint of mythical proportions.
They have done so for the same reason that Stalin deliberately forged a cult around the dead Lenin—to create a “holy” figure of whom other Republicans can claim to be true disciples.
Funeral for Ronald Reagan
These deliberate fictions conveniently ignore a series of ugly truths:
Reagan was onlyoneof a series of Presidents who held the line against the Soviet Union.
His budgets were just as stained with red ink as those ofall previous Presidents.
Far from standing up to Iranian terrorists, Reagan sold them our most sophisticated missiles in a weak-kneed exchange for American hostages. Then he went on television and brazenly lied that any such “arms for hostages” deal had ever happened.
By the end of his term, 138 Reagan administration officials had been investigated, indicted or convicted for official misconduct and/or criminal violations.
His “trickle-down” Reganomics brought prosperity to only the wealthiest 1% of Americans, proving that “a rising tide lifted some yachts.”
By drastically shrinking the tax-base, bloating the defense budget and destroying programs to benefit the poor and middle-class, Reagan produced a $1 trillion deficit—which only the Clinton Administration eliminated.
Reagan believed that government should nothelp the impoverished. Those who lacked wealth to buy such necessities as housing and medical insurance were written off as unimportant.
John F. Kennedy had praised government service as an honor. Reagan repeatedly said that “the best and the brightest” could be found only in business.
This denigration of government service continues among Republicans to this day–defaming the very institutions they lust to control.
Although he often berated the poor for their “laziness,” Reagan adhered to a “banker’s hours” schedule: During his working hours in the Oval Office, he often had blocks of free time–two to three hours. He would call for his fan mail and answer it.
Reagan saw no need to protect America’s fragile environment against corporate polluters, eager to enrich themselves at its expense: “Approximately 80% of our air pollution stems from hydrocarbons released by vegetation, so let’s not go overboard in setting and enforcing tough emission standards from man-made sources.”
Reagan famously attacked “welfare queens” and sought to deny government benefits for the poor. But he didn’t hesitate to enrich himself at public expense.
Before his Presidency ended, 18 wealthy Californians contributed $156,000 apiece to buy him a 7,200 square-foot mansion overlooking Beverly Hills.
Reagan signed a multi-million dollar deal to write his Presidential memoirs and publish a collection of his speeches.
He signed an exclusive contract with a Washington lecture bureau, which paid him $50,000 per speech given in the United States and $100,000 overseas. This made him the highest-paid speaker in the country.
These monies came in additionto his Presidential pension of $99,500 a year for life and his $30,000 annual pension as a former governor of California.
At a cost to the government of $10 million annually, Reagan—a millionaire who could afford private security—continued to receive lifetime Secret Service protection from 40 fulltime agents.
The “cult of Lenin” died when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. The “cult of Reagan” continues to flourish, and will do so for as long as the Republican party finds voters willing to believe in it.
Most of America’s 11 to 20 million illegal aliens come from neighboring Hispanic countries. Which means that as soon as they are deported, most of them cross the Mexican border again.
Case in point: Francisco Sanchez, now accused of shooting a woman on a San Francisco pier. With a history of seven felony convictions, he’s been deported to his native Mexico five times, most recently in 2009.
More importantly: The governments of those Central and South American countries use the United States as a dumping ground–of those citizens who might demand reforms in their political and economic institutions.
Among the approaches that could strike a meaningful blow against illegal immigration is one that might well be called “The Zanti Option.”
Viewers of the 1960s sci-fi series,The Outer Limits, will vividly recall its classic 1963 episode, “The Zanti Misfits.”
In this, soldiers at an American Army base in a California ghost town nervously await first-contact with an alien race that has landed a space ship nearby.
The soldiers are warned to steer clear of the ship, and they do. But then an escaped convict (Bruce Dern, in an early role) happens upon the scene–-and the ship.
The Zantis, enraged, emerge–and soon the soldiers at the military base find themselves under attack.
A “Zanti”
The soldiers desperately fight back–-with flamethrowers, machineguns or just rifle butts. Finally the soldiers win, wiping out the Zantis.
But now the base–-and probably America–-faces a wholesale invasion from the planet Zanti to avenge the deaths of their comrades.
So the soldiers wait anxiously for their next transmission from Zanti–-which soon arrives.
To their surprise–-and relief–-it’s a message of thanks: “We will not retaliate. We never intended to. We knew that you could not live with such aliens in your midst.
“It was always our intention that you destroy them…We are incapable of executing our own species, but you are not. You are practiced executioners. We thank you.”
A future Republican President could deal with the tsunami of illegal aliens by launching what might be called “Operation Zanti.”
Rather than deport them to nearby countries–from which they would easily sneak back into the United States–-the Federal Government could ship them off to more distant lands.
Like Afghanistan. Or Iraq. Or Syria.
It’s unlikely they will sneak back across the American border from the Middle East.
Such a policy change would:
Close the Mexican revolving door, which keeps illegal immigration flowing; and
Send an unmistakably blunt message to other would-be illegals:“The same fate awaits you.”
Although this might seem a far-fetched proposal, it could be easily carried out by the United States Air Force.
According to this agency’s website: “The C-5 Galaxy is one of the largest aircraft in the world and the largest airlifter in the Air Force inventory.
“The C-5 has a greater capacity than any other airlifter. It [can] carry 36 standard pallets and 81 troops simultaneously.
C-5 transport plane
“[It can also carry] any of the Army’s air-transportable combat equipment, including such bulky items as the 74-ton mobile scissors bridge.
“It can also carry outsize and oversize cargo over intercontinental ranges and can take off or land in relatively short distances.”
Instead of stuffing these planes with cargo, they could be stuffed wall-to-wall with illegal aliens.
The United States Air Force has a proud history of successfully providing America’s soldiers–-and allies–-with the supplies they need.
From June 24, 1948 to May 12, 1949, only the Berlin Airlift stood between German citizens and starvation.
The Soviet Union had blocked the railway, road, and canal access to the Berlin sectors under allied control. Their goal: Force the western powers to allow the Soviet zone to supply Berlin with food, fuel, and aid.
This would have given the Soviets control over the entire city.
Air forces from the United States, England, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa flew over 200,000 flights in one year, dropping more than 4,700 tons of necessities daily to the besiged Berliners.
The success of the Berlin Airlift raised American prestige and embarrassed the Soviets, who lifted the blockade.
The Berlin Airlift
A similar triumph came during the Yom Kippur War after Egypt and Syria attacked Israel without warning on October 6, 1973.
A Watergate-embattled President Richard Nixon ordered “Operation Nickel Grass” to deliver urgently-needed weapons and supplies to Israel.
For 32 days, the Air Force shipped 22,325 tons of ammunition, artillery, tanks and other supplies. These proved invaluable in saving Israel from destruction.
So the mass deportation of millions of illegal aliens lies within America’s technological capability. Whether any American President would be willing to give that order is another matter.
Except in times of war, no nation has ever been invaded by so many alien residents as the United States.
Throughout 2014, tens of thousands of unaccompanied Hispanic minors–all of them uninvited–illegally entered the United States through the Mexican border.
They are backed up by an estimated11 to 20 million illegal aliens now living more or less openly throughout the country.
Just as sheer numbers of Mexicans overwhelmed the defenders of the Alamo, this similar Hispanic tidal wave has overwhelmed immigration officials.
Mexicans storming the Alamo – March 6, 1836
It’s also forced the Obama administration to declare a humanitarian crisis and open three emergency shelters on military bases in California, Oklahoma and Texas.
The invasion is taking its greatest toll in cities that already have large numbers of immigrants–such as New York and Los Angeles.
Newly-arrived alien children and their relatives are flooding into schools and hospitals that are supposedly intended for American citizens. No sooner do they cross the border than they aggressively seek legal aid in converting their illegal arrival into a lifelong legal stay.
Mexicans storming the United States border – today
For years, Republicans and Democrats have clashed over the subject of illegal immigration. Each side has taken what seems to be an opposing position.
Democrats favor wholesale grants of unearned citizenship to the estimated 11 to 20 million illegal aliens who brazenly violated the law when they sneaked across American borders.
And Republicams favor beefing up security against future waves of such invaders.
But the brutal truth is that neither Democrats nor Republicans truly want to end these invasions. Nor do they want to deport the millions of illegals who have already taken up residence here.
Each party has its own reasons for this.
Democrats, primarily governed by liberal ideology, believe it’s racist for whites to demand control of their own national borders.
They ignore the blunt reality that Mexico–America’s largest source of illegal aliens–strictly enforces control of its own borders.
Mexico has a single, streamlined law that ensures that foreign visitors and immigrants are:
In the country legally;
Have the means to sustain themselves economically;
Not destined to be burdens on society;
Of economic and social benefit to society;
Of good character and have no criminal records; and
Contribute to the general well-being of the nation.
The law also ensures that:
Immigration authorities have a record of each foreign visitor;
Foreign visitors do not violate their visa status;
Foreign visitors are banned from interfering in the country’s internal politics;
Foreign visitors who enter under false pretenses are imprisoned or deported;
Foreign visitors violating the terms of their entry are imprisoned or deported;
Those who aid in illegal immigration are sent to prison.
But there’s another reason why Democrats are keen to grant automatic citizenship to millions of illegal aliens: They see them as a huge constituency.
They don’t care that these illegals’ defiance of American immigration laws:
Floods the United States with millions of poor non-citizens who don’t speak English;
Overwhelms the public school system with children–who also don’t speak English–who require bilingual education;
Overwhelms the public healthcare system–especially emergency rooms–with illegal aliens. As a result, urgently-needed medical care is often denied to American citizens.
ButRepublicansare equally guilty of refusing to take a hard stand against deporting those whose presence is a blatant affront to America’s immigration laws.
There are two reasons for this:
Like Democrats, Republicans want to recruit them as knee-jerk voters.
Republicans want them as low-skilled, low-wage fodder for their major campaign contributors–such as corporate farms and retail outlets like Wal-Mart.
Unlike Democrats, however, Republicans like to feignoutrage at the presence of so many illegal aliens within their midst.
It’s the Republican basethat’s demanding an end to illegal immigration.
Those masses of alienated and angry whites who find themselves living in a nation that’s increasingly alien from themselves.
A nation where “Press One for English” is now the norm when contacting government agencies. A nation where illegal aliens can obtain free medical care that’s denied to native-born citizens.
American citizens protesting illegal immigration
It was enraged citizens like this who, on June 10, 2014, cost Virginia Congressman Eric Cantor his bid for re-election. Cantor’s 14-year political career crashed on the fury of Tea Party opposition to illegal immigration.
Still, the question remains: What should be done about the tens of thousands of illegals now swarming into the United States?
Democrats hasten to defend President Barack Obama’s refusal to deport en masse these violators. They claim he is the victim of unpredictable circumstances.
But they don’t offer any solution that involves wholesale deportations of such invaders. It’s as if they believe this onrushing tidal wave will somehow recede on its own momentum.
Meanwhile, Republicans essentially take the position of Mitt Romney, their failed 2012 Presidential candidate: Self-deportation.
This way, the party doesn’t have to actually come out in favor of forcibly returning unwanted foreigners to their respective countries.
But there is a way the United States could deal with this unceasing tsunami of foreign invasions. It might be called “The Zanti Misfits” solution.
WARNING: Believing that the First Amendment gives you the legal right to express your opinion may be hazardous to your career.
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states:
“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.”
The First Amendment
Of course, that refers only to Congress.
It says nothing about employers–and and especially those self-appointed pseudo-gods who set themselves up as judges of virtue and infallibility.
If you doubt it, just ask Scott Lees, who until March had worked for four years as boys head lacrosse coach at Fryeburg Academy.
Scott Lees
His crime? Posting to his personal Facebook page an open letter to President Barack Obama that one of his friends had emailed him.
Lees posted the letter on March 17. Two days later, he was ordered to resign from his four-year position as the academy’s lacrosse coach.
The letter had been written in response to a speech Obama gave in Cairo in 2009. In this, Obama said, “I know, too, that Islam has always been a part of America’s history.”
Among the issues the letter raised:
“Were those Muslims that were in America when the Pilgrims first landed? Funny, I thought they were Native American Indians.”
“Were those Muslims that celebrated the first Thanksgiving day? Sorry again, those were Pilgrims and Native American Indians.
“Can you show me one Muslim signature on the United States Constitution? Declaration of Independence? Bill of Rights? Didn’t think so.
“Did Muslims fight for this country’s freedom from England? No. Did Muslims fight during the Civil War to free the slaves of America. No, they did not, in fact, Muslims to this day are still the largest traffickers in human slavery.
“Your own half-brother, a devout Muslim, still advocates slavery himself, even though Muslims of Arabic descent refer to black Muslims as ‘pug nosed slaves.’ Says a lot of what the Muslim world really thinks of your family’s “rich Islamic heritage,” doesn’t it Mr. Obama?
“Where were Muslims during the Civil Rights era of this country? No present. There are no pictures or media accounts of Muslims walking side by side with Martin Luther King, Jr., or helping to advance the cause of Civil Rights.”
(The most prominent Muslim group in America at the time of the civil rights movement was the Nation of Islam. Its onetime spokesman, Malcom X, preached a gospel of separation of the races–and condemned whites as “blue-eyed devils.”)
“Where were Muslims during this country’s Woman’s Suffrage era? Again, not present. In fact, devout Muslims demand that women are subservient to men in the Islamic culture.
“So much so, that often they are beaten for not wearing the ‘hajib’ or for talking to a man who is not a direct family member or their husband. Yep, the Muslims are all for women’s rights, aren’t they?
“Where were Muslims during World War II? They were aligned with Adolf Hitler. The Muslim grand mufti himself met with Adolf Hitler, reviewed the troops and accepted support from the Nazis in killing Jews.”
“Finally, Mr. Obama, where were Muslims on Sept. 11th, 2001? If they weren’t flying planes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon or a field in Pennsylvania killing nearly 3,000 people on our own soil, they were rejoicing in the Middle East….
“And THAT, Mr. Obama, is the ‘rich heritage’ Muslims have here in America….”
Interviewed by Top Right News, Lees, 48, said he had never before been fired and had been coaching since 1992.
Fryeburg Academy is a private school in Fryeburg, Maine.
Fryeburg Academy
Lees said that he was supposed to meet with Head of Schools Erin Mayo and Dean Charlie Tryder on March 19. But Athletic Director Sue Thurston told him a decision to fire him had already been made.
Mayo toldTop Right Newsthat “Scott Lees did post a message on Facebook regarding Muslim people last week that was negative and, of course, public in nature.”
Mayo was right on two counts about the Facebook post: It was negative and public.
What she didn’t say was: It was also entirely historically accurate. It did not urge its readers to violate the law. It did not defame anyone (unless telling the truth about a group’s documented activities counts as defamation).
This is similar to the policies–and atmosphere–of the Joseph McCarthy “smear and fear” era of the 1950s. You didn’t have to actually be proven an actual Communist, or even a Communist sympathizer.
All that was needed to condemn you to permanent unemployment was to become “controversial.” That way, the employer didn’t have to actually prove the employee’s unfitness.
An employee’s right to out-of-work speech should be fully protected unless it crosses the legal line–such as committing libel or urging others to violate the law.
And employers who fire him for embracing his First Amendment right should be criminally prosecuted.
Until this happens, the workplace will continue to resemble George Orwell’s vision of 1984–a world where anyone can become a “non-person” for the most trivial of reasons.
Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks appear every Friday on the PBS Newshour to review the week’s major political events.
On March 25, Shields–a liberal, and Brooks, a conservative–came to some disturbingly similar conclusions about the character of Republican Presidential front-runner Donald Trump.
As the business magnate moves ever closer to winning the 2016 Republican Presidential nomination, both columnists appear increasingly dismayed.
David Brooks and Mark Shields
Eerily, their conclusions about Trump’s character echo those reached by former Panzer General Heinz Guderian about German dictator Adolf Hitler.
Guderian created the concept of motorized blitzkrieg warfare, whereby masses of tanks and planes moved in coordination to strike at the vital nerve centers of an enemy.
As a result, Guderian enabled Hitler to conquer France in only six weeks in 1940, and to come to the brink of crushing the Soviet Union in 1941.
He recounted his career as the foremost tank commander of the Third Reich in his 1950 autobiography, Panzer Leader.
Heinz Guderian
Moderator Judy Woodruff opened the discussion by alluding to the blood feud raging between Trump and his fellow Republican, Texas U.S. Senator Eduardo “Ted” Cruz.
Both are seeking their party’s Presidential nomination–and both are ruthlessly determined to attain it.
Cruz accused Trump of behind a recent National Enquirer story charging him with having a series of extramarital affairs.
An anti-Trump Super PAC posted on Facebook a photo of a scantily-clad Melania Trump–his wife. The photo had been taken 16 years ago when, as a model, she posed for “British GQ.
Its publication came just ahead of the primary caucuses in sexually conservative Utah, which Cruz won.
Trump quickly responded on Twitter, accusing the Cruz campaign of leaking the photo, warning Cruz: “Be careful or I will spill the beans on your wife.”
Cruz struck back, defending his wife, Heidi, and calling Trump a coward. The next day, Trump retweeted an unflattering image of Mrs. Cruz.
This “war of the wives” has cost Trump dearly in his standing with American women. In March, a Washington Post/ABC News poll showed that 64% of women felt highly unfavorably disposed toward him.
DAVID BROOKS: “The Trump comparison of the looks of the wives, he does have, over the course of his life, a consistent misogynistic view of women as arm candy, as pieces of meat.
“It’s a consistent attitude toward women which is the stuff of a diseased adolescent.
Donald Trump
“And so we have seen a bit of that show up again. But if you go back over his past, calling into radio shows bragging about his affairs, talking about his sex life in public, he is childish in his immaturity. And his–even his misogyny is a childish misogyny….
“He’s of a different order than your normal candidate. And this whole week is just another reminder of that.”
HEINZ GUDERIAN:As Hitler’s self-confidence grew, and as his power became more firmly established both inside and outside Germany, he became overbearing and arrogant. Everyone appeared to him unimportant compared to himself.
Previously, Hitler had been open to practical considerations, and willing to discuss matters with others. But now he became increasingly autocratic.
Judy Woodruff asked Mark Shields if the uproar over Donald Trump’s disdain for women could really hurt his candidacy.
MARK SHIELDS: The ad featuring a scantily-clad Melania Trump “elicited from Donald Trump the worst of his personality, the bullying, the misogyny, as David has said, brought it out.
“But I think it’s more than childish and juvenile and adolescent. There is something creepy about this, his attitude toward women.
“Take Megyn Kelly of FOX News, who he just has an absolute obsession about, and he’s constantly writing about, you know, how awful she is and no talent and this and that.
Megyn Kelly
“And I don’t know if he’s just never had women–strong, independent women in his life who have spoken to him. It doesn’t seem that way….”
HEINZ GUDERIAN:Hitler’s most outstanding quality was his will power. It was by this that he compelled men to follow him.
When Hitler spoke to a small group he closely observed each person to determine how his words were affecting each man present.
If he noticed that some member of the group was not being swayed by his speech, he spoke directly to that person until he believed he had won him over.
But if the target of his persuasive effort still remained obstinate, Hitler would exclaim: “I haven’t convinced that man!”
His immediate reaction was to get rid of such people. As he grew increasingly successful, he grew increasingly intolerant.
But wait! There’s something even more demoralizing awaiting these “heirs of tomorrow.”
The discovery that for all the “we hire only the brightest” rhetoric by employers, having a college degree actually means little to most CEOs.
A new report from the Center for College Affordability and Productivity concludes that nearly half of the nation’s recent college graduates hold jobs that don’t require a degree.
In short, many of the jobs they have aren’t worth the price of their diploma.
From that report:
Increasing numbers of recent college graduates are ending up in relatively low-skilled jobs that, historically, have gone to those with lower levels of educational attainment. This study examines this phenomenon in some detail, concluding:
About 48% of employed U.S. college graduates are in jobs that the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) suggests requires less than a four-year college education. And 11% of employed college graduates are in occupations requiring more than a high-school diploma but less than a bachelor’s. Another 37% are in occupations requiring no more than a high-school diploma;
The proportion of overeducated workers in occupations appears to have grown substantially; in 1970, fewer than one percent of taxi drivers and two percent of firefighters had college degrees, while now more than 15% do in both jobs;
About five million college graduates are in jobs the BLS says require less than a high-school education;
But a glance at their accompanying photos offers the real appeal of this site.
Consider the profile of “Eric, The Actor”:
With his shirt unbuttoned down to his chest in the classic Fabio style, he claims:
I’m an award winning NYC actor who has traveled the World for movies and for pleasure.
I recently founded my own production company. I have a vision of not only entertaining people but also of getting people to think and hopefully help foster social change.
I also love the outdoors and sustainable culture. I am also active in social causes.
And he’s also available–for $200 an hour.
So if you’re a college graduate who can’t find a willing-to-hire employer within your chosen profession–such as pharmacy of engineering– there’s always Rent-A-Gent.
Or some similar agency catering to the whims of the American plutocracy, for whom $200 an hour means what buying a Snicker’s candy bar means for the fast-disappearing middle class.
It should be enough to make you hesitate before signing up for a loan to cover the average $57,000 cost of a public college education.
Or an even larger loan to cover the $132,000 cost of a private college education.
But if you’re still thinking that “employers really respect that degree,” consider this: Job recruiters spend exactly six seconds examining your resume.
According to The Ladders research, recruiters spend an average of “six seconds before they make the initial ‘fit or not fit’ decision” tointerviewyou.
Not hire you–just to meet you. You’ll still have plenty ofchances to get shot down during or after the interview.
According to the study, when scanning a resume, recruiters looked at the following items:
Your name
Current title and company
Current position start and end dates
Previous title and company
Previous position start and end dates
Education
American employers should be legally compelled to hire as responsibly as college students are expected to pursue an education.
Until this happens, those young men and women thinking of committing a big chunk of their time and going into massive debt to pursue a college degree should think twice before doing so.
And as of July 15, 2015, Ashley Madison joined this list.
Ashley Madison is, of course, the notorious website for cheating wives and husbands.
Launched in 2001, its catchy slogan is: “Life is short. Have an affair.”
One of its ads featured a photo of a woman apparently kneeling at the feet of a bare-chested man, her hand passionately clawing at his belt. Next to her was the caption: “Join FREE & change your life today. Guaranteed!”
Now millions of its clients may find their lives changed in ways they never imagined–and for the worse.
Ashley Madison claims to have more than 37 million members. And now, untold numbers of them may find their lives changed forever.
Its hackers were enraged at the company’s refusal to fully delete users’ profiles unless it received a $19 fee.
Referring to themselves as “The Impact Team,” they stated in an online manifesto: “Full Delete netted [Avid Life Media, the parent company of Ashley Madison] $1.7 million in revenue in 2014. It’s also a complete lie.
“Users almost always pay with credit card; their purchase details are not removed as promised, and include real names and address, which is of course the most important information the users want removed.”
On July 20, Avid Life Media defended the service, and said it would make it free.
The hackers demanded: “AM [Ashley Madison] AND EM [Established Men] MUST SHUT DOWN IMMEDIATELY PERMANENTLY.
“We have taken over all systems in your entire office and production domains, all customer information databases, source code repositories, financial records, emails.
“Shutting down AM and EM will cost you, but non-compliance will cost you more.”
The hackers threatened to “release all customer records, including profiles with all the customers’ secret sexual fantasies and matching credit card transactions, real names and addresses, and employee documents and emails.”
Avid Life Media assured its customers that it had hired “one of the world’s top IT security teams” to work on the breach:
“At this time, we have been able to secure our sites, and close the unauthorized access points. We are working with law enforcement agencies, which are investigating this criminal act.”
This statement gives new meaning to the phrase, “Closing the barn door after the cow has gotten out.”
And it raises the question: Why wasn’t this “top IT security team” hired at the outset?
After all, its database is a blackmailer’s dream-come-true. Yet apparently its owners didn’t care enough about the privacy of their customers to provide adequate security.
On August 18, 2015, the hackers began releasing their pirated information.
As usual during a corporation’s data breach, Ashley Madison issued a reassuring statement: “We are working with law enforcement agencies, which are investigating this criminal act.
“Any and all parties responsible for this act of cyber-terrorism will be held responsible.”
Eight of those customers (so far) have decided to hold Ashley Madisonresponsible. They have filed lawsuits against the company in California, Georgia, Minnesota, Missouri, Tennessee and Texas.
They seek class-action status to represent Ashley Madison’s 37 million users.
The lawsuits claim negligence, breach of contract and privacy violations. They charge that Ashley Madison failed to take reasonable steps to protect the security of its users, including those who paid the $19 fee to have their information deleted.
If they win–and force the owners of Ashley Madison to pay up big-time–this could set a precedent for lawsuits by other victims of such data breaches.
An October 22, 2014 “commentary” published in Forbesmagazine raised the highly disturbing question: “Cybersecurity: Does Corporate America Really Care?”
And the answer is clearly: No.
Its author is John Hering, co-founder and executive director of Lookout, which bills itself as “the world leader in mobile security for consumers and enterprises alike.”
“One thing is clear,” writes Hering. “CEOs need to put security on their strategic agendas alongside revenue growth and other issues given priority in boardrooms.”
Hering warns that “CEOs don’t seem to be making security a priority.” And he offers several reasons for this:
The sheer number of data compromises;
Relatively little consumer outcry;
Almost no impact on the companies’ standing on Wall Street;
Executives may consider such breaches part of the cost of doing business.
“Sales figures and new products are top of mind,” writes Hering. “Shoring up IT systems aren’t.”
The key to sharply reducing data breaches lies in holding greed-obsessed CEOs financially accountable for their criminal negligence.
Only then will their mindset of “We don’t care, we don’t have to” be replaced with: “We care, because our heads will roll if we don’t.”
Steffen White’s Email: Sparta480@aol.com Former reporter, legal investigator and troubleshooter. Columnist at Bureaucracybuster.com. Fighting political and bureaucratic arrogance, incompetence and/or indifference.
When making complaints in writing, carefully review your email or letter before sending it. Remove any words that are vulgar or profane. Don't make sweeping accusations: "Your agency is a waste."
Don't attribute motives to people you've had problems with, such as: "The postal clerk refused to help me because he's a drunk." If the person actually appeared to be drunk, then be precise in your description: "As he leaned over the counter I could smell beer on his breath. Behind him, in a waste basket, I saw an empty bottle of Coors beer."
Show how the failure of the official to address your problem reflects badly on the company or agency: "This is not the level of service your ads would lead potential customers to expect."
If necessary, note any regulatory agencies that can make life rough for the company or agency if your complaint isn't resolved. For the phone company, for example, cite the FCC or the PUC. But do this only after you have stated you hope your complaint can be settled amicably and privately within the company.
(3)(1)(1).jpg&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fsilkroadsandsiamesesmiles.com%2F2011%2F01%2F26%2Froot-causes-illegal-immigration%2F&docid=undefined&tbnid=MpAe36i-e_f-BM%3A&w=576&h=421&ei=uJyeVZa6D4PwoAT3_Z2wBg&ved=0CAIQxiAwAA&iact=c "https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/wysiwyg/image/StopIllegalAlienInvasionBanner(1)(3)(1)(1).jpg&imgrefurl=http://silkroadsandsiamesesmiles.com/2011/01/26/root-causes-illegal-immigration/&docid=undefined&tbnid=MpAe36i-e_f-BM:&w=576&h=421&ei=uJyeVZa6D4PwoAT3_Z2wBg&ved=0CAIQxiAwAA&iact=c")
Bureaucracybuster's Blog 
1992 REPUBLICAN CONVENTION, ABC NEWS, ABORTION, ADULTERY, ALTERNET, AMERICABLOG, AP, BABY BOOMER RESISTANCE, BBC, BILL CLINTON, BLOOMBERG NEWS, BOB LIVINGSTON, BUZZFEED, CBS NEWS, CNN, CROOKS AND LIARS, DAILY KOS, DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT (DOMA), DEFICITS, DENNIS HASTERT, ECONOMY, EDWIN MEESE, FAMILY VALUES, FIVETHIRTYEIGHT, GEORGE H.W. BUSH, HARPER’S MAGAZINE, HOMOSEXUALITY, HUFFINGTON POST, JERRY FALWELL, MEDIA MATTERS, MIA FARROW, MONICA LEWINSKY, MORAL MAJORITY, MOTHER JONES, MOVEON, MSNBC, NBC NEWS, NEW REPUBLIC, NEWSDAY, NEWSWEEK, NEWT GINGRICH, NPR, PBS NEWSHOUR, POLITICO, POLITICUSUSA, PORNOGRAPHY, RAW STORY, REPUBLICANS, REUTERS, Ronald Reagan, SALON, SEATTLE TIMES, SLATE, TALKING POINTS MEMO, TARGET CORPORATION, THE ATLANTIC, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DAILY BEAST, THE DAILY BLOG, THE GUARDIAN, THE HILL, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE INTERCEPT, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NATION, THE NEW REPUBLIC, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE NEW YORKER, THE VILLAGE VOICE, THE WASHINGTON POST, THINKPROGRESS, TIME, TRANSGENDERS, TRUTHDIG, TRUTHOUT, TWITTER, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, UPI, USA TODAY, WOODY ALLEN, WORLD WAR 11
“FAMILY VALUES” = HYPOCRITICAL SLOGANEERING
In Bureaucracy, Business, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on May 26, 2016 at 12:33 amIn 1992, Republicans wanted to re-elect President George H.W. Bush, who had succeeded Ronald Reagan in 1989.
But they had a problem: Whipping up voter enthusiasm for him.
Bush wasn’t charismatic like Reagan, so he didn’t inspire the intense loyalty Reagan had. He was seen as drab, even wimpy.
George H.W. Bush
Ironically, Bush had performed heroically during World War II.
On August 1, 1944, Bush piloted one of four aircraft that attacked the Japanese installations on Chichijima.
Bush’s aircraft was hit by flak and his engine caught on fire. Despite this, Bush completed his attack and released bombs over his target, scoring several damaging hits.
Reagan, by contrast, spent World War II on a Hollywood sound stage as part of the First Motion Picture Unit, turning out propaganda films to boost civilian morale.
Yet he was seen by millions as a genuine war hero.
Then there was the stalled economy.
Early in his term, Bush faced leftover deficits spawned by the Reagan years. Reagan had given tax-cuts to the rich, bloated the military budget and cut government programs to aid the poor and middle class.
As a result, the deficit had grown by 1990 to $220 billion, three times its size since 1980.
In 1991, many corporations, claiming the need to reorganize, laid off hundreds of thousands of workers, who had believed that their jobs were secure.
By mid-year, the unemployment rate reached 7.8%, the highest since 1984. In September 1992, the Census Bureau reported that 14.2% of all Americans lived in poverty.
Bush’s Democratic challenger in 1992 was Bill Clinton, who had been the Governor of Arkansas from 1979 to 1981 and 1983 to 1992. At 45, Clinton was young, vigorous, and for many evoked memories of an equally young and vigorous John F. Kennedy.
To overcome these disadvantages, Republicans needed a way to generate enthusiasm among their base.
The answer: “Family values.”
Supposedly this meant support for values traditionally learned or reinforced within a family, such as those of high moral standards and discipline.
In reality, it was a Right-wing excuse for the failed economic policies of the Reagan-Bush years.
By citing “a decline in family values,” Bush’s re-election team could blame jobless Americans for their own misery: “If only you had lived up to the high standards set by your Republican superiors, you wouldn’t now be in this position.”
“Family values” carried a sexual subtext as well. Since abortion had became legal in 1973, Republicans had appropriated re-criminalizing it as their pet sex-related issue.
During the Reagan years, Attorney General Edwin Meese had launched a crackdown on pornography. And much of Reagan’s support had come from sexually-obsessed Christian Right evangelists such as Jerry Falwell of the “Moral Majority.”
Thus, a Bush supporter held up a sign reading, “Woody Allen is Clinton’s Adviser on Family Values,” at the 1992 Republican Presidential convention. Allen had recently become notorious for an affair with the adopted stepdaughter of his lover, actress Mia Farrow.
The slogan wasn’t enough to get Bush re-elected. Bill Clinton was elected President.
But “family values” lived on for decades as Republican code language for: “Only Republicans are sexually upright.”
Throughout the eight-year Clinton Presidency, Republicans focused on his longtime reputation as a sex-crazed Rasputin. When the news broke that Clinton had been diddling a White House intern named Monica Lewinsky, Republicans demanded his resignation.
When Clinton refused to resign, they unsuccessfully tried to impeach him. Meanwhile, they ignored the extramarital affairs of their own members—such as then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich.
Gingrich had been boffing a mistress while demanding Clinton’s impeachment for similar adultery. After Gingrich resigned from the House of Representatives in 1999, his would-be successor, Bob Livingston, was forced to resign from Congress. He had been outed by Hustler publisher Larry Flynt as a serial philanderer.
In 1996, Republicans pushed through Congress the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which defined marriage for federal purposes as the union of one man and one woman. It allowed states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages allowed in other states.
DOMA was advertised as a necessary defense against “predatory homosexuals” who, like vampires, were thought to be preying on innocent heterosexuals.
A major backer of anti-gay legislation was Dennis Hastert, Republican Speaker of the House from 1999 to 1007.
Dennis Hastert
In 2006, Hastert spearheaded a bill to toughen punishments for sex crimes against children.
“We’ve all seen the disturbing headlines about sex offenders and crimes against children,” said Hastert. “Protecting our children from Internet predators and child exploitation enterprises are just as high a priority as securing our border from terrorists.”
On April 29, 2016, a federal judge repeatedly damned Hastert as a “serial child molester” for sexually abusing several boys he coached on the Yorkville High School wrestling team in the 1960s and 1970s.
Having targeted the poor, blacks, Hispanics, women and gays, Republicans are now training their sights on transgenders.
And Target Corporation’s April 19 announcement that its customers could pick the bathroom that “matched their gender identity” gave Republicans a new venue for their attacks on sex-related issues.
There is no known epidemic of transgender attacks on heterosexuals in bathrooms. But Republicans will ride this issue so long as there are citizens willing to believe it.
Share this: