Bathroom Edicts And The Depth Of Obama’s Disorder

By DEXTER DUGGAN

Barack Obama is even more determined than former President George W. Bush to get his goals with aggressive invasions.
Bush mistakenly believed that overthrowing some foreign dictators would lead to a blooming of democracy in countries that he apparently regarded as not much different culturally than Iowa or Kansas, who just needed a better mayor in town.
Despite his aversion to Bush’s example, Obama’s foreign policy kept the Mideast aflame as dictators toppled and wide instability followed.
Reuters news service reported that Pope Francis referred to the phenomenon in his May 16 interview with the French Catholic newspaper La Croix. “As a Libyan said recently, ‘We used to have one Gaddafi, now we have 50,’ Francis said in reference to former Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, who was deposed and killed in 2011.”
That was during Obama’s meddling, not Bush’s.
However, Obama’s most notable aggressions are against the integrity of the people of the United States. The U.S. already has a working democracy, although he’s doing his utmost to shatter this political system with his lawless edicts, mandates, and directives out of the blue.
Leading up to mid-May, the invasion force of Obama’s fierce culture warriors was targeting, of all things, U.S. restrooms.
National conservative radio talk host Mark Levin told his listeners on May 12 that he liked the “two-state solution.” But, Levin explained, he wasn’t mentioning that phrase as commonly used for peace attempts between Palestinians and Israelis.
Levin joked that he meant U.S. liberals should go to their own state, where they can use whatever bathroom they want, tax themselves to death, and wear paper hats, but leave the rest of us alone in our state.
But Obama is a career left-wing Alinskyite radical who comes to bring not peace but strife, not accommodation but ripped-raw wounds, not unity but deep divisiveness. He regards Americans, severely deficient as they are in his mind, to be in need of a complete and thorough “transformation.”
The Obama administration’s assaults against sexual privacy and dignity in North Carolina were much in the news when word began to emerge on May 12, as last week’s issue of The Wanderer was going to press, that sweeping new federal orders would be issued the next day. They tried to impose legal insanity on the entire nation.
Family-policy expert Ryan Anderson posted at the conservative Heritage Foundation’s Daily Signal website on May 13:
“The Obama administration states today that a ‘school may not require transgender students to have a medical diagnosis, undergo any medical treatment, or produce a birth certificate or other identification document before treating them consistent with their gender identity.’ The administration goes on to say, ‘Gender identity refers to an individual’s internal sense of gender.’ In other words, sheer say-so makes it so.”
Heritage expert Anderson added: “The Obama administration’s official policy is that boys who identify as girls should have unfettered access to girls’ bathrooms, locker rooms, and shower facilities. Anything less than full access to the bathroom and locker room of their choice is, the administration says, a transphobic denial of civil rights and equality.
“This extreme position is out of step with the majority of Americans, and utterly inconsiderate of the concerns of the non-transgendered community.”
Anderson continued: “The Obama administration explicitly rejects compromises such as single-occupancy facilities, stating: ‘A school may not require transgender students to use facilities inconsistent with their gender identity or to use individual-user facilities when other students are not required to do so.’ And when it comes to campus housing or hotels for off-campus trips, ‘a school must allow transgender students to access housing consistent with their gender identity and may not require transgender students to stay in single-occupancy accommodations’.”
As 2016 began, a troubled man who insisted on staying in a teen-age girl’s bedroom would have been in jail in a minute. But before summer even has arrived, deeply troubled Obama effectively transformed this potential sex crime into a federal requirement.
Accompanying this overnight overthrow of millennia of moral custom and practice, Obama bureaucrats threatened severe financial punishment of any school that would dare resist.
Radio host Levin said on May 13: “People are furious about this.” But the Obama-adoring dominant media were happy to defer to their messiah as usual. No spate of outraged stories as to whether Democrat politicians would suffer with the voters in the November elections over Democrat Obama’s newest inflammatory transgression.
How differently news editors would have reacted if, say, a GOP President Ted Cruz just announced overnight that he was ordering all tax funding to baby-killing Planned Parenthood immediately cut off, and that anyone who resisted his order would be subject to severe penalties. The left-wing media howling would break everyone’s eardrums around the world.
Even the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, usually ready to support Obama’s insistent political liberalism, said his new sex edict makes no attempt at some sort of “balance.”
A May 16 USCCB news release said: “Children, youth, and parents in these difficult situations deserve compassion, sensitivity, and respect. All of these can be expressed without infringing on legitimate concerns about privacy and security on the part of the other young students and parents. The federal regulatory guidance issued on May 13 does not even attempt to achieve this balance.
“It unfortunately does not respect the ongoing political discussion at the state and local levels and in Congress, or the broader cultural discussion, about how best to address these sensitive issues. Rather, the guidance short-circuits those discussions entirely,” the release said, adding:
“. . . We pray that the government make room for more just and compassionate approaches and policies in this sensitive area, in order to serve the good of all students and parents, as well as the common good.”
The national Republican Party must take its share of blame for the arrival of this tragedy. Obama astutely observed from the White House that timorous GOP leaders would let him get away with about any illegality he pleased, and even fund it for him. He learned to fear nothing from them, which only emboldened his transgressions against healthy sexuality.
Fortunately, some prominent Republican leaders, like political executives in North Carolina and Texas, showed the defiance of Obama’s fantasy world that was long-needed within the Beltway.
Meanwhile, attorney and writer David French noted at the National Review website on May 12 that sexually questioning young people are being sacrificed on the altar of liberal trendiness:
“Against this backdrop, the Left is remarkably callous. Large numbers of young people who experience gender dysphoria eventually desist. Yet social-justice warriors browbeat parents and mental-health professionals into believing that gender dysphoria is fixed and immutable; even though this creed often results in harmful medical treatments that can culminate in mutilating surgery. Is it any wonder that transgender men and women are often so wracked with anguish?”
Blogger Michael Brown called for national civil disobedience at The Stream on May 13.
“Across the nation, parents, school boards, principals, administrators and teachers must say no to President Obama and his administration. They must do it for the sake of the children. They must do it for the sake of moral sanity. They must do it to honor the Lord,” Brown wrote. “Enough is enough. Too many lines have been crossed, too many moral values have been trashed, and too much common sense has been ignored, all in the name of radical LGBT activism.”
Brown added: “As Americans, especially as Christian Americans, we want to be tolerant, loving, and accepting. We want to help people in their struggles. We want to embrace those who are different. We want to reach out to those who are marginalized. Yet we can do this without sacrificing our children on the altar of political correctness and radical LGBT activism. Let us stand together as one and say, ‘Enough is enough, and we will not comply’.”
A person can’t set himself off more thoroughly from others than by regarding sexual identity as a daily preference that one can change as readily as one’s clothes. In fact, one’s taste in a wardrobe is potentially more likely to be challenged.
If a person expected to go about in public outfitted with toxic substances, the health department would set him right. But the federal government’s mid-May nationwide “guidance” said that a person’s assertion of whatever identity for the day cannot be challenged or verified upon invading a lavatory, locker room, or sleeping quarters.
Back during the 2008 presidential campaign, Washington, D.C., lawyer Howard Anglin sought to reassure conservatives that even if Obama became president, there still would be restraints on him.
“Whatever the outcome of the election, conservatives can take solace in the institutional and practical obstacles that will limit any president’s ability to effect meaningful change,” Anglin wrote in the June 2, 2008, issue of The American Conservative. But Obama was more than the somnolent Beltway could comprehend.
What possesses this strange chief executive? His is an utterly alien outlook that matches his unforgiving Alinskyism.