LAPDOG MEDIA

LAPDOG MEDIA

 

 

The gay rights activists have taken another baby step, this time In Charlotte NC

The gay rights activists have taken another baby step, this time In Charlotte NC.  As I have said in the past, the left accomplishes their agenda by taking baby steps.  They start off with just making small changes here and there.  They know it may take years before the real story can be seen and they are fine with that.  This is how we have gotten to the welfare state our government is subjecting Americans to.  Baby Steps

This recent step is going to allow men to enter ladies bathrooms, and women to enter men’s rooms.   The LGBT community says that this is needed for more equal rights, because a transgender man can’t enter a ladies bathroom.  Once again, the gay community wants more rights, not equal rights.  As with gay marriage, gay men had the same rights to get married as that of straight men, same for women.  

Right now as a straight man, I am not allowed into a women’s restroom, and men that think they feel like a woman can’t go into the ladies restroom either.  But now, with this baby step, a man that feels like a woman can go into a ladies restroom, but a straight man can’t.  What does this law have to do with equal rights?

What this law is about is just taking us one step closer to removing Christian values from our society and making somebody’s sexual choices seem normal and forcing people to bend over backwards to them or face consequences, like going to jail, if you don’t bake them a cake. 

But my problem with this law is not with the LBGT, I don’t think there is really going to be a problem with transgender people going to the bathroom.  They have been doing it for years and the overwhelming population was completely unaware.  But if this were just about allowing transgender people to go to the bathroom at Wal-Mart, that’s one thing.  The problem is this law and other policies, create a broad array of where they have access to.  One is locker rooms.  This is one reason I believe that this law was created for ulterior reasons, as noted above.

In Olympia Washington, a 45-year-old student at Olympia's Evergreen College who identifies as a woman but with male genitalia says he has a right to use the facilities and the school agrees.  The problem is that the swimming pool locker room is shared with students from nearby Olympia High School as well as children from a local swimming club share locker rooms with the college.  This man has been seen in this locker room, sprawled out in the sauna room fully exposed.  He has been seen just walking through the locker room, full of young girls, butt naked.

The bigger problem with this law is the freedom this will give sexual predators, and if you don’t think this is going to present some problems then you are delusional and show that you are more interested in pushing an agenda than keeping our children safe. 

The Charlotte Non-Discrimination Ordinance Coalition published a fact sheet arguing, "Only people who are actually transgender are protected by the law" and that SOGI in no way protects men "pretending to be women to access the restroom." But the group did not explain what safeguards would prevent such criminal behavior.  My question to this group is, how will you know if the person walking into the bathroom is a man or a woman?  Will there be somebody standing at the restroom door or the locker room door checking people as they walk in?? 

Again, there is no reason for this law except for the gay community and the left to remove Christian values from our society and making sexual choices a right.  And in this case, they are opening the door for sexual predators to gain access to our children.

My question to the TLGB community is, what’s more important, you and your agenda or the safety of our children? 

I fear I know the answer to this question and that makes me worried about the direction America is going.  The direction the Gay community and the left are taking us have been tried in other civilizations, and it didn’t lead to good things.

WAKE UP AMERICA

DISTORTING THE RECORD....OBAMAS EXECUTIVE ACTIONS

Once again Obama supporters are distorting the record changing the parameters Obama is judged by.  President Obama has issued a form of executive action known as the presidential memorandum more often than any other president in history — using it to take unilateral action even as he has signed fewer executive orders.  Obama has issued 227 executive orders as of the end of December. Published alongside them in the Federal Register are 198 presidential memoranda— all of which carry the same legal force as executive orders, for a total of 425 executive actions.

When these two forms of directives are taken together, Obama is on track to take more high-level executive actions than any president since Harry Truman battled the "Do Nothing Congress" almost seven decades ago, according to a USA TODAY review of presidential documents.

Obama has issued executive orders to give federal employees the day after Christmas off, to impose economic sanctions and to determine how national secrets are classified. He's used presidential memoranda to make policy on gun control, immigration and labor regulations. Tuesday, he used a memorandum to declare Bristol Bay, Alaska, off-limits to oil and gas exploration.

Like executive orders, presidential memoranda don't require action by Congress. They have the same force of law as executive orders and often have consequences just as far-reaching. And some of the most significant actions of the Obama presidency have come not by executive order but by presidential memoranda.  

This is how the Obama record is being distorted and duping Americans into supporting him.

This tactic is also done with other things, Gun Control, Healthcare, Unemployment, the economy, etc.

He's already signed 33% more presidential memoranda in less than six years than Bush did in eight. He's also issued 45% more than the last Democratic president, Bill Clinton, who assertively used memoranda to signal what kinds of regulations he wanted federal agencies to adopt. 

Obama is not the first president to use memoranda to accomplish policy aims. But at this point in his presidency, he's the first to use them more often than executive orders.

"There's been a lot of discussion about executive orders in his presidency, and of course by sheer numbers he's had fewer than other presidents. So the White House and its defenders can say, 'He can't be abusing his executive authority; he's hardly using any orders," said Andrew Rudalevige, a presidency scholar at Bowdoin College. "But if you look at these other vehicles, he has been aggressive in his use of executive power."

So even as he's quietly used memoranda to signal policy changes to federal agencies, Obama and his allies have claimed he's been more restrained in his use of that power.

Obama issued three presidential memoranda after the Sandy Hook school shooting two years ago. They ordered federal law enforcement agencies to trace any firearm that's part of a federal investigation, expanded the data available to the national background check system, and instructed federal agencies to conduct research into the causes and possible solutions to gun violence.

Two more recent memos directed the administration to coordinate an overhaul of the nation's immigration system — a move that congressional Republicans say exceeded his authority. Of the dozens of steps Obama announced as part of his immigration plan last month, none was accomplished by executive order.

Indeed, many of Obama's memoranda do the kinds of things previous presidents did by executive order.

• In 1970, President Nixon issued an executive order on unneeded federal properties. Forty years later, Obama issued a similar policy by memorandum.

• President George W. Bush established the Bob Hope American Patriot Award by executive order in 2003. Obama created the Richard C. Holbrooke Award for Diplomacy by memorandum in 2012.

• President Bush issued Executive Order 13392 in 2005, directing agencies to report on their compliance with the Freedom of Information Act. On his week in office, Obama directed the attorney general to revisit those reports — but did so in a memorandum.

The difference may be one of political messaging, he said. An "executive order," he said, "immediately evokes potentially damaging questions of 'imperial overreach.'" Memorandum sounds less threatening.

Though they're just getting attention from some presidential scholars, White House insiders have known about the power of memoranda for some time. In a footnote to her 1999 article in the Harvard Law Review, former Clinton associate White House counsel Elena Kagan — now an Obama appointee to the U.S. Supreme Court — said scholars focused too much on executive orders rather than presidential memoranda.

Kagan said Clinton considered memoranda "a central part of his governing strategy," using them to spur agencies to write regulations restricting tobacco advertising to children, allowing unemployment insurance for paid family leave and requiring agencies to collect racial profiling data.

"The memoranda became, ever increasingly over the course of eight years, Clinton's primary means, self-consciously undertaken, both of setting an administrative agenda that reflected and advanced his policy and political preferences and of ensuring the execution of this program," Kagan wrote.

Presidential scholar Phillip Cooper calls presidential memoranda "executive orders by another name, and yet unique."

The law does not define the difference between an executive order and a memorandum, but it does say that the president should publish in the Federal Register executive orders and other documents that "have general applicability and legal effect."

"Something that's in a presidential memorandum in one administration might be captured in an executive order in another," said Jim Hemphill, the special assistant to the director for the government's legal notice publication. "There's no guidance that says, 'Mr. President, here's what needs to be in an executive order.' "

There are subtle differences. Executive orders are numbered; memoranda are not. Memoranda are always published in the Federal Register after proclamations and executive orders. And under Executive Order 11030, signed by President Kennedy in 1962, an executive order must contain a "citation of authority," saying what law it's based on. Memoranda have no such requirement.

Obama, like other presidents, has used memoranda for more routine operations of the executive branch, delegating certain mundane tasks to subordinates. About half of the memoranda published on the White House website are deemed so inconsequential that they're not counted as memoranda in the Federal Register.

Sometimes, there are subtle differences. President Eisenhower signed Executive Order 10789 in 1958 giving emergency contracting authority to the Department of Defense and other Cabinet departments. President Bush added other departments in 2001 and 2003, but he and Obama both used memoranda to give temporary authority to the U.S. Agency for International Development to respond to crises in Iraq and western Africa.

When the president determines the order of succession in a Cabinet-level department — that is, who would take over in the case of the death or resignation of the secretary — he does so by executive order. For other agencies, he uses a memorandum.

Both executive orders and memoranda can vary in importance. One executive order this year changed the name of the National Security Staff to the National Security Council Staff. Both instruments have been used to delegate routine tasks to other federal officials.

Whatever they're called, those executive actions are binding on future administrations unless explicitly revoked by a future president, according to legal opinion from the Justice Department.

The Office of Legal Counsel — which is responsible for advising the president on executive orders and memoranda — says there's no difference between the two. "It has been our consistent view that it is the substance of a presidential determination or directive that is controlling and not whether the document is styled in a particular manner," said a 2000 memo from Acting Assistant Attorney General Randolph Moss to the Clinton White House. He cited a 1945 opinion that said a letter from President Franklin Roosevelt carried the same weight as an executive order.

The Office of Legal Counsel signs off on the legality of executive orders and memoranda. During the first year of Obama's presidency, the Office of Legal Counsel asked Congress for a 14.5% budget increase, justifying its request in part by noting "the large number of executive orders and presidential memoranda that has been issued."

Other classifications of presidential orders carry similar weight. Obama has issued at least 28 presidential policy directives in the area of national security. In a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit last year, a federal court ruled that these, too, are "the functional equivalent of an executive order."

Even the White House sometimes gets tripped up on the distinction. Explaining Obama's memoranda on immigration last month, Press Secretary Josh Earnest said the president would happily "tear up his own executive order" if Congress passes an immigration bill.

Obama had issued no such executive order. Earnest later corrected himself. "I must have misspoke. I meant executive actions. So I apologize," he said.