Republican Insider Elites Finally Drink Their Hemlocks As Hillary's Emails Kill A "Friend"

You couldn't make up a more fitting end to the Republican Establishment Elite than what is currently taking place. Dozens, if not hundreds, of old guard Establishment Republicrats are racing to the fields to hang themselves before the American public. For a year now, we've heard that Trump is "not a true conservative," and "not even a Republican." Yet, it is the liberal Republicans who are screaming mea culpa in the streets. After watching for a year as the party switches sides like a predictable version of Iago, I have to say, I'm glad to hear them scream.

The "Never Trump" movement is based on the idea that he is unfit for command. Now, putting aside the fact that he has never been in command outside of the private sector, a vote against Trump is a vote for Hillary Clinton. If you are still willing to allow Hillary Clinton to get elected after news broke this week that she very likely got a spy killed in Iran, you should reconsider your position.

This week, on the heels of a $400 million cash for hostages trade, Iran announced that it hanged Shahram Amiri. Mr Amiri was an Iranian nuclear scientist who was, in all likelihood, placed deep inside Iran's nuclear program as a spy. (The Obama Administration failed to secure his release with their $400 million). Mr. Amiri is now dead, and the question is, after being hailed as a hero by Iran, what changed? 

We know what changed. Hillary Clinton and her various foolish staffers outed Mr. Amiri as "our friend" in unsecured email communications running through her unsecured server. She discussed his placement, what he may know, and his identity.

Scooter Libby went to jail during the Bush administration for allegedly outing Valerie Plame as a CIA agent, a fact that was common knowledge in the cocktail circuit in Washington. Other Republican elites, like Karl Rove nearly went to jail with him. Secretary Clinton not only discussed his mission in unsecured communications that the FBI assumes were intercepted, but she revealed his identity. If we were to assume, as the FBI does, that these communications were intercepted and used by foreign powers, like Iran, then Hillary Clinton's "recklessness" has now led to its first known casualty. It is likely one of many casualties to come, and one of many that have already happened that we simply don't know about.

So, yeah, vote for her George Will. Let her become President, Erik Erickson. Trust her with your national secrets Michael Chertoff. See if she keeps us safe, Susan Collins. 

The American people are neither stupid nor fooled. Donald Trump won more votes than any other candidate in the history of the Republican primary, and he had 15 other opponents. Had it just been him and, say, Jeb Bush, his margin of victory would have been legion. The fact that these party insiders can't make up their minds about whether he is "too liberal" or "too conservative" tells you all you need to know. It's not about ideology. It's about them. It's about their own power and preserving their own influence. And for putting their own personal interests ahead of those of their nation, they deserve to be held up to ridicule as their "consciences" will not support Trump, but instead allow a corrupt female version of Dr. No to hold her finger over the button.

The Republican Party chose Trump. They forced him to sign a loyalty pledge, even if they never intended to honor it themselves. They were terrified that he would form a third party and defeat Jeb Bush the same way Jeb's father was defeated by Ross Perot. Now, when forced to choose between two deeply flawed candidates, they would have you believe that they cannot in good conscience choose the person who says stupid things over the person who does stupid things.

We will likely never know what other leaked state secrets have now been used to harm our nation or to execute spies. As Secretary of State, she had access to the most critical information, all of which passed through an unsecured server in her basement. The fact that it cannot be proven is of no real concern to a reasonable person. A poor outcome can be presumed from reckless conduct. Her conduct has now cost another life. She is unfit for command.

Democrats And The Media Use A Fallen Soldier To Insult America

You've never sacrificed anything for your country. Did you know that? You may have worked hard for your entire life, you've dutifully paid your taxes, you've given to charities, you've been there to help your neighbor when he needs it, you've chopped the wood, dug the ditches, operated the machine, tilled the field, and raised a family. But you haven't sacrificed anything for your country.

Captain Humayun Kahn was killed by an IED in Iraq in 2004 as his Humvee was patrolling a neighborhood in a stupid war supported by Hillary Clinton and waged by George W. Bush. His death, like all deaths in most modern wars, is tragic. His death was 12 years ago. In that 12 year period, Obama withdrew from Iraq, leaving a power vacuum now occupied by ISIS and Russia. Clinton supported the withdrawal, which has turned out to be the second greatest strategic blunder the U.S. has committed in that region. Tens of millions of people have been killed, tortured, raped, enslaved, or displaced as a result of that epic lack of judgment. But that's not what Clinton or the media want to talk about. They want to talk about racial politics, and they used the memory of Captain Kahn to do it.

Who knows what Captain Kahn would've thought of his leaders 12 years later. Who knows whether he would've voted for Hillary Clinton, or voted at all. I would venture to guess that his feelings would mirror those of most other veterans, who felt sick as they watched ISIS march into hard fought towns like Fallujah, where so many of their friends were killed. I would also venture to guess that Captain Kahn, like most other veterans, was not thinking about his racial or religious background the day he died.

The Clinton campaign put Captain Kahn's father on the stage of the Democratic National Convention, not to celebrate his son's life, not to highlight the importance of fighting terrorism, not to honor the memories of all our fallen Iraq War veterans. No, it was none of those things. Hillary Clinton wanted Captain Kahn's father to talk about his son's race and religion and use his death to accuse Donald Trump, and anyone else who wants to suspend immigration or build a wall, of being racists. Moreover, as Mr. Kahn intimated, unless you've served or lost a child to the service, "you haven't sacrificed anything" for your country.

The Media, of course, loved it. His speech was a perfect amalgamation of all things progressive; race, religion, identity politics, and an opportunity to insult Americans who want to curtail illegal immigration and keep terrorists out. The problem is, the media and Hillary Clinton are in the minority in their views. In three different polls, anywhere between 48% and 54% of Americans (all Americans) support a "temporary ban on Muslim immigration." If the question is phrased in terms of banning "immigration from Muslim countries that support terrorism," the percentage jumps up significantly. Likewise, Rasmussen, NBC and FoxNews polls show that anywhere between 51% and 55% of Americans (again, all Americans) support "building the wall." 

The message coming out of the Democratic Convention to the majority of Americans is this: You are a racist bigot who never sacrificed anything for your country. 

The Clinton campaign used Captain Kahn's family to deliver those insults to Americans in flyover country, assuming that a Gold Star Family would be beyond reproach. It was clever and cynical, but they were right. That said, it represents the worst of Establishment politics and Progressive ideology. "You didn't build that;" "you've never sacrificed anything for your country;" "you are a bigot," and "you're not allowed to argue with me about it because I have a protected status." 

Do not be fooled. These are insults, regardless of who says them. They may also be the determining factor in this election as they were in the primaries. Americans are sick of being told that they are stupid, lazy, bigots by a bunch of elites who in turn ask us to sacrifice even more of our hard work on the alter of liberalism. 

Trump is often a poor messenger for those of us who are now staunchly opposed to Establishment politics. He is clumsy and often misses the mark with his criticism. To some degree, that's what people like about him. He is genuine, even if he is sometimes inarticulate, but it is pretty obvious that Americans are open to his message. Part of the reason for this is that the liberal Establishment continues to insult and out right harm white, blue collar workers who make up a huge portion of the electorate. When Hillary Clinton promises to "put a lot of miners out of work," she is telling the truth. When Mr. Kahn, speaking on behalf of the Clinton campaign, accuses Donald Trump or people like him of having never sacrificed anything for the country, those same miners hear it. It is doubtful that they are impressed by that message.

The tenor and tone of American politics has fallen far below what should be acceptable to voters. However, it is voter anger that is fueling much of that negative tone, and the anger stems from the complete and utter failure of the political Establishment to govern effectively. For example, Captain Kahn should never have been in Iraq in the first place, but he was, due to the poor judgment of our leaders in both parties. If you want to honor his sacrifice, vote for the candidate that won't send our heroes to fight a perpetual war without any strategy for victory. 

Truth and Chaos

It is usually the case that the established order of things is disrupted by unmitigated truth. Going back to the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson penned: "We hold these truths to be self evident." Jefferson, a great philosopher in his own right, likely knew that, in fact, all truth is self evident. It is only in our modern, deconstructionist world that we can be convinced that truth is relative or that "truth is in the eye of the beholder." No, it's not. The truth is the one thing that  has historically liberated us from the yoke of slavery, feudalism, and now the global political elites, bent on ruling the world like some evil character in a James Bond movie.

Bernie Sanders told the truth. He had his opinions, but he told the truth. So did Donald Trump. The truth is, we are ruled like serfs by a tiny handful of political and financial elites, who have only  personal aggrandizement as their goal. And, rather than use merit and hard work to reach their goals, they choose instead to do it on the backs of others. There is, of course, nothing repugnant to them about stepping on the backs of the serfs, doomed to forever grow their food and fight their wars. To our masters, "justice" is a powerful word synonymous with "placation," "pacification," and "illusion." "Equality" means equality for everyone else but them, and the "truth" is whatever they say it is.

The last three months have been remarkable in global history. ISIS has succeeded in inflicting serious damage on western targets using very little in the way of weaponry. The elites, unable to resist using a crisis to their advantage, demanded that the serfs disarm. After all, you are only entitled to protect yourself if your master allows it. Serfs don't need guns. We are not important, like Hillary Clinton is. Only she and her elite friends need to be surrounded by guns. Only they have the right to protect themselves.

Also in the last three months, Secretary Clinton managed to escape indictment on a series of charges that she mishandled classified information. The Justice Department let her go, arguing that her violation of the law was merely "technical," and that she did not "intend" to make the nation vulnerable. Of course, there is no "intent" required under the statute. The FBI director and the Attorney General just unilaterally changed the law to read in an intent requirement. Why? Because the masters are superior to the serfs. Justice is merely an illusion. Brown nosing journalists agree; the queen must be saved. Long live the Queen! Without the queen, they can no longer peddle influence and keep their own larger crumbs, thrown to them like dogs begging at the dinner table.

Were that not enough, hackers have now disclosed (through the liberal darling Julian Assange and Wikileaks) that the Democratic National Committee, working with Hillary Clinton, conspired to defeat Bernie Sanders and his populist followers through dishonest means. The emails hacked show an embarrassing level of self-importance and an unscrupulous campaign to marginalize him and his followers. They planned on attacking him as a Jew in the South. They planned on attacking him as an Atheist in the MidWest. They planned to question his sanity and his mental health. Basically, the politically correct world they've constructed for us simply does not apply to them. Why should it? They are the masters, we are the serfs.

In 1789, French peasants with pitchforks began to over run their feudal estates in what would become known as The Great Fear. Although there is much confusion among witnesses and historical accounts, it appears that a rumor of impending martial law sparked a wave of fear in peasants, who all knew they and their families would be killed. On July 14, 1789, the peasants overran the Bastille, which was an armory used to imprison political dissenters, store grain and store guns. The French Lords were so frightened by the sudden loss of everything they had so viciously taken, that the puppet National Assembly abolished the Feudal Regime and passed the "Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen." Similar to our Bill of Rights, the regime set out to once again placate the masses with the illusion of justice and equality. The ruse did not last. By 1793, the former serfs (le tiers-etat) began the so called "Reign of Terror," in which masters and noblemen were simply dragged into the streets and beheaded under the dull blade of the guillotine. 

Hillary Clinton, the Bushes, the Romneys, and the rest of these self-serving elites are fortunate that it is not 1789. That said, they still need to be very careful. They can still have everything they hold dear taken from them by peaceful revolution. If Trump wins, Hillary will go to jail. Bill might too. The spontaneous, lock-step chants of "lock her up," at the RNC surprised even her. Even a seasoned elitist, who is sheltered by wealth and power, can sometimes feel a little fear that the masses might some day lock her up.

And this is what they fear. This is what they've feared all along in this election. They fear Donald Trump, who could care less about the political elite, riding a revolution of angry serfs right to the White House. They certainly feared Bernie Sanders, a plain speaking populist hero who routinely declares the greatest call to action anyone has seen. They are trying to destroy both men and the reason is obvious. We the people must not be allowed to storm the Bastille and take away all of their power, money and influence. Their lives will have been meaningless without those things. The Bastille must be protected and the crowd must be ordered back to their lands to make grain for their natural superiors. 

I, however, refuse to be a serf. What about you?

Why I Need An AR-15; And Why You Do Too.

I hate gun control debates. They bring out the most ignorant and unreasonable arguments on both sides. Guns are an emotional issue because they are designed to kill things. They are not a bunker, or body armor, which are designed to defend things. No, guns are specifically designed to put the operator in an offensive position to injure or kill. Owning or carrying a firearm necessarily means that you have chosen to go on the offense in a defensive situation and proactively kill an attacker. It is a decision with heavy moral, legal, and psychological consequences, but once you've made that decision, you should arm yourself with the best weapons you can.

Democrats are calling for another "assault weapons ban." The last ban, passed during the Bill Clinton Administration lasted from 1994 until September 13, 2004. During that period, gun violence remained unchanged. In fact, in 2004, while Democrats were attempting to renew the ban, both the Justice Department and the National Institute of Justice reported that the impact of the ban was so small that it was likely not measurable. They concluded that renewing the ban would have a negligible statistical impact on violent crime. The ban was lifted. 

During that same period, however, medical records, specifically mental health records, somehow became sacrosanct. Liberal Democrats passed significant legislation to make it nearly impossible to investigate someone's mental health. Not surprisingly, several crazies, who had demonstrated real mental instability, passed background checks and killed multiple people. The last mass shooter passed his background check notwithstanding being investigated, twice, by the FBI. No one believes this guy should have had a gun. 

But let's also be accurate in the way we characterize this last attack. This was not a "crime." It was an act of war committed by someone who received terrorist training overseas to carry out such an attack. He could have and likely would have simply used a bomb and done just as much or more damage than he did with his rifle. Ironically, shootings give the potential victims a better chance to escape or hide once everyone realizes what's happening. Bombs just go off and kill everyone. I'd much rather be involved in an active shooter situation than crammed in a night club while some Jihadi with a  bomb yells at me in Arabic right before pressing a button.

That said, I support a much more intrusive, regimented background check process that, once completed, also expands a gun owner's rights. I also support a two tiered background check system. If you want to own a revolver for example, you pass a less rigorous background check than if you want own an AR-15. Ban the people, not the guns. I'll make a specific proposal in the next few weeks. 

What I will not agree to do is ban assault rifles or high capacity magazines. Unless the government can assure me that it can - and will - protect me and my family from terrorists and other evil men, I will need a powerful, precise weapon of war with which to do it myself. Unfortunately, the government is unwilling to stamp out terrorism, protect our borders, or reign in violent crime and home invasions. Our leadership is making conscious decisions every day that make us less safe. Banning a particular class of semi-automatic firearms will not change that. All it will do is take weapons out of the hands of the good guys at a time when we are more at risk. 

I choose an AR-15 for home defense for several reasons. First, it is reliable and easy to operate. Millions of the fully automatic versions of these guns have been produced and deployed by the military. The design of the weapon has been well tested and largely perfected, and it is highly likely to function when you need it to. Second, it is precise, accurate and tends not to over-penetrate. Shotguns are not a good home defense weapon. They tend to over-penetrate, sending shotgun pellets through walls, potentially injuring the people you are trying to protect. Shotguns are also less accurate. Handguns are a good option for a small home, but the gun owner has to be cognizant of the ammunition used. 9mm ball ammunition, for example, will go through several walls in a house. .45 ACP rounds are better, but some find the recoil more difficult to handle. Pistols are also less accurate and less lethal than rifles. That is why soldiers don't clear a house in Iraq with a pistol.

The 55 grain, .223 caliber, lead core round fired from an AR-15 tends to shatter when it hits a target. Some shrapnel will penetrate past the wall or the person hit, but the bulk of the bullet remains in the target. That notwithstanding, it will pierce soft body armor at close and medium range. Since more and more criminals and terrorists are using body armor in their attacks, it is sensible to deploy a weapon that can defeat that threat. It will not defeat the steel or ceramic plates used by soldiers and S.W.A.T. teams.

The .223 is a small caliber. Its relative weight makes for very light recoil when combined with a rifle. Many people learn to shoot rifles using an AR-15 variant for this reason. It is light, has low recoil, is easy to shoot, and accurate. Learning to shoot for the first time on a powerful hunting rifle is a bad idea. 

For me, the AR-15 also doubles as a woods gun. While not ideal for shooting a large animal, it is ideal for killing medium size animals, like a coyote or wolf. It also gives me piece of mind to have my AR-15 and high capacity magazine sitting by the bed or on my deck because I know the police are about 20 minutes away from my 260 acre farm. There is a serious meth problem in the area and there have been home invasions. Finally, when my children are playing in the 11 acre field, I know I cannot possibly grab my handgun and run 80 or 100 yards fast enough to defend them from a predator creeping into the field. 

I choose the AR-15 because it is light, reasonably powerful, easily fired, easily cleaned, accurate, reliable, and modular. All firearms are weapons of war. Once you've chosen to use a weapon to defend yourself or your family, you should choose the best one. It is the AR-15's ability to fill many different roles that makes it the one rifle you need to own.

Gun Ban Advocates Should Be Careful What They Wish For

I am a 6'2" 270 pound weightlifter who used to work as a bouncer in a bar. If violently confronted by another man, I stand a reasonable chance of defending myself and my family. If I am facing more than one attacker, my chances fall dramatically. If facing a gang of attackers, they will do whatever they want to me and my family. 

Gun-ban advocates seem to have one of two fantasies about the scenarios I've outlined above. In the first fantasy, they believe that such situations are exceedingly rare or never really happen in real life. This, of course, is demonstrably false. The second fantasy is a little more difficult to debunk. When home alone at night, 5'2" 135 pound women and overweight dads with desk jobs secretly think that they would be able to fend off such attacks. The fantasies range from "getting a baseball bat" to "becoming a mama bear protecting her cubs." These are dangerous fantasies that will get you killed in real life. Anyone who has any real experience with being attacked will tell you, your baseball bat probably will not save you from a single drugged up attacker, much less a gang of them. The "mama bear" fantasy is just plain childish. There is no way, and I mean no way, that a 5'2" woman, who is not an expert fighter, will defeat multiple male attackers my size. No way. You will be a victim, absolutely, every time.

Firearms are the great equalizer. Statistics are all over the place on defensive gun use (from 100,000 per year to over 4.7 million). The most comprehensive studies however have concluded that firearms are deployed somewhere between 1.7 and 2.5 million times per year in self defense. I'm not going to argue statistics, do your own research. But one statistic that is consistent across almost all serious studies is that of those defensive deployments, 30% of those guns are deployed by women. Now, whether you believe defensive gun use is lower or higher, let me ask you this: which woman should have been raped and/or killed by her attacker last year because YOU took away her ability to adequately defend herself? Which single mom sitting at home during a home invasion should have surrendered her family to her attackers? Name her. Let's ask her what she thinks.

The Constitution was not founded on government rights, or civil rights, or social rights. The founding principles of our nation are that we are all endowed by our "Creator" with certain inalienable rights. In other words, our rights are God given, natural and cannot be stripped from us. Among those rights is the right to reasonably defend yourself. "Reasonably" is a term that cuts both ways. No, you do not have the right to defend yourself with rocket launchers. On the other hand, however, you need to be able to utilize weapons that are at least equal in power to those weapons being brought to bear against you. A baseball bat or even a sword is probably inadequate to stop multiple attackers during a home invasion. You need a reliable modern firearm with a large capacity magazine to do that. Five shots from your grandfather's .38 caliber revolver will not be enough to stop three or four determined men. 

There are certainly measures we need to take to prevent mass casualty attacks. There are laws that can be and should be passed. There are no circumstances under which a radical Islamic terrorist on a government watch list should be allowed to purchase a gun. This is obviously another example of the government failing to protect the citizenry, but the FBI needs to be empowered to make more subjective determinations about individuals who are prone to making violent or radical statements. Those measures do not, however, include gun bans. Gun bans don't work. They've never worked, and it will take both sides to reach a reasonable compromise. For men and women who think like me, compromise is poisoned by ill informed people who know nothing about guns or self defense or fighting, who want to ban guns they've never fired. If you don't know the difference between automatic and semi-automatic, or if you think that the AR-15 is the same weapon used by our military, you need to educate yourself. Then we can have a discussion about gun control and probably reach a compromise that would protect both gun rights and limit mass casualty attacks. 

A Time To Mourn; A Time to Kill

As Americans, we are, appropriately, slow to anger. We do not fight in a rage, and we do not rush to judgment. After last night's Jihadist attack on an LGBT night club, it is time to be angry, it is time to rage, and it is time to pronounce judgment on our enemies.

I have very little to add to the dozen or so posts I've written on this exact issue over the past several years after similar attacks on Western civilization. We are at war, whether we are willing to admit it or not. Our enemy targets unarmed citizens, women, and children. We have done almost nothing to harden soft targets, and we continue to live in denial when it comes to the overall goal of radical Islam. We are paralyzed, not in fear of the enemy, but in fear of global condemnation should we, finally, decide to wage a total war against these savages. We have, most likely, forgotten how to even wage total war. We continue to deconstruct, we continue to play games with the words and, not surprisingly, we are still losing.

There is absolutely no way we can defeat radical Islam by killing one Jihadi at a time. Focusing on stopping lone wolf or wolf-pack attacks is like trying to stop a river with a fishing net. If it is not part of a broader strategy, it will result in more American deaths. The only way to stop Jihadi attacks is to completely eradicate their radical ideology from the planet. We must inflict such carnage on the populations supporting these attacks that, after the war, to whisper a Jihadist thought results in instant exile or death in the community. 

We must make the ideology illegal and ban its practice. While it is illegal for an individual to make a terrorist threat, it is not illegal to practice an ideology whose foundational tenet is the destruction of America and the West through acts of terrorism. For whatever reason, our leaders prefer to curtail the civil liberties of all Americans to targeting, disrupting, and prosecuting those who are most likely to commit acts of Jihad. That simply cannot be the case if we want to be serious about defeating Jihad. 

We also must harden ourselves individually, and harden all soft targets. As I've said before, we protect our money better than we protect our schools. It is no coincidence that Jihadis attack unarmed people and poorly guarded locations. Terrorist tactics by definition require the attacker to inflict the maximum amount of emotional and physical damage on the population before being killed. A lone wolf or a pack of wolves would be immediately killed if they targeted a police station. The attack would fail. If you want to deter an attack, you make sure that the attacker is killed in the swiftest most efficient way possible. That means using firearms. There are only several ways to deploy firearms in the public in such a way as to quickly respond to attacks: have police squads on every corner, deploy the military, or mobilize the citizenry. Deploying the military is unconstitutional and it would be literally impossible to employ and train enough police officers to stop every attack. 

So we must harden ourselves individually. We must accept as Americans, first that we are at war; second that the war is being waged on our soil; third that we cannot bargain with our enemy; and fourth that we can either fight back or die. Jihadism can be defeated if our leaders will come to terms with their own fears. In the interim, we as individuals can accept responsibility for our own safety and the safety of our families and communities. Jihadis and other evil men will always have guns no matter what laws we pass. If you do not believe that, look at the Paris attacks. Fortunately, we have the right as Americans to defend ourselves from Jihadis with similar guns. We have the right to learn how to safely store, retrieve and use those guns. We have the right in most states to carry those guns. If enough Americans are willing to make themselves hard targets, terrorism will be rendered a far less effective tactic. 

We will not always be at war. We will not always be as vulnerable as we are today. We can mourn the victims of this atrocity today, but tomorrow we must resolve ourselves to exterminate the enemy. 

Politics And The Potty

As Iran continues to pursue nuclear weaponry, as Russia marches on in Eastern Europe, as ISIS crucifies children and threatens to attack the United States, as our economy stagnates at .5% growth,  and as our debt soars to $14 trillion, once again, our leaders choose to pursue what really matters. The potty.

And incumbent leaders scratch their heads in disbelief at the rise of Trump and Sanders...

Transgendered Americans make up less than .05% of the population. For some reason, however, the government has decided that this is the issue we need to debate right now. Who cares who started it. Whether it was states passing anti-transgendered bathroom legislation, or whether it was progressive cities who did it, it doesn't matter. Like two toddlers arguing in the Kindercare, they need to be separated and put in time out by the grownups. 

This was not a problem until someone decided to make it a problem but, thanks to the federal government's intervention, it has now become a real problem. The Obama justice department and the President have now proclaimed that all schools, employers, and government buildings allow transgendered individuals to use the bathroom of their choice. This, of course, is a huge problem. Liberals paint anyone opposed to the administration on this issue as a bigot, but that simply isn't the case. Americans, for the most part, could care less about the extremely rare occurrence of a transgendered person using any bathroom. Transgendered individuals just don't make up such a large portion of the population to have their bathroom habits be noticeable. Americans do, however, care about sexual predators, who far outnumber transgendered people. 

The liberal narrative that nothing evil ever happens in the bathroom is just plainly false. If you doubt that, just google it. Children are abducted from bathrooms. Children and teens are attacked in bathrooms. Voyeurs do attempt to exploit locker rooms. At best, if the liberals have their way, this law will create confusion in the minds of potential victims. "Should I say something? Am I a bigot if I speak up about this man in my locker room? Will I be mocked on campus if I don't accept this man exposing himself to me in the bathroom?" 

Also overlooked is the cost. Liberals argue that employers and schools should create unisex bathrooms and locker rooms like the family changing stations that exist now. No they won't. I promise you they won't. Schools have community locker rooms and showers. So do employers. They are currently divided by gender. There is no way the parents of teenage boys and girls are going to allow unisex locker rooms and showers. For their part, employers are not going to risk the sexual harassment exposure of unisex showers and changing rooms. To retrofit schools and business to provide privacy in communal changing rooms and showers would cost hundreds of billions of dollars. Building new facilities would cost even more, and for what? To fix a non-problem for a very small portion of the population. 

Finally, there is no definition of "gender identity" that could serve to set uniform rules for bathroom use. The term is entirely subjective and, no matter where you stand on the issue, it is universally true that no rule can be formed or enforced if it's based on complete subjectivity. So, either the other 99.95% of Americans are going to be forced to accept this, or it will be totally blocked except in rare circumstances. 

Minorities seeking acceptance and protection as a class need to be very selective about the cases they use to achieve those rights. Test cases are filed and rejected all the time. The LGBT community unquestionably wants to be recognized as a protected class and provided remedial rights against their communities, schools and employers for a history of discrimination. This is not the case to use to do that. There is an old adage in legal profession: "bad cases make bad law." Imagine, as a member of the LGBT community, that you were finally granted protected status under federal law based on one of these test cases. You may celebrate, but forever and always those rights would be tied to the bathroom. This just isn't the best case to use to achieve equal protection.