“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

-Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride
by William Goldman

I live in a relatively small town in Massachusetts and, like most towns, we have our political differences. They usually play out in local issues, but something happened about a year ago that seems to have the leftists in our little town riled up, much like leftists across the country. I won’t go into details, but there have been a number of contentious issues brought up and discussed at recent town meetings and through letters to the editor in our local paper that make this division clear. It is interesting to me that all of these new problems have been brought up by leftists in our town who apparently didn’t know that these problems existed until President Trump was elected.

Shortly after the election, one of the more progressive churches in town distributed lawn signs which many of my neighbors – including one right across the street – display even today:

It is a safe bet that anyone with such a sign in front of his or her house did not vote for President Trump. It is also clear that the sign is an attempt at signifying some kind of moral superiority on behalf of the residents of that house, implying that no reasonable person could possibly disagree with them on these points.  The problem is that these points are so completely disingenuous that it’s obvious that anyone putting up such a sign has no desire to engage in a reasonable debate on any of them.

Black lives matter: Of course they do. So do all other lives, including the lives of police officers who risk their lives to keep us safe and have been put in greater danger by the behavior and rhetoric of “Black Lives Matter” and their political sycophants. Unfortunately, the people in this house are unwilling to admit the “Black Lives Matter” movement is based on a lie. Michael Brown was a criminal who was assaulting a police officer when the officer shot him in self defense. He was not a “gentle giant” who was surrendering with his hands up.

Women’s rights are human rights: Of course they are. Everyone’s rights, by definition, are human rights, and those rights are spelled out in the Constitution. But the fact that I am against abortion-on-demand and taxpayer-funded birth control does not mean that I am a “misogynist.” I believe in the right to life, from conception to natural death. This is the most basic human right.

No human is illegal: Of course not. But when humans break the law, like entering our country illegally, they should be punished. That’s what “the rule of law” means.

Science is real: Of course it is. Science is based on the idea that you form a hypothesis, experiment, and adjust the hypothesis according to the data. Science is never “settled.” The closest the proponents of “global warming” have come to the scientific method is when they changed the name to “climate change” when they were unable to massage the data enough to show that the earth is actually warming. Biology is also a science, and it tells us that men are men and women are women and wishing to be the opposite sex doesn’t make it so.

Love is love: Of course it is. But that is not a justification for changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples. Especially when that change brings with it the force of the state to compel others to endorse and participate in same-sex ceremonies that violate their sincerely held religious principles. The reason that the traditional definition of marriage was in place throughout all of human history until only a few years ago is that it is the ideal environment for bringing up children. My wife and I are complementary in many ways, each bringing a unique perspective to our family in ways that same-sex couples simply cannot.

Kindness is everything: I agree, which is why I don’t have a sign on my lawn that implies that my neighbors are a bunch of neanderthals for disagreeing with me. If these people truly believed that kindness is everything, they would respectfully engage in conversations instead of accusing those who disagree with them of being science denying racists, bigots and homophobes.

In Gill v. Whitford, democrats are challenging Wisconsin’s congressional district map, claiming that the Republican majority redrew the lines in an unconstitutional way back in 2010. The Constitution permits states to determine legislative districts, thus it is a legislative function. However, since Democrats haven’t won what they consider enough seats in Congress (i.e., all of them), they reason that there must be something wrong. It would be easy to say that what’s wrong is simply their understanding of the Constitution, but I believe there is something much more sinister going on.

In order to challenge the current district map, they have concocted something called an “efficiency index,” which Chief Justice Roberts correctly called “sociological gobbledygook” during oral arguments. The index purports to calculate the number of citizens of either party who wind up represented by a legislator of the opposite party, and Democrats are claiming that, since this calculation shows that more democrats live in districts that elected republicans than vice versa, the courts should usurp the legislative power of redistricting to create a district map that is more in Democrats’ favor.

If that were all, it would be bad enough. We have seen repeatedly over the years that it is easy to find a federal judge willing to reach beyond the Constitutional judicial role and claim jurisdiction over just about any issue, particularly when it is a matter of “fairness.” Only the Supreme Court can decide once and for all that this must remain a legislative function, but Democrats are hoping that the Court will decide on some kind of formula to control redistricting. Let’s set aside the impossibility of creating such a formula that would account for the possible future movement of citizens such that what is a Republican district today may, in less than 10 years, become a majority-Democrat district (If you don’t think this is possible, just look at New Hampshire). I believe that this entire effort is a Trojan Horse to eliminate the Electoral College.

Democrats have long hated the Electoral College, but that hate has grown to the heat of several white-hot stars since Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton (I love writing that) last November, even while losing the popular vote. They have hated the Electoral College going back at least to the 2000 victory of George W. Bush, and have been pursuing the National Popular Vote project for many years. This project is an attempt to convince enough states to constitute a majority of the Electoral College to assign their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. This is possible since the Constitution allows each state to “appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct” its Electoral College delegates. But the fact that this is possible doesn’t mean that it’s a good idea.

The NPVP is trying to convince enough states to appoint electors who will vote for the winner of the national popular vote. So much for Democrats bravely telling Electors to “vote their conscience” and select Mrs. Clinton. Now they want to remove any discretion from Electors and force them to vote for a particular candidate.

But here’s where the Wisconsin case comes in. If the Supreme Court decides that the “efficiency index” or some other bogus formula should be used to make representation more “fair,” then Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) will claim that the Supreme Court has ruled that elections that fail to meet this “test” are unconstitutional. Therefore, they will claim that, since the Electoral College can lead to a situation where the “wrong” candidate is elected president, the Electoral College itself, apportioning Electors on a winner-take-all basis as they have since the beginning of our republic, is by this standard unconstitutional. What better way to try and convince states to adopt the National Popular Vote? Let us hope that the Supreme Court recognizes this case for the long-game con that it is and rejects the plaintiff’s case.

“But I think that the most likely reason of all
May have been that his heart was two sizes too small.”

Dr. Seuss
How the Grinch Stole Christmas

We now have a Dr. Seuss two-fer here in Massachusetts. A couple of weeks ago, a librarian in Cambridge rudely refused, without the authority to do so, a set of 10 Dr. Seuss books, a gift from the First Lady, because the First Lady is married to President Trump. And just last week, three equally rude authors refused to participate in the inaugural Children’s Literature Festival at, of all places, The Amazing World of Dr. Seuss Museum in Springfield, because – horror of horrors – the museum features a mural depicting a scene from Dr. Seuss’ first book, To Think That I Saw it on Mulberry Street.
As a lifelong Seussophile, allow me to say that these people need to find real issues to worry about. The librarian, seeing an opportunity to lash out at Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos through the First Lady, belittled the gift as unnecessary, because her school has such a wonderful librarian (herself), and proceeded to lecture Mrs. Trump that she should have sent a completely different set of books to a different school. Keep in mind, the reason this school was selected was to recognize its excellence. The letter that accompanied the books encouraged the children that they “can accomplish anything you set your mind to,” and that “the key to achieving your dreams begins with learning to read.” Fortunately, the school district overruled the librarian – who, by the way, once dressed up as the Cat in the Hat to celebrate Dr. Seuss’ birthday – and graciously accepted the books.
Of course, there was more to it. The Big Problem, according to the librarian, is that the books themselves, including Green Eggs and Ham and Oh, the Places You’ll Go!, are – wait for it – racist. Even though these books weren’t racist when the Obamas read them to children, apparently, the three festival-boycotting authors agreed with the librarian. They claim that the Mulberry Street mural features a “jarring racial stereotype of a Chinese man, who is depicted with chopsticks, a pointed hat, and slanted slit eyes.” Here’s the image:


I suppose Dr. Seuss could have written “a nondescript Asian-American child who may be a biological male – but we shouldn’t jump to any conclusions – who eats with traditional Chinese eating implements” but that doesn’t really fit the rhyming scheme, does it?
As you might expect, the museum caved and is not only removing the mural – from, again, the first book written by perhaps the most popular and well-known children’s author in the history of the English language – but they cancelled the festival! Apparently, they felt it was more important to cater to the fragile egos of these authors that nobody ever heard of than to hold an event to celebrate Children’s Literature and encourage children to read, like the First Lady was trying to do.
In her ungracious letter to the First Lady, the librarian cited Philip Nel, a Kansas State University professor who wrote “Was the Cat in the Hat Black?” Professor Nel was also quoted in a recent Boston Globe article about the controversy offering parents and children’s librarians a choice to either skip Seuss’ more controversial works or read them to children “and be ready to have uncomfortable conversations about them.”
I don’t know about you, but I read these books to my children when they were probably four or five. Needless to say, I did not have any “uncomfortable conversations” with them about the pictures in any of these books. As Mrs. Trump points out, they are “the future of America” and I know that my children, having been given a foundation of faith, reason, logic and love, will be well ahead of their peers whose parents had “uncomfortable conversations” with them and taught them to see racism everywhere.

The Museum of Seuss, with a mural in back
shows whimsy and fun, not a racist attack.

But snowflakes won’t stop, since all they’ve been taught
Is that everything’s wrong and it’s never their fault.

That’s not true, of course, since all that they do
Is to whine and complain and they blame me and you

For not giving in and just going away
But fighting for good in the U.S. of A.

And don’t forget to hit DaTechGuy’s Tip Jar or, better yet, subscribe!

[If] you do not speak up to warn the wicked about their ways, they shall die in their sins, but I will hold you responsible for their blood.    –Ezekiel 33:8

Massachusetts General Law defines abortion as “the knowing destruction of the life of an unborn child.” Further, it defines an “unborn child” as “the individual human life in existence and developing from implantation of the embryo in the uterus until birth.” Now, we can argue about whether that individual human life began at implantation or at conception, but Massachusetts law is clear that the unborn child is a life and not just a “blob of tissue.” Unfortunately, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) in Moe vs Secretary of Administration and Finance (1981) decided that taxpayer funds must be used to kill that life if its mother so wishes.

Prior to Moe, the state operated under the Doyle-Flynn Amendment – the state-level equivalent of the federal Hyde Amendment, which has been upheld repeatedly by the US Supreme Court – which prohibited taxpayer funds from being used to pay for abortions. But in 1981, the SJC took it upon itself to go beyond the federal Roe v. Wade decision and decreed that taxpayer funds must indeed be used to pay for abortions for poor women under the guise of “equal protection.” Why the legally-recognized life in the womb is not also due equal protection of the laws is not clear, but the SJC ruled that since state Medicaid funds were used to pay for legitimate maternity care and other health care for indigent women, Medicaid must also pay for abortions.

As did Roe v. Wade, this decision clearly overstepped the judicial role of interpreting the Massachusetts Constitution and enshrined a policy decision with the weight of a constitutional amendment, thus prohibiting the legislature from even debating the issue. Legally, the only proper response is an actual constitutional amendment that the SJC cannot misinterpret to its own ends. The Alliance to Stop Taxpayer Funded Abortion has taken up the challenge and is currently gathering signatures with the hope of bringing this question to Bay State voters in November 2020.

The amendment as proposed reads “Nothing in this Constitution shall require taxpayer funding for abortions.” Note that it does not make abortion illegal in MA. It only permits the legislature to debate whether taxpayer funds should be used to pay for them.

The amendment process in Massachusetts is extraordinarily difficult. The first step is to gather 64,750 signatures by November, 2017. In actuality, this means we need to gather close to 100,000 signatures because it seems like the Secretary of State’s office looks for any excuse to reject valid signatures. If there is a stray pen mark on a sheet with 25 valid signatures, the entire sheet may be thrown out. So, volunteers – including my wife and I – are being very careful with the signed sheets.

Assuming we get the required signatures, the motion must be approved by 50 members of the state legislature in two consecutive sessions in order to be put on the ballot in 2020 to allow citizens to vote on the amendment. Assuming it passes, Massachusetts will be in line with the federal government  and the legislative history of the state in letting the legislature decide whether taxpayer funds will be used to pay to knowingly destroy the life of an unborn child.

There are many ways you can help. Of course, you can volunteer, or donate to the Alliance, and if you’re a registered Massachusetts voter, please sign a petition. And please keep our efforts in your prayers.

Update: Stacy McCain talks about this (and a few other things) here.

When Pete asked me to write about my thoughts on the first six months of the Trump Presidency, my fist inclination was to echo the thoughts of Kurt Schlichter and say that he’s fulfilled my most important goal for a president: that of not being Hillary Clinton. His appointment of Neil Gorsuch, rollback of regulations, and unabashed advocacy for western civilization and God, as articulated in his Warsaw speech, are more than enough to mark his first six months as a qualified success. But there’s another criterion by which I think his presidency will be judged, and it’s one that will definitely not be reported on by the media.

I was not a Trump guy until he secured the nomination. I would have voted for him simply because he wasn’t Hillary Clinton, but I started to come around when he released his list of judges and began speaking so forcefully about defunding Planned Parenthood (which I sincerely hope eventually comes to pass). I’m sure I’m not alone in this journey, but I think my wife is an example of a cultural shift that is going on that may have much more of an impact on our country for the foreseeable future.

My wife is as staunch a pro-life Catholic as I am, but was never very political. She used to point out to me when she thought my Republican hat was covering my Catholic eyes on certain issues, she rarely, if ever, watched Fox News, and she was extremely anti-Trump all through the primaries and most of the way through the general election. Up until a few weeks before the election, she was seriously considering not voting for either major candidate. It was the abortion issue that finally pushed her to vote for Trump. She and I stayed up on election night and high-fived each other as the networks called state after state for Trump, and eventually the election.

Since that time, my wife has had her eyes opened to the biased, unfair and downright dishonest treatment of president Trump and the Republican party that I had been trying to point out to her by both the media and the democrats. Where she used to accuse me of exaggerating every slight, she now sees the depths to which the democrat-media complex will sink to make the president look bad. She has taken to following politics much more closely than she ever has before.

We both still would like to see the president tweet less and stick more to substantive issues when he does, mostly because all his shoot-from-the-hip tweets do is to give the media more rope with which to try and hang him. But the good news is that, for the first time, my wife is seeing the democrat-media reaction for exactly what it is. If my wife is at all indicative of a significant portion of the population, then I think perhaps president Trump’s greatest legacy may be the dissolution of the media’s ability to drive the national conversation so far to the left. Maybe this will give president Trump a little room to govern as he promised to instead of having to spend so much of his time fighting off nonsense charges.

She said to herself, “If only I can touch his cloak, I shall be cured.” Jesus turned around and saw her, and said, “Courage, daughter! Your faith has saved you.” –Matthew 9:21-22

Then the LORD said: Go out and stand on the mountain before the LORD; the LORD will pass by. There was a strong and violent wind rending the mountains and crushing rocks before the LORD—but the LORD was not in the wind; after the wind, an earthquake—but the LORD was not in the earthquake; after the earthquake, fire—but the LORD was not in the fire; after the fire, a light silent sound. When he heard this, Elijah hid his face in his cloak. -1 Kings 19:11-13

Sometimes, it’s important to listen to that “light silent sound” and recognize it for what it is.

This has been kind of a crazy time at work for me recently. Between a recent acquisition and new management for my division, there’s been a lot of organizational changes, but until recently it didn’t look like it would affect me that much. I did not consider that a good thing, because I have been hoping for a change. I have a really great situation at work that allows me to spend time with my family and pays me well enough, so I wasn’t really looking to move, but when you spend 10 years working on the same thing, anyone could get bored.

So, I’ve literally written on my review for the last several years that I hoped we could find someone to take over “Project X” so that I could have more time to explore new opportunities with our customers. With the old management in place over those years, nothing ever really happened, so I was kind of stuck. But then, my boss and I met with the new GM a few weeks ago and he has reorganized the group and put me in a new role that looks like it’s going to be great.

Why do I mention all this? Because this is where that “light silent sound” came in. The meeting I described came in the midst of a tradeshow I was at, which is kind of like the violent wind and the earthquake. There was simply too much going on for me to recognize this gift for what it was.

And then, after I got back from the tradeshow, I went on a Catholic mission trip with my daughter and our parish Youth Group. For a five days, I spent my mornings going to daily Mass with the kids, and about 200 others from across the country, then rebuilding a deck for a senior citizen during the day, and then music, dancing, fun and, later, reflection in the evenings.

On one of those evenings, we ended the night with Eucharistic Adoration. It was during my meditation with the Blessed Sacrament that it suddenly occurred to me that God had answered my prayer. The whole reorganization at work has given me the opportunity to explore new paths in my career while still keeping the same family-friendly aspects of my job which, as I said, I’d been hoping for literally for years. The other thought that occurred to me is that, since this opportunity is a gift from God, I’d better not waste it.

There were other answered prayers that week, too. After the first day of wrestling with the deck, I prayed for the wisdom to know how to complete the project that, quite honestly, hadn’t gone as well as I had planned to that point. My prayer was answered when the camp director assigned another dad to help me on the project. Rather than receiving the wisdom directly, it came in the form of another more-experienced carpenter and together we got the project completed, and I learned a few things along the way. Prayers get answered, but not always in the way you expect.

Before I close, I’d just like to give a shout out to Catholic Heart WorkCamp the organization that ran the Mission Trip. They do nearly 100 week-long sessions throughout the US and internationally each summer, giving thousands of teens the opportunity to serve, connect with and love others. I was blessed to be able to share this week with my daughter, other teens and adults from our parish and even our new pastor came along for the week. I cannot say enough good things about the program and encourage you all to look into it for yourselves for next year.

God bless,
Tech Knight

“Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”

Queen of Hearts, Alice in Wonderland

“When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

Humpty Dumpty, Through the Looking Glass

Our Constitution is meant to provide the framework within which a government that “derives its just powers from the consent of the governed” can function to “ensure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” Of course, our society is ordered to provide another institution apart from government to protect our posterity: the family. As society has recognized for millennia, the family unit serves the invaluable purpose (one of many) of providing parents to protect children from, among other things, making bad decisions that could have lifelong consequences.

In Massachusetts, we do not allow a child to drive until he or she is at least 16, to vote or serve in the military until 18, or to drink alcohol until 21. We all agree that children are not able to make important decisions for themselves until their brains and bodies have matured enough and they have experienced enough in life to have the proper context in which to evaluate consequences. So how is it possible that the Legislature is debating a bill that would give prepubescent children the legal ability to decide that they are the “wrong” gender?

There are actually two identical bills being debated by the Joint Committee on Children, Families and Persons with Disabilities, Senate Bill 62 and House Bill 1190, both titled “An Act relative to abusive practices to change sexual orientation and gender identity in minors.” Now, of course, no one is in favor of “abusive practices” used on children, no matter what the circumstances, but the bills’ supporters, based on their testimony from last week, seem to think that any counseling aimed at helping children who suffer from gender dysphoria or homosexual attraction is, by definition, abusive.

As Andrew Beckwith, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, has correctly pointed out, if the proponents are concerned about the use of electroshock therapy or other clearly abusive practices, then the bill should outlaw those therapies explicitly. But to claim that counseling a child to feel comfortable in his own body is abusive, while prescribing hormones that could lead to permanent sterilization or physically mutilating a healthy body is not, is just Mad-Hatter-crazy. This bill is set up to do the exact opposite of what its sponsors falsely claim it is intended to do.

So we find ourselves facing the very real possibility that the legislature will pass a bill that severely limits the rights of parents to decide what is best for their children, and the Free Speech and Religious Liberty rights of counselors and pastors who would seek to help children escape from these misguided feelings, even if the feelings are unwanted. I have a source in the State House who tells me that the committee chair is disinclined to attach a criminal penalty to the legislation, as if that would somehow make it okay. It would not.

We must oppose this misguided bill. If you are a Massachusetts citizen, I urge you to contact your State Representative and Senator to make your voice heard. At least they haven’t yet tried to take that right away from us.

At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, Planned Parenthood v. Casey
Quoted by Justice Anthony Kennedy, Lawrence v. Texas

I have never heard of a law that attempted to restrict one’s “right to define” certain concepts; and if the passage calls into question the government’s power to regulate actions based on one’s self-defined “concept of existence, etc.,” it is the passage that ate the rule of law.

Justice Antonin Scalia, Lawrence v. Texas (dissenting)

I have long thought that this exchange from the Lawrence v. Texas case perfectly summarizes the difference between liberal and conservative judicial philosophies. We can see this being played out almost daily in the ongoing saga of how the law should treat “transgender” people. According to Justices O’Connor and Kennedy, “the right to define one’s own concept of existence” – presumably including the right to define one’s gender, regardless of biological reality – is “at the heart of liberty.” So, when the first transgender case comes before SCOTUS, it is clear that Justice Kennedy (unless, God willing, he retires first) will rule that a man who thinks he’s a woman has the “right” to shower in front of women and girls.

On the other hand, Justice Scalia’s view, which I hope is shared by a majority of the court, is that there is no law that restricts a man’s right to believe he is a woman, but that this belief has no bearing on the government’s power to regulate actions, such as prohibiting a biological male from using the women’s locker room or bathroom. The rule of law clearly requires that laws be self-consistent and have a logical limiting principle. Otherwise, no one would know what the law is, and worse, a person could be found in violation of a subjective law based on someone else’s opinion rather than on his own actions.

So, in order to maintain the rule of law, there must be some objective definition of “man” or “woman.” Having rejected the scientific definition of “man” (an X and a Y chromosome) and “woman” (XX chromosomes), liberals must scramble for an alternate definition. They seem to have settled on the fact that a man who feels more comfortable dressing and acting “like a woman” is really a woman, and vice versa. But these are the same people who have argued for years that men and women are “equal” (i.e. “the same”) and that gender roles are “socially constructed.” How can that be?

The answer is that liberals are perfectly comfortable “eating the rule of law” as long as they get to punish those who disagree with them.

“A rose is a rose is a rose”

–Gertrude Stein, Sacred Emily

“A rose by any other name would smell as sweet”

– William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet

With Justice Gorsuch finally being confirmed to the Supreme Court last week, I wanted to take a moment to look back at the confirmation process and hopefully help explain why putting him on the Court was worth all the parliamentary maneuvering required and why it’s such a good thing for the rule of law. Much of the confirmation hearing was devoted to a discussion of the “Frozen Trucker Case” (TransAm Trucking, Inc. v. Admin. Review Bd., U.S. Dep’t. of Labor), in which then-Judge Gorsuch dissented in a decision to overturn the company’s decision to fire a driver for violating company policy. Since this case, and particularly Judge Gorsuch’s dissent, hinged on the concept of originalism, I present this story.

Once upon a time, there was a town whose legislature passed a law, signed by the mayor, that gave a tax deduction to every homeowner who planted rosebushes in their front yard. For the purposes of our story, it doesn’t really matter why they did this, only that the law was consistent with the town bylaws and was legally enacted. For the first few years, several homeowners took advantage of the tax break and the town derived benefit from the law by being able to market themselves as “The Town of Roses” and local businesses benefitted from increased traffic of tourists coming to see the roses.

But then something happened. Some of the citizens decided that they didn’t like the law, even if the town benefitted in a tangible way. Maybe some of these citizens were allergic to roses or maybe some just didn’t like roses, but preferred tulips instead. So, deciding that the law was “unfair,” they sued, and brought their case eventually to a panel of judges. They could have lobbied the legislature to change the law, but they thought it would be easier to convince a small number of judges than it would be to convince a majority of their fellow citizens.

The liberal judges looked at the plaintiffs, who were a sympathetic lot, and agreed with them that it was “unfair” that the town should provide benefits to the “elite” who were able to purchase, plant and maintain rosebushes in their yard while “disadvantaging” these “little guys” who, for whatever reason, were unable – or unwilling – to plant rosebushes. So these judges decided that it was unreasonable for the town legislature to limit the benefit to roses but, since it was really about beautifying the town, and tulips are also pretty flowers, the tax deduction should apply to anyone who plants flowers in their yard. And for those really sympathetic allergy-stricken citizens, they should get the deduction without having to plant anything. So, without the wording of the law having changed, the legal effect of the law was altered to something that the legislature did not intend.

Under what system governed by “the rule of law, not of men” does this make sense? Indeed, this decision explicitly goes against the law as written, not to mention the harm faced by the town in trying to market itself as “The Town of Roses and Tulips or Other Flowers” which isn’t nearly as catchy. But there was one judge who understood the rule of law, and the proper role of the judiciary.

He bravely went against his colleagues and pointed out that the judges’ job is “to apply the law Congress did pass, not to imagine and enforce one it might have but didn’t.” As sympathetic as the plaintiffs might be, the judge realized that, as much as the “Tulip Law” might be desirable, “it isn’t there yet. And it isn’t our job to write one” [both quotes from Judge Gorsuch’s dissent in TransAm Trucking v. Dep’t of Labor].  So, even if the judge wanted to find in favor of the plaintiffs, he simply could not because the law wouldn’t allow it. His personal beliefs about whether the law was a good idea were simply irrelevant.

Members of the minority party in the legislature used this eminently justified and reasonable judicial philosophy to paint the judge as some kind of monster, cruelly indifferent to the plight of the “little guy” (Sen. Feinstein, D-CA), too hung up on “legalisms” (Sen. Harris, D-CA) and “out of the mainstream” (Sen. Shumer, D-NY) to be considered for a position on the Supreme Court, because they want unelected life-tenured judges to twist laws to conform to policies that they prefer, regardless of the actual intent of the legislature when the law was passed, and regardless of the consequences. They thought it would be easier to get five liberal justices on the Supreme Court than it would be to control the legislative process, and they were right, for a while.

Justice Gorsuch and the other conservatives on the Supreme Court believe that the judiciary should be limited to interpreting laws as written. Liberals, who cannot fathom that someone with that much power wouldn’t use it to make his own policy from the bench, naturally think that a conservative Court will arbitrarily enact policies with which liberals disagree. But, as Justice Gorsuch testified at his nomination hearing, “It is the role of judges to apply, not alter, the work of the people’s representatives. A judge who likes every outcome he reaches is very likely a bad judge—stretching for results he prefers rather than those the law demands.” When the day comes that a majority of the Supreme Court – and the entire federal judiciary – lives by this code, then America will truly be great again.

“You’ve got to stand for something or you’ll fall for anything.”

– Aaron Tippin

“How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg?
Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg.”

– Abraham Lincoln

Well, it finally happened. After more than 100 years of standing on the principles of teaching boys and young men to do their duty to God and our country, and to keep themselves “morally straight,” in just four short years, the Boy Scouts of America has completely betrayed those principles and caved to the ridiculous demands of homosexual and transgender minorities. After fighting all the way to the Supreme Court in the 2000 BSA v. Dale case to affirm their right to exclude homosexuals from their membership, and reaffirming that policy as recently as 2012, the BSA decided in 2013 to allow homosexual boys to join. And when one of those boys became an adult, the BSA, as predicted, in 2015 decided to allow homosexual adults to be troop leaders. Now, the BSA has decided to let girls join the Boy Scouts.

The Boy Scouts used to be a special organization to me. My son started as a Tiger Cub in first grade and considered quitting after that first year because he didn’t like the Den Leader. Having been a Scout myself, I knew the positive influence Scouting could have for my son, so I asked if he would continue if I were to be the Den Leader. And so began an 11-year journey through Scouting that my son and I were able to share together. We shared a lot of memories on weekend campouts, Summer camp and High Adventure trips together, and his journey to Eagle Scout and Senior Patrol Leader helped him to become an outstanding leader and a man of principle. But the moments I really treasure were being able to see him interact with his peers in unguarded moments and see him grow into a young man who is self-confident, compassionate and fun to be around. Through Scouting, my son learned many things about how to handle different situations, how to lead, and yes, how to be masculine – more than I could have taught him on my own. We both know that he would not be the man he is today without his experience as a Boy Scout.

And I am so glad he made it through the program before all this lunacy began.

To think that a girl can be a Boy Scout is just insane. With all due respect to the BSA leadership, anyone who thinks this is a good idea simply has no idea what it’s like to be a Boy Scout.

These boys spend a huge amount of time together and, even with adult leaders around, spend much of that time by themselves. And there are many situations where the boys bond in a way that would simply not be possible with girls around. And yes, there are times when the boys get changed or shower in front of each other. On our trip to the Philmont Scout Ranch in New Mexico a few years ago, the communal shower after summitting Mt. Baldy was an endless source of laughter for the boys. It was a classic “boys will be boys” moment and one that simply cannot be shared by a girl no matter what gender she claims to be. There are countless other situations where a boy simply cannot let his guard down like that in front of a girl, even if he accepts that she thinks she’s a boy. And to ask boys to sacrifice that innocence to accommodate someone’s delusion is selfish and a betrayal of some of the best parts of the Scouting experience.

My son and I will always treasure our time in the Boy Scouts. But if I am blessed with grandsons, I’m going to suggest that they join Trail Life USA instead.