Peak Crazy.

I just heard Kirsten Powers tell Bill O'Reilly that the North Carolina Register's statement that little girls, their parents and society needs to get over its "hang-up" about girls being exposed to male genitalia. She generously allowed that "during this transitional time," transgenders could be required to show alone.

So, let's explore the reasoning by asking "Why can't Trans shower with boys?" They all have the same parts, after all, and there is no hangup about boys being exposed to male genitalia. And it can't be that normal boys would have any sexual interest in boys who think they might be girls. And if it is the latter, we assume that boys who think they are girls can muster enough good behavior to act with decorum.

So, what's the problem?

I think the problem has something to do with "body identification." Boys who think they are girls are shocked(?)...disturbed(?)....befuddled(?)....by being classed with boys who know they are boys, apparently. So, in the interest of gender coherence, they are to be allowed to shower with the people of the body parts they don't have.

But what about those people with girl parts? Don't they have gender identification issues that are at least as significant? What does it tell them when they are required to shower with a penis-enabled American?

So, in Kirsten's world, gender and gender identification is fluid and body parts don't matter....for normal people. For confused people, they are controlling.

How does this make any sense.

Also, noticeably absent from the discussion was any sense of parental consent. We are in a transitional period, but sometime....soon?...things are going to be the way that elites like Kirsten decree and the little people are going to have to get in line.

Insanity.

"Because I can" is not something we ought to hear spoken by the guy in charge of a limited government with defined powers.

Kirsten Powers writes:

When asked by ABC's George Stephanopoulos about Boehner's claim that the president had exceeded his executive authority, Obama retorted, "I'm not going to apologize for trying to do something while they're doing nothing." He went on to explain that his administrative actions regarding immigration were OK because the GOP wouldn't work with him and "the majority of the American people want immigration reform done."

Notice that the former constitutional law professor did not make a substantive legal case in defense of his executive power grabs. He merely stated that what he did was popular, ergo his extra-constitutional actions are fine. A more reassuring answer would include explaining how his actions are consistent with the Constitution.

The Supreme Court has seemed less than impressed with Obama's constitutional claims. Last Thursday, the justices tossed his attempt to unilaterally declare the Senate in recess so he could appoint officials to the National Labor Relations Board. Another of the administration's constitutional arguments was rebuked the same day when a unanimous Supreme Court ruled against a Massachusetts law creating 35-foot-limited-speech-buffer zones outside abortion clinics. The Obama administration had argued in support of this government-created zone where abortion supporters were allowed to speak but anti-abortion activists were not.

So it is with executive power. Obama says he has executive power to invade Libya without congressional approval. Obama acts as judge, jury and executioner in assassinating American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen, and declares it constitutional. Considering his track record before the Supreme Court, all these claims should be viewed with extreme suspicion.

Liberals who obsessed over President Bush's abuses of executive power are suspiciously silent now, or worse, defend the same behavior they found abhorrent in a Republican.//

I've been surprised about Kirsten Power's (moderate) pro-life positions.

Apparently, she converted from atheism to Christianity.

Also, this is a surprisingly candid, accidental and disturbing confession -

“When I went away to college, whatever little faith I had, I lost. I ended up graduating from college. I worked in the Clinton administration. All my friends were secular liberals. At this point, I really got even more deeply into an incredibly secular world because now, all my friends were basically atheists, or if they had any kind of spirituality, they were very hostile towards religion, Christianity in particular. So, I really didn’t have any interest in it.

So, despite what they say, secular liberals know they are hostile to Christianity.

Delightful.