Schumer 13

So, now we have Chuckie Schumer, aka ‘Chester the Molester’, as was his Democrat colleague over in the House, Steny Hoyer, being unable to provide a simple yes or no answer to what a very basic question, one that is far from complex.  Of course that question is, whether or not he believes that biological males should be allowed to use women’s restrooms in federal facilities and parks in the United States.  But Chuckie did say he thought that the North Carolina law requiring people to use a restroom that matches their biological sex should be repealed.

So it was then that Chuckie was recently asked the question: “There has been a great deal of controversy lately about North Carolina’s bathroom law. Do you believe that biological males should be allowed to use the ladies’ rooms in federal facilities and parks around the country?”  And Chuckie chose to respond using typical Democrat gibberish saying, “I believe the North Carolina law is discriminatory and they ought to repeal it.”  Now personally, as a commonsense kind of guy, I’m simply not seeing any sort of justification for repealing this law.

And as it has been pointed out, numerous times, the North Carolina law, H.B. 2, states it is “an act to provide for single-sex multiple occupancy bathroom and changing facilities in schools and public agencies and to create statewide consistency in regulation of employment and public accommodations.”  And it then goes on to state that those restrooms are to be used according to one’s biological sex – “the physical condition of being male or female, which is stated on a person’s birth certificate.”  And for that Chuckie wants it repealed?

However, what nasty old perverts like Schumer, and Hoyer as well, continue to so conveniently leave out of the conversation is the fact that this law, which they claim to be so discriminatory, also allows for “accommodations” by allowing entities to provide single-use restrooms “upon a person’s request due to special circumstances.”  But again, I’m assuming that that just makes too much sense for creepy old perverts like Schumer.  And I’d like to know why is it that it’s always we on the right who are the ones who must relinquish our values.

Chuckie, like Steny, is a prime example of just how deviant those in the Democrat Party have now become.  And I’m sure he figures that he can gain a few votes from the pervert crowd by going against the law!  I’d be curious to know when we can expect to hear Chuckie to start calling for the boycotting of those countries that treat women worse than we allow people in this country to treat their animals?  And I would argue that by calling for a repeal of a law that seeks nothing more than to keep men out of women’s restrooms makes clear how he feels about the issue.

Now the question has been posed by more than a few asking why it is that we should be wasting our time discussing this issue when we have so many other far more important issues that are in need of being discussed.  I think we can all agree that this restroom issue is little more than a distraction.  This is how today’s ‘progressive’ scumbags work, while we’re trying to discuss the important issues, they’re busy trying to work under the radar in an effort to slide our country even further into their preferred area of operation, which would be, of course, the gutter.

The reality is that what’s underway here actually has very little, if anything at all, to do with this new law in North Carolina. That serves as being nothing more than a vehicle by which scumbag Democrats hope to clandestinely continue their effort to eat away at the moral fabric of our society.  The desire of the left has long been to somehow make behavior once seen as being completely unacceptable to at least appear as being acceptable, and then to cast those of us who object to be subjected to such behavior as being nothing more than bigots.

So I guess I would ask those who are now questioning the importance, or even the relevance, of such a conversation taking place, ‘what is more important than morality when it comes to the very survival of one’s society?’  Are we simply to allow those on the left to continue to shove all manner of perversion down our throats until behavior by today’s standards would be considered as being perverted behavior comes to be viewed as acceptable, thus successfully reducing this nation by yet another notch?  A line must be drawn and then strongly defended!

As a way of showing how that can happen I would like to point out how it once was that families tended to shy away from accepting government assistance, it tended to be frowned upon and even avoided if possible.  And when it was accepted it was done so with the understanding that it was only temporary and would come to an end as quickly as possible.  Because it was seen indicating that a man was unable to properly provide for his family.  But today no such reluctance exists.  These days there is almost an eagerness to go onto any kind of government ‘assistance.’