Mueller's indictments are just the beginning

Robert Mueller is getting close. Paul Manafort and Rick Gates' indictments are just the breaking of the seal. The real head-turner in this saga is the guilty plea of George Papadopoulos, who admitted to lying to the FBI during the grand jury investigation, and admitting that he approached Trump and his team about his ability to get Trump a meeting with Putin, an attempt confirmed by JD Gordon, who is sitting next to Papadopoulos in the March 31, 2016 National Security meeting that Trump himself tweeted the photo of. Gordon recalled the conversation, that Jeff Sessions' was disinterested in the possibility of Trump meeting Putin, but also that Trump himself was interested. Trump, as recently as Friday before he left for Asia, tried to downplay the meeting itself, calling it "unimportant," and claiming that he doesn't even remember it - a hilariously dumb assertion, coming from "one of the great memories of all time" (direct quote).

But one of the more damning elements of this is that Papadopoulos claims to have tried to have this conversation because a Russian professor he communicated with had emails of Hillary Clinton and John Podesta. This flies square in the face of Trump and his team claiming they didn't know about the email hack until much later. If what Papadopoulos is claiming is true, it not only shows that Trump and his team knew about it, but raises questions of whether they were involved in the retrieval and release. This may not be the case, of course, but they can't avoid the position they've put themselves in by continuously lying at every turn, about even the most benign things. And worse, the timeline puts Trump's firing of former FBI Director James Comey squarely in the cross-hairs, because now that firing could be argued as federal obstruction of justice, a felony.

Mueller also did the wisest thing he could have done, which is to release the indictments and Papadopoulos' plea deal as early as he could, because Trump has ratcheted up his complaints about Mueller in recent weeks, and many were wondering if he would finally pull the trigger and fire him. This release makes that possibility all the more difficult to do. And while the administration has tried to claim Papadopoulos was a "low-level volunteer," and a "liar," (but Trump calls everyone a liar...), Trump himself named Papadopoulos to his Foreign Policy team, publicly mentioning him in an interview. Papadopoulos also represented the Trump campaign at the RNC, sitting on a foreign policy panel for a discussion on US foreign policy for the American Jewish Committee.

Interestingly, while some hard-liners have encouraged Trump to fire Mueller, many Republican politicians have widely warned the Trump administration against doing so. It's becoming clear that their fates in re-election could be tied to whatever Trump does in response to the investigation, and they want no part of that kind of fallout. Many are also holding their breath in anticipation of Trump doing something even dumber, like professing a plan to pardon everyone Mueller indicts. Trump has discussed this before, and has seemed unflinching about the optics of doing such a thing, as evidenced my the move he's already made for Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio. If he pre-emptively pardons Manafort, Gates and - in amnesty-type fashion - anyone else that the Mueller investigation eventually uncovers, the rule of law in this country will unravel. No politician wants to be seen as being a party to one of the most serious abdications of responsibility and accountability in presidential history.

However this plays out, Mueller is just getting started. And the microscope he is under assures that he wouldn't be issuing indictments and making plea deals if he didn't have at least some of the evidence he needs to uphold the charges. The question now is: Does Donald Trump have the testicular fortitude to NOT be himself, and let Mueller do his job without interference? I wouldn't put Vegas odd on it...

How early CAN we ban abortion?

Ohio is trying to become the latest state to move the banning of abortion to earlier in a pregnancy, by introducing bills that would ban abortion for genetic disorder reasons and once a fetal heartbeat can be registered. First, the bills:

Ohio House Bill 214, for the 132 General Assembly

The bill prohibits any person from purposefully performing or inducing, or attempting to perform or induce an abortion on a pregnant woman, if the person has knowledge that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion, in whole or in part, for any of the following reasons:

• A test result indicating Down syndrome in an unborn child;
• A prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome in an unborn child;
• Any other reason to believe that an unborn child has Down syndrome.

The bill does not specifically prohibit the act of aborting unborn children with Down syndrome. Rather, it looks at why the mother desires an abortion and whether the person who will perform the abortion knows the mother's reasons. Whoever violates this prohibition is guilty of performing or attempting to perform an abortion that was being sought because of Down syndrome, a felony of the fourth degree.

The bill also:

• Requires the State Medical Board to revoke a physician's license to practice medicine if the physician violates the criminal prohibition.
• Provides that a physician who violates the criminal prohibition is civilly liable for compensatory and exemplary damages and reasonable attorney's fees to any person who sustains injury, death, or loss that results from the prohibited abortion.
• Provides criminal immunity for a pregnant woman on whom an abortion was performed, in violation of the criminal prohibition.
• Provides that the criminal prohibition does not repeal or limit any other provision of law that restricts or regulates the performance or inducement of an abortion
• Requires physicians to indicate a lack of knowledge that the mother's intent to seek an abortion was, in whole or in part, because of a test result indicating Down syndrome, a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome, or due to any other reason to believe the unborn child had Down syndrome, when complying with the continuing requirement to report to the Department of Health after each abortion.

Ohio House Bill 258, for the 132 General Assembly

The bill prohibits any person from knowingly and purposefully performing or inducing an abortion with the specific intent of causing or abetting the termination of the life of an unborn human individual whose fetal heartbeat has been detected.

• Provides that a person who violates the above prohibition is guilty of performing or inducing an abortion after the detection of a fetal heartbeat, a felony of the fifth degree;
• Provides that a physician is not in violation of the above prohibition if that physician performs a medical procedure designed to or intended to prevent the death of a pregnant woman or prevent a serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman;
• Provides that a person is not in violation of the prohibition if that person has performed an examination for the presence of a fetal heartbeat and the method used does not reveal a fetal heartbeat;
• Provides that a physician does not commit the offense if the physician performs or induces an abortion believing that a medical emergency exists.
• Provides that the prohibition does not repeal or limit any other provision of law that restricts or regulates the performance or inducement of an abortion by a particular method or during a particular stage of pregnancy.

So the implications of these bills are severe. First, the heartbeat: the fetus first registers a heartbeat at about six weeks. This is a problem for women who may not even find out they are pregnant until that time. The heartbeat bill is putting a burden of hyper-intuition on women to just "know" immediately that they are pregnant, in order to get an abortion within the highly restricted time frame. Constitutionally, it's difficult to argue that this is not an undue burden.

The Down Syndrome bill is where we get into really sticky constitutional terrain - not because they want to ban abortion for a possible Down Syndrome fetus, but because they want to ban abortion, period, and this is a very slick and conniving way to do it. Go with me on this, because this bill isn't about Down Syndrome, it's about opening a door, and Down Syndrome is the pry bar on the deadbolt:

1. Ban abortion on any fetus that has been tested to show a possibility of Down Syndrome;
2. Then argue that they should protect all fetuses who may test positive for any genetic or developmental disorder (such as Cystic Fibrosis, Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy, Hemophilia A, Thalassemia, Sickle-Cell Anemia, Spina Bifida, Polycystic Kidney Disease, Tay-Sachs disease, etc., and expand the law to accommodate these as well;
3. Then argue that they can't know IF they need to protect fetuses from their mothers, and so expand the law to require genetic (MSAFP) testing on fetuses before doctors are allowed to perform an abortion, which can't be done the 16th-18th week. This is a great alternative for the Right To Birth-ers (not "Right To Life-rs," there's no such thing) if they can't get the Heartbeat legislation to pass, or if it does pass and later gets kicked on constitutional grounds;
4. Then argue that it's easier to require doctors to run hCG (a protein) and PAPP-A (a hormone) tests (these test can be run very early in the pregnancy) on the mothers themselves, once pregnancy is confirmed, for genetic markers that indicate the possibility of chromosomal abnormality long before MSAFP tests would confirm such abnormalities, and expand the law to ban abortion based on the POSSIBILITY rather than the CONFIRMATION.

The idea here is to ban abortion as early in pregnancy as possible, to essentially eliminate the window to abort at all. The Heartbeat bill would do that in all but a few cases, but the Down Syndrome bill is more comprehensive in the precedent that is being set. Thanks to GMOs in our crops and chemical treatments on our livestock, the food we eat has contributed to a rise in the development of allergies in children per capita, as well as mutations in hormones (this is why children, especially girls, are entering puberty as early as 8-10 years old.) This means women will, inevitably, increasingly test positive for some form of possible abnormality. This bill could be the crack in the door to PRE-BANNING women from getting abortions if they ever get pregnant.

Don't mistake this for a doomsday scenario - THIS IS HOW OUR STATE AND FEDERAL CONGRESS WORKS. Fail, retry with different parameters, fail again, retry with different parameters, fail again, retry with different parameters, succeed - the door's been cracked! One success is where it starts, and they build on the precedent to open the door wider and wider with every expansion stemming from that original law.

Pay attention to these legislations, and pay attention to how legislators operate. Often, these bills are buried deep in bigger, more expansive bills, in hopes that they can slither the bill past the people without being noticed - and then it's too late. Stuff like this matters.You have to pay attention and harass your legislators to vote NO on these bills when they are introduced and, more importantly, READ every bill in it's entirety, so they can catch buried bills being snuck past them. Their job is to competently represent you, protect your freedom and your rights - it's their JOB. The thing they care about above all else is re-election. They need to know their constituents are watching them like a hawk.

Kelly Ann Conway Thinks Democrats Undercut Feminism

Kelly Ann Conway, President Donald Trump's senior counselor and omnipresent surrogate, sat down with The Family Leader president and CEO Bob Vander Plaats at this year's Family Leadership Summit in Des Moines, Iowa on Saturday. During this discussion, Conway complains that the criticism directed at her since the administration entered the White House has been because she's a woman. That she can accept disagreements on policy or ideology, but she instead gets attacked for her appearance or the way she speaks. This is not an untrue statement - ironic, considering the source. But Conway, as is her habit, misses the bigger picture: that she is to blame for most of what comes her way.

If you want to disagree on policy — if you disagree on tax reform or health care reform or immigration or you’re for abortion and I’m not — then say that. Disagree that way, that’s what America is. But so much of the criticism of me is so gender-based.

It’s really remarkable, and it totally undercuts modern feminism, saying they're "for women."

"Saying they're 'for women'," of course, refers to Democrats. Unfortunately, most of the criticism, actually, is dignity-based, in that she appears to have little of it. For the most part, she does not really spin, per se. A lot of the time, her comments are appallingly obtuse red herrings, the ones that are not flat out lies. She became useless in the eyes of most of America the moment she invented "alternative facts." She unintentionally gave away what she is and what she's worth as a professional. Admittedly, she fits right in with any organization that would be run by Trump. But she may as well have quit the next day, because nothing she ever says again will have credibility, and that has not one thing to do with her gender. And if she thinks I'm stretching here, I submit to you Sean Spicer.

As for modern feminism, Conway took a professional job, where her responsibility is putting a positive spin on the most misogynistic guy in America. She's had to put a positive spin on the following:

You know, I'm automatically attracted to beautiful - I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss, I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab them by the pu--y... you can do anything...

And what was Conway's response to this on CNN when, while guesting in the post-debate Spin Room, CNN's Dana Bash asked her about Rep. Kathy McMorris Rodgers' (R-WA) statement that called Trump's comments "sexual assault?" (For context, McMorris Rodgers is not a woman who was throwing the gauntlet down on Trump. She ultimately supported Trump's candidacy for president, and was reported to be the early front runner the Secretary of the Interior, before Trump chose Ryan Zinke. So while she appears to take a strong stance, it wasn't a stance strong enough to affect her support. Just something to keep in mind.)

Conway instead redirected Bash to women Bill Clinton allegedly assaulted and a child rapist that Hillary defended in 1975. Then she continues on, to say that Donald Trump has a decades long track record of respecting women. And ultimately, no one should use the phrase "sexual assault," because she knows him better.

Of course, Conway "knowing him better" might mean something if she had not shown a propensity for obtuse rhetoric and blindness to what's right in front of her and the rest of America, if one simply pays attention. But the woman who defends a narcissistic misogynist who expounds about women's menstruation, belittles women's appearances, and says he can grab women's pu--ies anytime he wants - when he's not grabbing and kissing them with no warning (and that IS the textbook definition of sexual assault, Kelly - that you think otherwise says more about you than you realize) - we are supposed to believe that it's other people who are undercutting modern feminism..

Paris Agreement Withdrawal Belies the Problem with Making America Great Again

President Donald Trump has decided to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement , which went into effect in November 2016. As with most things Trump, there is no teeth in his withdrawal, in that - unlike the Kyoto Protocol - the resolutions for emissions reduction by each country are not legally binding. All reduction goals are voluntary, and each country determines the levels it believes it can achieve. Just like George W. Bush refusing to ratify the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, Trumps reasons are dubiously economic, claiming that the Paris Agreement will cost Americans jobs, increase energy costs, and provide little in the way of enforcement. Not coincidentally, both Trump and Bush are climate change deniers and fiercely supportive of the oil industry. So when they make claims about the increase of energy costs, this is only because both presidents flat out refused to support the push to eliminate fossil fuels and increase renewables. If either one put the support of the federal government behind the effort, there would be plenty of jobs to boost the economy. Trump, on the other hand, still thinks he's going to magically re-animate coal jobs.

Don't get me wrong, I couldn't care less that we pulled out of the agreement, from a practical standpoint. The Paris Agreement is as inconsequential as Trump's withdrawal from it. Enforcement is indeed nonexistent, and why not? The countries didn't have to commit to any specific emissions reduction numbers, yet developed nations like the U.S. had to commit to financial contributions to developing nations for climate protection and technological advancement that were promised back in 2009 - but he disregards the fact that there is no enforcement mechanism to force the U.S. to do anything. So Trump's statements in his speech are highly misleading. The reality is this was a political decision in favor of oil interests, willfully ignorant of the actual regulatory stipulations within the agreement, which there are none. The irony in Trump withdrawing from the agreement is, in the symbolic nature of fulfilling a campaign promise, the symbolism has fractured still more of the global community's trust in the United States. All but two countries were part of the Paris Agreement. The United States joined Nicaragua and Syria as the only countries not participating. Our participation was only important because we are the second largest emitter of CO₂ on the planet, behind only China. So when the rest of the world is trying to reduce the effects of industry on the amount of pollutants in the atmosphere, it helps to have the largest perpetrators as part of the effort. And as usual, Donald Trump gives a fat middle finger to everyone else, because he simply can not stop himself. And China becomes a big winner in all of this because, while the U.S. has been in the process of falling far short of its 2030 goals, China has drastically reduced coal consumption and boosted renewables. They will meet their target ahead of schedule. So Trump withdrawing from the agreement only puts China in the driver's seat as a global leader, the same country that Trump called an enemy, a currency manipulator, and a perpetrator of the climate "hoax" in the first place.

In an even greater irony, Trump claims that he withdrew the U.S. from the agreement so he can renegotiate the agreement. How exactly would that work? First of all, participating countries agreed that the agreement cannot be renegotiated. Wouldn't a president of the United States, who is publicly criticizing the agreement, know that? Second, Trump just spent the last couple of weeks offending most of the global community on his European trip, most overtly Germany, causing Chancellor Angela Merkel to say, "the times when we could completely rely on others are, to an extent, over." She spoke generally, but the underlying specificity was the United States. And after Bush pulling out of the Kyoto Protocol, and now Trump the Paris Agreement, what country will ever trust the U.S. enough to negotiate anything on climate, let alone trust us as a leader on anything in general?

Thus the political impact on our foreign policy could be far more damaging than any climate accords and that's where the symbolic failure really is. If we can't be trusted to maintain and abide by our agreements, who's going to help us when we really need it? With this administration, it has been made abundantly clear that we can not be counted on. Trump is making America great again, even if it is at the expense of our relations with the rest of the world. And we better be full on great, because in Trump's hands, it will be just us. Our allies, such as they are at this point, will have no incentive to work with us; on the contrary, they will have strong disincentives to tie any of their fortunes or stability to us. Our only saving grace right now is that the strongest economic influences in this country are staunchly against Trump's decision, and wrote a letter urging him to remain in the agreement:

CEOs Urge President Trump to Remain in Paris Accord by CNET News on Scribd

Of course these companies have a vested interest in maintaining the United States' standing in the global community. They all do business around the world. They can't afford to have countries hesitate before agreeing to work with them on business dealings or initiatives that could have significant economic impact. Naturally, a few people trying to positively influence President Trump resigned from White House commissions after Trump's announcement, including Tesla/Space X owner Elon Musk, and The Walt Disney Company CEO, Bob Iger. But all of this is inconsequential, if symbolic, because the rest of the world is moving on from fossil fuels, regardless of the efforts by Trump and his administration to prop up the industry.
Coal jobs are gone. Oil companies like ConocoPhillips, Marathon Oil Corp. and Royal Dutch Shell Plc have sold off their Canadian oil sand interests in northern Alberta, and Cheveron and British Petroleum (BP) have been considering doing the same. So while the rest of the world moves on, we'll have Donald Trump, EPA Director Scott Pruitt, the Koch Brothers, et al, living out the last dying breaths of an rapidly decaying industry. Which is why Donald Trump's decision ultimately means nothing, economically and practically, a recurring theme in his short term as president. His incessant need to try to prove he's above everyone else ultimately will make them trust us less, and his decisions on an international scale will have less and less impact, once these other countries accept that America does.not.care.

So while the actual logistical impact of withdrawing from the Paris Agreement was meaningless, the larger foreign policy and international relations implications are why we should have stayed. One might have expected a president and foreign policy advisers to know this and have a better bead on the pulse of the global community. But this is Donald Trump's administration. You can't put the bar low enough for them to clear it without tripping all over themselves. It's what you get when an amateurish, low-information voter wins the White House. But that's okay. America will be made great again.

The GOP Health Care Bill Proves How Little Politicians Care for the People Nowadays

The House of Representatives narrowly passed H.R. 1628 , aka the American Health Care Act, in a 217-213 vote. If you think that bill sounds familiar, you would be correct - it's the same bill from March that was pulled from a vote by House Majority Leader Paul Ryan, because too many far-right voters were opposed to it. The main difference between then and now is the presence of the MacArthur Amendment , so named for it's creator and sponsor, Representative Tom MacArthur (R-NJ). In the amendment, states are allowed to request issuance of a waiver that would allow them to eliminate Obamacare constraints placed on insurers in the individual marketplace if an individual's coverage has lapsed for a minimum period of time. They would be allowed to gouge the price on the individual, for one year after the policy is re- activated. This would include the ban on discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions, as well as the list of essential health benefits that must be included in all plans, such as emergency services, pregnancy/maternity/newborn care, prescription drugs, laboratory services, etc. Theoretically, there are restrictions in the amendment on applying for the waivers that maintain protections for these possibly jeopardized elements, since they keep claiming that they will protect those with pre-existing conditions. But the availability of a waiver means, if a state were to obtain one, the premiums for those in the high-risk pools that would be created could climb so high as to price everyone out of the ability to pay for their coverage. Also, there is no mechanism for enforcement, which is, not so coincidentally, what one would expect from a bill/amendment that was passed with no debate and no Congressional Budget Office (CBO) score. Of course Ryan did it this way - his last go-around with this got shot down. And, not for nothing, the CBO score for the previous iteration of the bill is still problematic, because this new iteration does nothing to improve that score - 24 million insured are still at risk of losing their coverage, and now the waiver could price high-risk pools out of the market. And this says nothing for the 150-200 million people who get their insurance from their employer. If waivers are issued to allow states to define "essential health services," employers would then be free to choose which services are the most fiscally beneficial to the company and elect to offer them instead, which could cut or eliminate services , or place annual limitations on coverage costs. The potential for greater negative impact is pretty high, but there is no way to have accurate adjustments because, again, the CBO was ignored for this go around.

There is also the Upton Amendment , introduced by Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI), which would provide $8 billion in assistance to cover premium increases and out of pocket costs for anyone who is placed in high risk pools, or loses their coverage under the AHCA. This is little consolation, however, when considering $8 billion covers less than 2% of the potential premium hikes that could occur.

The main points are as follows. And remember, most of the original bill remains intact:

Individual Mandate/Funding

• The Individual Mandate is repealed, retroactive to 01/01/2016.
• The tax penalty for non-compliance with the mandate is repealed, retroactive to 01/01/2016.
• Establish State Patient and State Stability Fund of $130 billion/9 years, and an additional $8 billion/5 years for states that elect to use the community rating waivers. These funds are intended to mitigate the impact of increased premiums and out of pocket costs for the high risk pools.
• Funding for Prevention and Public Health Fund is repealed, end of FY2018.
• Supplemental funding of $422 million for community health centers provided for FY2017.
• Establishes a state option to require work as a condition of eligibility for nondisabled, nonelderly, nonpregnant Medicaid adults.

Subsidies

• The subsidies are repealed, effective 01/01/2020.
• Income-based premium tax credits are replaced with age-based flat-tax credits, increasing the percentage above the federal poverty level (FPL)for younger adults, decreasing it for older adults, but the credits are not adjustable by area or region of the country. If you are in New York or Oklahoma, regardless of the cost of living. Eligibility for these credits phase out at income levels between $75,000 and $115,000.
• The credits begin at $2,000 for young people, up to $4,000 for older people. And that's it. You get the same credit no matter how expensive insurance is in your area, which is a large part of the disconnect by politicians to recognize how much they are potentially hurting people with the plan as it is.
• Families can claim credits for up to the five oldest members, capped at $14,000/year total.
• Amounts are indexed annually to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) plus 1%.

Of course, the biggest problem with all of this is exactly what you see from all the politicians. After the bill barely passes, the Democrats chant ("Na na na na, na na na na, hey hey hey, goodbye!"), while Republicans hop on buses to go to the White House to throw a party with Trump in the Rose Garden. Both sides react as if it's a game. Obamacare was pushed through almost as haphazardly and recklessly as this bill was. Most people did not read either one. Nancy Pelosi famously quipped, "We need to pass this bill so we can find out what's in it," in possibly one of the most obtuse statements in political history, when discussing Obamacare. But seven years later, back in March, Pelosi wrote a letter to House Speaker Paul Ryan , saying, "The American people and Members have a right to know the full impact of this legislation before any vote in Committee or by the whole House." In other words, "do as I say, not as I do..."

It feels as though we crossed a threshold. Politicians used to have to at least pretend to care about the people, because the people could vote someone out - and a much more informed electorate had no problem doing that. That's not a problem anymore, thanks to gerrymandering. As the electorate has become more ignorant and uninformed, their dedication to party has only grown more unyielding, it would appear almost out of spite. And politicians love that, because it only further bolsters their methods of pitting one against the other. They don't care about the people, because they no longer have to. It's about us vs. them, and the goal is not to do the work of the people - it's to win, no matter the cost. And that's why we get bills so atrociously put together, and why no one reads them, and why potentially hurting tens of millions of people feels like a such a victory, they need the Rose Garden at the White House to party in celebration of it, despite knowing how bad it is - remember they've exempted themselves from this bill, thanks to arcane Senate rules concerning the MacArthur Amendment - though, to be fair, the House version denies the exemption. No surer sign of how bad something is than to watch Congress exempt themselves from having to abide by it - we'll see if the Senate's version of the bill keeps the exemption. And they've got the Barnum and Bailey Circus ring leader in Donald Trump there to - as expected - ignorantly take credit for this idiocy, and then later praise Australia's prime minister for their health system - a universal health care system that our Congress would burn the Capital building to the ground before they would ever seriously consider.

We have moved beyond serving the people. These politicians, with few exceptions think we live in a capitalist/market-based economy - we don't. Cutting taxes for the rich will not make them expand and hire people. The biggest companies stopped expanding years ago. Increased revenues don't drive up their employment - it simply increases their P/E ratio, and thus their stock value. Tax cuts for the super rich do not drive up employment. Consumers do. Companies don't take tax cuts and expand. Tax cuts go in their coffers. Expansion only happens if they are selling more products or services that cannot be met by current staffing and physical facility levels, which then demands the need for more employees or facilities. That's not what we have nowadays. Most companies "maintain" their business models, and demand more from existing employees to maintain any increases. If tax cuts serve any purpose, it's to upgrade in automation, which ultimately eliminates jobs. Even Trump doesn't understand this. He still thinks coal jobs are coming back.

And this is where the two-party system has gotten us: limiting options to bolster power in small groups. And they will ruin your lives if they can win one more election. It's about winning, not serving. When Mitch McConnell publicly chastises Elizabeth Warren while she's trying to speak on the floor of the Senate one day, then lets a handful of men read the same material the next day and says nothing about any of them, that's the sign. It wasn't about what was right or wrong. It was about the fact that it was Elizabeth Warren, arguably the most powerful woman in the country, and the face of opposition in the Democratic party. He was making sure she knew her place - and the other women in the Democratic party as well. Misogyny is okay, so long as you win. And Mitch McConnell saw to it that every cabinet position was a victory, even changing Senate rules to remove debate. Didn't matter that half of the nominees were wholly unqualified, some not even knowing what their own agencies did. This is about winning. And no uppity woman, like Elizabeth Warren, is going to get in the way of Mitch McConnell's victory, no matter how small. Health care is just one more thing. And whatever the Senate comes up with will be as self serving - and rich serving - as the House version. Count on it.

Tomi Lahren's Comments Spark Backlash and Debate: Is the Constitution Static or Dynamic?

Tomi Lahren visited The View on Friday, March 17, and commented on what, she believed, was the hypocrisy of being for limited government but believing that the government should be telling women what they can do with their bodies. And the conservative establishment lost their minds, backlashing to the point that her TV show "Tomi" has been suspended from the air for at least one week. Glenn Beck then went on his radio show to address Lahren's constitutional stance, while refusing to comment on her long term future at the network.

Beck's stance, of course, is derived from the preamble of the Constitution, in the phrase

"secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."

His interpretation of the phrase is understandable, but it sidesteps the context in which it's written. He states it as if future generations are prioritized over the current generation's right to privacy, and not have the government inside their bedrooms and doctors' examination rooms. It's a strong implication which, if extrapolated out, could justify our government creating a law forcing people to procreate as a condition of acquiring a marriage license - you know, to ensure posterity. Sounds crazy, right? But broad, generalized and context-free arguments are where crazy enters the realm of plausibility. And we currently have just the Congressional makeup for crazy to become law - remember, this is the same Republican party that decided Betsy DeVos was wholly qualified to run the Department of Education, and that Rick Perry - who didn't even know what the Department of Engery does - was a wholly qualified candidate for Secretary. This Republican party is why people were so worried about a guy like Trump winning the White House to begin with - not that forced procreation would ever become a likely reality. Just that a platform for such things would no longer be out of the realm of possibility with people who think their religious beliefs should be the law, yet decry Muslims because terrorists are bringing their Sharia law to our shores to take over our government.

Beck implies that his issue is with Lahren not being able to intellectually back up her statement, but that is a bit specious. Lahren has been a walking microphone of obtuse commentary all along, but THIS was the catalyst that sent The Blaze over the edge and suspended her? The cognitive dissonance never bothered Beck before. Is that because it fell in line with how he saw things? He says no. But the one time she tries to make a point that departs from the line, she's a pariah. It's understandable if Beck's argument is met with doubt.

Back on The View, the hosts reacted to the backlash of Lahren by revisiting her Friday statements on Monday's show, and discussing women's rights briefly. Sunny Hosten, the woman sitting next to Whoopi Goldberg, makes a misapplication here, and no one notices it. She thinks that the "life" part of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" (she says "property") in the Constitution applies easily to protecting zygotes from abortion. First of all, the "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" statement isn't in the Constitution, it's in the Declaration of Independence. That alone changes the context of the statement. Second, even if it was in the Constitution, the intention of such a statement would never have applied the way she was applying it, unless you are trying to really interpret the heck out of it, in which case we start heading back to Glenn Beck's broad interpretation of the preamble. The founders were rarely vague in their intentions. And people who claim to be "originalists" take the Constitution at face value - misguided to the intention of it's structure and form as that may be - and so could never "interpret" a statement to mean anything more than it does. So this type of interpretation flies in the face of how they themselves claim to see the Constitution - as a static document, unyielding in the literal topography to which they are dedicated. Of course, the phrase is not in the Constitution, so Hostin's argument is lost to misapplied context.

Conservatives have never reconciled how/why the limited government tack doesn't apply when it comes to the bedroom:
• Who you have sex with
• What kind of sex you have
• Sex for recreation vs. procreation

Or when it comes to women:
• Their right to prevent pregnancy with contraception
• Their right to prevent a pregnancy with emergency Plan B
• Their right to terminate a pregnancy
• Their right to NOT have the government try to pull manipulative maneuvers to circumvent laws to push their beliefs onto them

And that's why it's difficult to take these pols and pundits seriously. Any commentary that strays from their line - even if it's correct - is unacceptable to them. Liberals do the same thing sometimes, this one just happens to be the conservatives. But the foolishness in general is comical. And it requires so little of people to simply fall in line, that politicians count on it to push their agendas. In that sense, Trump has made it harder for politicians to push their agendas the way they want to, because Trump himself draws so much attention from the populous in it's ire, that legislators are having a difficult time staying under the radar. Just ask Paul Ryan how he's actually feeling these days...

Trump's Journey Into Adulthood Short-Lived

President Donald Trump's speech to Congress was cheered by supporters and mildly applauded by the media as having turned the corner into being "presidential." That he did not exhibit his typical puerile behavior breached a bar so low that people couldn't help themselves in viewing the accomplishment of reading from a teleprompter for an hour as impressive. One might have wondered when the other shoe would drop, since Tuesday night was a stepping outside of Trump's reality for a moment. The other shoe dropped over the weekend, sooner than one would hope, but longer than might have been expected.

While anyone could be forgiven for expecting a Wednesday tweet from Trump, sporting a knowing grin that says, "Nailed it...," that never had the chance to happen, because on that very day, the news comes out that Jeff Sessions did indeed meet with Russian ambassador Sergei Kislyak - twice - leading up to the November election. Of course, the problem isn't so much that Sessions met with him, as much as having said, under oath and unprompted, that he never met with any Russians during the campaign. Sessions, being a lawyer, thought he could get away with some linguistic technicalities that would make Bill Clinton smile with knowing approval. Unfortunately, the rest of the country, as well as the Senate committee, see it as a violation of the spirit of the confirmation hearing questions. Sessions could have said he met with the ambassador in a Senate-related capacity, and left the committee with little else to run with. Instead, he omitted the meetings completely in his answer, in hopes that no one noticed and, if they did, he could fall back on technicality. All very lawyerly.

Trump publicly supports Sessions and says that he should not recuse himself from any investigations, after which Jeff Sessions holds a press conference and does exactly that. And he does it on the same day that Trump campaign advisers J.D. Gordon, Carter Page, and Jared Kushner are outed as to having met Kislyak also. So by the early hours of Saturday morning, Trump is ready to start kicking puppies down the street. And so we get this:


Notice that the first tweet is not about Obama's alleged wiretapping, but about Jeff Sessions meeting the Russian ambassador under circumstances set up by the Obama administration. So right off the bat, there is an attempt to bring Obama into something that had nothing to do with him. If ever there was an indicator of where Trump's head was at ten minutes before he started in on Obama, that's it. But clearly, that tweet wasn't going to accomplish what Trump actually wanted, which is to drag Obama into scandal along with him. So 9 minutes later, we get the "Terrible!" tweet. 7 minutes later, he makes a poor attempt to draw an equivalency of Sessions meeting in the campaign season leading up to the election to all the times the White House met the ambassador over the entirety of Obama's second term. Then he muses legal questions in the next two tweets 7, and again 3, minutes later. The last tweet was 10 minutes later, in which he calls Obama a sick person and equates him to Nixon and Watergate.

The legal tweets are the most amusing, because there's a real argument that could be made against Trump for libel. The Nixon v. Fitgerald opinion states that the president is only protected from civil liability if his actions are done in an official capacity, and he doesn't have protections if his actions, even if official, are criminal. Trump might try to claim that his tweets were in an official capacity, but the argument that tweeting is an official presidential action would have to be made to a judge. He might also try to frame "official actions" around the request that Congress investigate the claims. But even that is questionable, since it wasn't Trump that voiced that request - it was Sean Spicer from his Twitter account the next day:


So Trump has himself a bit of a dilemma. He has accused President Obama of having committed a major felony. He provided no evidence that his building was wiretapped; provided no evidence as to which agency was responsible for physically wiretapping his building; provided no source of the information to which the claim is (not) attributed; provided no evidence that the order, if one was given, came from Obama himself. And that last part is highly unlikely. A judge would have had to issue a warrant, and that judge would most likely have to be in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), under the authority of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). We can all be assured Trump would not have known that little fact, or he would have probably picked something else to manufacture out of thin air to drag Obama into his misery. Instead, the Senate Intelligence Committee now has to request evidence, because they can't ignore that the claim was made. And all of this is made worse, in that Trump never fact-checked his claim with his own people. As NBC reported:

In addition, it seems that Trump did not try to ask his own administration whether the scenario was true. A senior U.S. official in a position to know told NBC News that Trump "did not consult with the people inside the U.S. government who might know before making this claim.

Meanwhile, former Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, went on Meet the Press to tell Chuck Todd that there was no wiretapping of Trump in any way, FBI Director James Comey has requested the Department of Justice make a statement rejecting Trump's claim, and Kevin Lewis, Spokesperson to President Barack Obama issued a statement, that "A cardinal rule of the Obama Administration was that no White House official ever interfered with any independent investigation led by the Department of Justice. As part of that practice, neither President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any U.S. citizen. Any suggestion otherwise is simply false."

All of this speaks to a complete lack of discipline on Trump's part, something that goes back years, and was prevalent throughout the entirety of his presidential campaign. Ironically, Trump has been regularly frustrated with the lack of discipline among several agencies since he took office. Clearly, the example is set at the top.

Response to Trump's Speech to Congress

President Donald Trump's speech to Congress Tuesday night was mostly the expected tropes he's been pushing since he started campaigning. He attempted to highlight accomplishments, while criticizing the state of the country leading up to his inauguration. Most observers seemed to grade him based on his delivery, rather than his policy intentions. As if his ability alone to deliver a speech that didn't reek of a petulant middle schooler anointed the night a success. And fear not, because America is about to be great again:

Dying industries will come roaring back to life; heroic veterans will get the care they so desperately need; our military will be given the resources our brave warriors so richly deserve; crumbling infrastructure will be replaced with new roads, bridges, tunnels, airports and railways, gleaming across our very very beautiful land; our terrible drug epidemic will slow down and, ultimately, stop; and our neglected inner cities will see a rebirth of hope, safety and opportunity; above all else, we will keep our promises to the American people.

ECONOMY/ENVIRONMENT
Trump touted a list of companies who have promised to invest billions of dollars in America, creating "tens of thousands of new American jobs." He gave no specifics, but that was a running theme throughout the speech. After touting a three trillion dollar market gain since his election victory, Trump said:

We saved taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars by bringing down the price of fantastic, and it is a fantastic, new F-35 jet fighter, and we will be saving billions more on contracts all across our government.

Trump has tried taking credit for the F-35 savings before, but the reality is that the Pentagon and F-35 manufacturer Lockheed Martin have been trying to bring down the cost of the F-35 since it's inception. The F-35's three variants- A, B, and C - have come down in cost since each of their inceptions in 2007, 2008, and 2010, respectively. The Pentagon and Lockheed both have been under fire for years for the cost overruns and delays on delivery. They have been actively reducing costs with each lot, and Lot 10 - the next 90 planes to be delivered - will be cheaper still. Trump had nothing to do with the cost reductions, he simply had meetings with Lockheed, where he approved of their cost reduction estimates for the next lot. And then took credit for it.

Trump also remarked that his administration has instituted a hiring freeze on all non-military and non-essential federal workers. Except, of course:

We have undertaken a historic effort to massively reduce job crushing regulations, creating a deregulation task force inside of every government agency.

Trump then reiterated his rule for eliminating two regulations for every new one created. It's one of those statements that sounds good, until one realizes that he mentions no barometer for elimination. Just the 2-for-1 mandate. Whether those regulations were actually needed seems to not matter much. Regulation is bad, and so they must go, because jobs. Never mind that most regulations have little to do with jobs. Any costs for regulation are simply passed down to the consumers, so deregulation for deregulation's sake has never been fiscally justified, except that now companies won't have to care as much about their pollution, which is what most regulations in industry address. It's a bit apropos, then, that Trump signed an executive order earlier in the day to dismantle the Clean Water Rule - and a great piece of irony, when he later said he supported clean air and water.

We have undertaken a historic effort to massively reduce job crushing regulations, creating a deregulation task force inside of every government agency... we're going to stop the regulations that threaten the future and livelihood of our great coal miners.

Nice sentiment, and it got a nice standing ovation from the reds, but it ignores that coal miners' jobs have never been in jeopardy because their companies were not going to be allowed to dump waste into streams. That regulation would only raise energy costs for consumers, if anything. No, coal jobs are suffering because of an inconvenient piece of minutiae that Trump and Republicans always leave out when talking about coal, that being the increasing market share of shale gas. Coal jobs are not coming back. Everyone seems to know that except the president, and an industry that's hanging on by a thread for years. Even when Peabody Coal, Arch Coal, Patriot Coal, and Alpha Natural Resources all went bankrupt, Obama's Clean Power Plan had not yet been implemented. Coal is failing because shale gas is more abundant and cheaper to extract and process, while coal production costs have steadily increased. And they are hit even harder by a depletion in coal reserves, especially in the east. Over a century of mining has depleted the easy-to-get-to reserves. The deeper reserves make it more expensive to get at. And because those reserves are deeper in the earth, coal companies have two issues to deal with: implementing newer technology, at great expense, to get at the deeper reserves, and adhering to regulations that protect worker safety at those depths. Coal doesn't have a great worker safety record, either in mine explosion deaths, or long-term respiratory effects. But as long as the coal companies are able to dump waste into streams...

Trump then highlighted clearing the way to continue the construction of the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines, despite concerns over possible water contamination if the Dakota pipeline, in particular, leaks or breaks deep underground, where it would be almost impossible to get to quickly. If you sense a trend that water isn't too important to these companies, the administration, or Republicans who've pushed for them, you're not having a stroke. These are the same people who think water is a commodity, designed for profit. So naturally, if these pipelines contaminate the water in any way, the biggest beneficiary is Nestle, who owns most of the world's water bottling companies. Their profits will rise as their water access rights become more valuable, and from the increase in demand for bottled water by communities who can't drink their own water.

Trump then discussed pulling from the "job-killing Trans-Pacific Partnership." Not much of a job killer, really, since the TPP had yet to be ratified and implemented - a process that has now been delayed by the U.S. pulling out of it. And what it really did, was eliminate the only obstacle to China expanding it's trade dominion in Asia-Pacific, the main reason we were involved in the first place. But the president does a lot of business in China, whether or not that plays a part... who knows? The more relevant question is this: If China increases their market share of global trade, which would in turn increase their power and influence, how is Trump going to accomplish anything he wants to to with trade? There was a reason we were in the TPP.

Trump said he will reduce the corporate tax rate to prevent corporations from leaving the U.S. He also claimed he will provide massive tax relief for the middle class. He also criticized the tariffs and taxes U.S. exports are levied with, although he ignored that the tariffs aren't paid by the companies, they are passed on to the consumers. So when Harley Davidson, who Trump mentioned specifically, has their motorcycles taxed at 100%, a $22,000 Harley Davidson Fat Boy costs the foreign consumer $44,000. But the buyer pays it, not Harley Davidson.

IMMIGRATION
Standard Trump fare. He's ordered the Department of Justice to form a task force to reduce violent crime, and the Departments of Homeland Security, State, and National Intelligence to form an "aggressive strategy to dismantle the criminal cartels that have spread all across our nation." They are going to "stop the drugs from pouring into our country, poisoning our youth."

COOL. Although, we as a nation have seen how that plays out. The War on Drugs has been an abject failure. Drug imports have increased since it's inception. The only real effect has been on the private prison industry, who are only too happy to take in more inmates. The mandatory minimums are inherently racist, something Trump made no mention of. The biggest epidemics in drug consumption these days are pills, heroin, and meth-amphetamine, all of which are Made in America. A cynical person could see an ad campaign for American manufacturing in there somewhere... or maybe that's just me.

Trump then mentions that enforcing our immigration laws will "raise wages, help the unemployed, and save billions and billions of dollars." He neglects, of course, that raising wages kills jobs, according to the GOP, who have fought to keep wages from rising for anyone, making the immigration argument on that point somewhat moot. Then Trump lays down the boom with his "great great Wall along our southern border." Except immigration from Mexico is the lowest it's been in decades. Maybe that's due to all the manufacturing plants that have been built in major cities in Mexico, providing much needed jobs, and diminishes the need to cross our borders to look for work. Trump's economic plan, naturally, seeks to prevent American companies from opening plants in Mexico, demanding that they open plants in the U.S. instead. As is typical, Trump easily misses the forest for the tree. And all of this ignores that the radical Islamic terrorists he wants to keep out aren't going to come through Mexico, they're more likely to come through Canada - but there's no talk of a wall to the north.

It is not compassion, but reckless, to allow uncontrolled entry from places where proper vetting can not occur... we can not allow a beachhead of terrorism to form inside America, we can not allow our nation to become a sanctuary for extremists.

So the United States will be on par with the Middle Eastern countries he hates, as countries who give sanctuary to terrorists, sounds great. Except the vetting process for Syrian refugees, for example, is already pretty stringent and lengthy. Bill Whitaker, correspondent for 60 Minutes, along with producer Katy Textor, went to the Zaatari refugee camp in Jordan to illuminate the vetting process for refugees in the segment "Finding Refuge." In the segment, Whitaker spoke with Gina Kassem, the regional refugee coordinator at the U.S. Embassy in Amman, who insisted that we see these refugees are "fleeing the terrorists who killed their family members, who destroyed their houses. These are the victims that we are helping through our program."

• Mostly, the focus and priority is directed to victims of torture, survivors of violence, women-headed households, a lot of severe medical cases.
• First things first, they have to register with the United Nations. They are interviewed multiple times by the U.N. to get their vital statistics - in this case, where they came from, and who they know.
• Their irises are scanned to establish their identity.
• Then they wait for the chance the U.N. might refer them to the United States. Less than one percent have had that chance.
• For that one percent, the next step is the State Department resettlement center in Amman for a background check led by specially trained Department of Homeland Security interrogators. They are interviewed multiple times, with interviewers looking for gaps in their stories.
• All that information is then run though U.S. security databases for any red flags, a process that takes an average of 18-24 months. Those who pass are then told to pack up for their new life in the United States.

There has been a "surge operation" in effect, to try to perform all of the vetting in about three months, instead of 18-24. But the process is the same regardless of the time length, and only the smallest percentage of applicants make it all the way through the process to get the chance to come here. It's not just potential terrorists that are denied entry, harmless, innocent people are as well. Nonetheless, Trump suspended the vetting of Syrian refugees in his first Muslim ban attempt.

DRAINING THE SWAMP
This has been the catch phrase of Trump's campaign since the very beginning.

We have begun to drain the swamp of government corruption, by imposing a five year ban on lobbying by executive branch officials, and a life time ban on becoming lobbyists for a foreign government.

Which is fine. But every time he says that, all I see is the lobbyists he hired to run the different divisions of his transition team, and the unqualified/interest-conflicted cronies that he appointed to run his Cabinet departments. I've said it before, the swamp is not draining, so much as bubbling vigorously.

OBAMACARE
Trump again promised to repeal the ACA, with no real plan to replace it. He did demand that they expand choice, increase access, lower cost, and at the same time, provide better health care. He called for preexisting conditions to have access to coverage, and a provision for the currently enrolled to have a stable transition from the exchanges. He urged the use of tax credits and expanded Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) to purchase the insurance plans people want, not the plan the government forces them to buy. Reasonable enough request, but he once again left out little details, like how poor people are supposed to save money in HSAs, when they exist paycheck to paycheck. Poor people do not save money. And tax credits are after the fact. Poor people would still have to have the money to buy coverage first. Again, poor people lack the resources, something a rich person like Trump, and most of Congress, seem cognitively dissonant to.

Trump also encouraged the provision of resources and flexibility with Medicaid for state governors to ensure no one is left out. State governors already have that, and a whole host of them rejected exchanges in their state, and refused to expand Medicaid. My hometown state of Florida is a prime example, with governor Rick Scott refusing to do anything to help Floridians get covered.

He then stated that legal reforms should be implemented to protect patients and doctors from unnecessary costs that drive up the price of insurance; and work to bring down the artificially high price of drugs immediately, to which he smiled and pointed to Bernie Sanders, who was sitting in the third row from the front, behind the Joint Chiefs. I imagine Sanders at least smirked back, because that has been one of his loudest complaints about our health care system, one that has fallen on deaf ears in the red light district of Congress. And one would presume that it's a sticking point where the president departs from the position of his party, which tends to protect the profits of Big Pharma. Trump then finished that section by endorsing insurance policy sales across state lines. This is a popular trope of the reds, who think free national markets everywhere will drop prices. But this, again, ignores the larger issue: Letting insurers shop for the state regulator of their choice can cause a lot of problems. Some industries already do it. Think credit card companies all being in South Dakota, Delaware being the state-side Bermuda of incorporation, New Jersey being the capital of debt collectors, etc. Insurers all end up in whatever state offers the weakest regulations. So a patient who gets sick could be screwed because comprehensive policies are few and far between, and consumer protections might be just as weak if something goes awry. Moreover, the local/regional network setups and price negotiations are costly to try to do locally for nationwide access. That is more of an impediment to interstate insurance sales than regulations. And Trump was either ignorant or coy when he mentioned his own company. Almost all big employers - and Trump, with his "thousands of employees" would be one - don't buy health insurance. They self-insure. Basically, once a company gets big enough, it's cheaper for them to cover the costs of health care, rather than pay premiums to someone else to cover their employees. And almost every major corporation does that, because it saves them tens of millions of dollars per year. So when they talk about employer health care benefits, ignore any statement on the subject from corporate bigwigs. They are in a different world. This is about small business and the self-employed.

EDUCATION
Trump highlighted Denisha Merriweather, who struggled in elementary school, until she was able to enroll in a private learning center with the help of tax credits and a scholarship program. She is now about to get her Masters degree from the University of South Florida. And she is an example of success with accessibility to other educational options. Merriweather stands as the light in the darkness of public education, or so Trump and new Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos would have us think. But in the real world, private charter schools have experienced higher rates of failing grades. In 2011, Florida had around 3,000 public schools and 350 charter schools. 31 schools received failing grades. Of those 31, 15 were charter schools. They accounted for 10% of the schools, but 48% of the failures.

It gets worse for vouchers. In the past 18 months, 3 major studies of voucher programs were conducted, one each in Indiana, Lousiana, and Ohio. In a New York Times :The Upshot article, New America's Kevin Carey reported on the results. In all three studies, voucher students fared worse in math and reading than students who remained in public schools. In the Louisiana study, the results were stark. In math, students weren't just worse, they were worse by half. Students in the 50th percentile in public school dropped to the 26th percentile in private school. The Times article came at the right time, as DeVos is a big proponent of school choice through voucher programs. The article did mention that there was a modest improvement in achievement in public schools that were voucher-eligible, hinting that competition from voucher schools might spur improvements in public schools. But for students to fare so badly across the board in the three states with the largest programs doesn't bode well for the viability of a national voucher system, to which Trump and DeVos have planned to dedicate $20 billion.

LAW ENFORCEMENT/MILITARY
The chamber went purple for Trump's avowed support for law enforcement and calls for unity between communities and their police officers. But moments later, groans were heard from the blue light district when Trump announced his Victims Against Immigration Crime Engagement (VOICE) program, essentially targeting immigrants who commit crimes for deportation. He highlighted Jameel Shaw, who lost his 17-year old son to a gang attack; Susan Oliver, with her daughter Jenna, and Jessica Davis, whose police officer husbands were gunned down by an immigrant who had two deportation notices against him.

Trump urged for the elimination of the defense spending sequester, enacted through the Budget Control Act of 2011, to increase defense spending, and increase funding for Veterans support services, which most Americans agree has been underwhelming for decades, and one of the few moments of purple support across the chamber. He pointed to Corrine Owens, whose Navy SEAL husband Ryan was killed in the Yemen raid. He also again touted the raid as an overwhelming success, yielding vast amounts of intelligence. Owens received the longest applause of the night.

Trump reasserted his intention to assure other countries are contributing to foreign efforts, both in forces and finances. He postured himself as only the representative of the United States, not the world. He ended the night with hope and confidence in the American spirit, where dreams can come true, and the re-establishment of American greatness begins.

Transgender Wrestler Highlights Birth Certificate Flaws

UPDATE: This post has been updated to include a video interview of attorney Jim Baudhuin, and updated information in SportsDay's article, regarding the identity of the plaintiff in the lawsuit against the UIL.

Meet Mack Beggs. He's a junior at Trinity High School in Euless, Texas. He wrestles in the 110-lb. weight class for Trinity's wrestling team. He finished his season undefeated, 44-0. As reported by SportsDay, he captured the University Interscholastic League (UIL) Class 6A Region II chamionship last Friday, February 17, 2017. His next competition is for the state title. Seems like a normal elite high school athlete. But that's where normal ends for this athlete. Mack is the subject of a fiercely tense debate, and a lawsuit against the UIL. For Mack Beggs was born a female.

Beggs began his transition from female-to-male two years ago. As is normal for female-to-male transition, he takes testosterone treatments to raise his Dihydrotestosterone (DHT) levels into the normal range of a male. These levels are how a female's musculature, shape, hair growth, etc., enable Beggs to have the build, look, and feel of a male. These are normal, typical treatments. As such, Beggs is exempt from the athletics rule banning steroids, because they are medically necessary, and he is under the care of a physician during this lengthy process.

The athletic steroid ban is the reason for the lawsuit filed, two weeks before the match, by attorney Jim Baudhuin, the parent of a Coppell High School wrestler, on behalf of plaintiff Pratik Khandelwal, whose daughter also wrestles for Coppell. Both Baudhuin's and Khandelwal's daughters would not have competed against Beggs, as they are in different weight classes. Baudhuin urged the UIL to suspend Beggs for steroid use, but Beggs' treatments are exempted from the rule under a "safe harbor" clause. Come last Friday, Beggs won his championship match on Friday because his opponent, Coppell's Madeline Rocha, forfeited the match.

And Baudhuin emphasized that his complaint was not that Mack was transgender. He was fine with that. It is that Mack's treatments give him an unfair advantage against female opponents. The argument has merit. Why, you might ask, doesn't Mack just wrestle on the boys team, where the testosterone levels will be on par, and not an advantage? Good question. Beggs, with the help of his mother, Angela, tried that. They couldn't get the UIL to budge from the rules stipulated in Paragraph g and h of Subchapter J, Section 360 of the UIL Constitution and Contest Rules, which states:

(g) Boys may not wrestle against girls, and vice versa. This prohibition is only applicable when the contest is held in Texas or in any other state that sponsors wrestling programs for both boys and girls.
(h) Gender shall be determined based on a student’s birth certificate. In cases where a student’s birth certificate is unavailable, other similar government documents used for the purpose of identification may be substituted.

Parents may be dismayed at the physical disadvantage their daughters face, and many are worried that the disadvantage is unsafe for their daughters, and rightly so. And it seems that the frustration of parents, as well as the focus of the lawsuit, is aimed at the UIL and not not Mack Beggs. But when the UIL proposed to formalize the gender policy (it had informally already been in use to that point), according to a Oct. 2015 Texas Tribune article, "the 32 member legislative council on Monday passed on an opportunity to vote on the proposed rule. Instead, the council decided to send it to the superintendents of member districts — with a recommendation that they approve it." So the rule formally went on the books at the approval of district superintendents, not the UIL. The UIL just adopted the rule and enforces it. So it's likely that the lawsuit needed to include the superintendents to have any legal weight to change the rule. Buidhuin may find that out for himself in court.

From a social equality standpoint, this situation is fantastic. Mack isn't "taking advantage." He doesn't want to compete with the girls. He's being forced to. He's being forced by an association rule, that is engendered by obtuse legislators at the state level, who want to force their version of "societal norms" on people who are outside of those norms.

And not for nothing, Mack won't have this problem once he graduates. In 2010, the NCAA adopted the "NCAA Inclusion of Transgender Student-Athletes," adopted by the Office of Inclusion in August 2011. It states:

The following policies clarify participation of transgender student-athletes undergoing hormonal treatment for gender transition:

1. A trans male (FTM) student-athlete who has received a medical exception for treatment with testosterone for diagnosed Gender Identity Disorder or gender dysphoria and/or Transsexualism, for purposes of NCAA competition may compete on a men’s team, but is no longer eligible to compete on a women’s team without changing that team status to a mixed team.
2. A trans female (MTF) student-athlete being treated with testosterone suppression medication for Gender Identity Disorder or gender dysphoria and/or Transsexualism, for the purposes of NCAA competition may continue to compete on a men’s team but may not compete on a women’s team without changing it to a mixed team status until completing one calendar year of testosterone suppression treatment.

Any transgender student-athlete who is not taking hormone treatment related to gender transition may participate in sex-separated sports activities in accordance with his or her assigned birth gender.

• A trans male (FTM) student-athlete who is not taking testosterone related to gender transition may participate on a men’s or women’s team.
• A trans female (MTF) transgender student-athlete who is not taking hormone treatments related to gender transition may not compete on a women’s team.

So if Mack wants to complete in college, he will be required to compete as a man, because he takes hormone treatments. If Mack decides to try out for the Olympics, they have specific rules as well. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) held the "IOC Consensus Meeting on Sex Reassignment and Hyperandrogenism" in November 2015. Since 2003, transgender athletes have been allowed to compete with their respective genders provided they had undergone sexual reassignment surgery, the prevailing theory being that the surgery would have required the hormone therapy. At this meeting, the IOC agreed "the following guidelines to be taken into account by sports organisations when determining eligibility to compete in male and female competition:"

1. Those who transition from female to male are eligible to compete in the male category without restriction.
2. Those who transition from male to female are eligible to compete in the female category under the following conditions:
   1. The athlete has declared that her gender identity is female. The declaration cannot be changed, for sporting purposes, for a minimum of four years.
   2. The athlete must demonstrate that her total testosterone level in serum has been below 10 nmol/L for at least 12 months prior to her first competition (with the requirement for any longer period to be based on a confidential case-by-case evaluation, considering whether or not 12 months is a sufficient length of time to minimize any advantage in women’s competition).
   3. The athlete's total testosterone level in serum must remain below 10 nmol/L throughout the period of desired eligibility to compete in the female category.
   4. Compliance with these conditions may be monitored by testing. In the event of non-compliance, the athlete’s eligibility for female competition will be suspended for 12 months.

So Mack can even try out for the Olympics, with the caveat that the IOC may monitor his testosterone levels to ensure they don't exceed normal levels for male athletes. He will never be able to compete with women again, and that will suit him just fine. The point is that at all upper levels of athletic competition, transgender athletes are able to compete, with their identified genders. And the lawsuit against the UIL isn't asking that Mack be banned altogether - just that he can't compete with girls. And it's a reasonable request.

And take a close look at Mack, because it speaks to the larger societal problem. Is there anything in the photo above that looks female? Of course not. But THAT is what girls will see in their restrooms in schools and public facilities, if transgender males like Mack are forced to use female restrooms. The argument is always framed in the guise of "criminals" and "pedophiles," who will dress up like women and infiltrate female restrooms and rape little girls till their heart's content. It is a fake argument, being that female public restrooms are all closed-stall. Women won't even know if a transgender female is in the restroom most of the time, because they are typically behind closed doors. It is a ploy based in fear, bigotry and false equivalence. Conversely, the rules - as the legislature wants them - will make interactions that do happen with transgenders a lot more awkward and worrisome, because they won't wonder if the girl next to them is a guy. They'll see what is, quite obviously, a guy standing next to them and wonder if he belongs there. And if that guy worries them, and they report a guy in the women's restroom, are they saying it's okay for authorities to yank the guy out of the restroom and pull his pants down to verify there's a vagina? Always on their high horse, the people shouting the loudest about transgenders in restrooms, in states like Texas and North Carolina, are ignorant to the consequences of getting what they want. Transgenders don't use restrooms matching their gender to inflame paranoia. If anything, in addition to being how they are most comfortable, they do it to make everyone else feel less awkward. Somehow, lawmakers have ignored the reality that the rules they want to implement are counter- intuitive to the safety, security, and peace of mind they claim to be fighting to ensure. Politicians, always good for fanning the flames of their own failures...

Mack undoubtedly has no desire to become the poster-child of the transgender debate. He just wants to wrestle - with the guys. But the hand being forced in this situation belies the true effects of preventing transgenders from being who they are. Mack is wiping the floor with the girls in his wrestling district. He likely will do the same thing at state. And the parents, teachers, associations, agencies, and legislators, who refuse to see reason, can sit and watch as he wipes the floor with them - it's their fault it's happening.