Hairy Tranny Men calling themselves women are not giving up Male "Priviledge" but Male "Responsibility"

 I watched in a recent debate with Steven Crowder and a tranny Mayor where the Tranny Mayor actually said that he gave up his Male "privilege" to become a woman. Okay lets talk about "male privilege" for a moment if I left my wife and kids as a straight cis male and decided that I would not support them anymore because lets say I desired the companionship of prostitutes there is a good chance that my former wife would do everything possible legally by these courts of the United States to get the money owed to her children. I think that is fair to say while I would be looked upon as a dead beat and a horrible father. I can see feminist outraged telling me I should be ashamed of myself for not taking responsibility for my family. I think they would have a right to be outraged. On the other hand in the case of a guy who chooses to live his life as a little girl is considered a hero even though he leaves his kids and wife to pursue his insanity. How is my lifestyle of sharing with prostitutes any different than an idiot who decides to put on a dress and walk off with a clean slate because he now has identified as a woman? This has happened before I know now that these men who want to put on a dress are not sacrificing privilege they are sacrificing responsibility.

  1. Men are Natural Born Leaders

 The African man who teaches his son to hunt because it is survival and he knows his son must be prepared to hunt 24 hours a day because he does not know when he has to be called to be the sole care giver of his family. If pregnancy was a factor in the Male hunter's life then it would weaken his chances of surviving. It is not Patriarchy it is nature. We as men have been given a strong responsibility if a Man does not take care of his own he is shamed and should rightfully so be if he chooses a wife which is a good thing taught by tradition it is his responsibility to rule with kindness and not meanness. If I raise my fist in anger against my wife I will most of the time be charged with assault not because of privilege but because of responsibility. I have great power being the stronger physical one in the male and female relationship and with great power according to Uncle Ben comes great responsibility. Boys dream of being Knights saving princesses from the dragons exposing their weakness because the dragon is stronger than the man and the Man needs to overcome the dragon with more then just brute force on the other hand girls dream of being a princess who are beautiful and worth being saved and there is a woman right now just completing a romance novel where the brute man is taking charge in the sexual intercourse with a woman because hey she likes it that way and you know what honestly a lot of women like it that way. It is called being a woman.

The word minister derives it's meaning from the word servant. If You become a leader you provide a service to others one service could be leadership and Morale. If you choose the role of a leader whether it be a Mother and Father or a Pastor or say a statesmen or foreman on a job there is a lot of sacrifice to get there. We as Americans are privileged. We were given one of the greatest gifts that God can bestow on any individual that gift is being an American. We as Americans knew when you were a child that sex roles were given by God whether it be male or female and we know through science that men and women are not equal. I can't have babies and well Women make terrible Navy S.E.A.L.S deal with it Demi Moore. I think it is a little sacrifice that I cannot enjoy the suffering and joy of Motherhood on the other hand women sacrifice the physicality that men are given so they can become good mothers. This is just nature go to any tribe around the world and you will see that is the way it is Women Mother and Men Father. It does not mean they will always be good mothers and fathers but regardless, it is what they are born to do. There is no conspiratorial group who flew to the jungles of Africa or the Amazon and said well Women you will give birth and Men well you will teach your child to Hunt.

2. There is nothing wrong with being a jerk for a good cause.

 The point is there is two choices for many men in this modern age accept your responsibility as a man or reject it and put on a dress and be praised by the social warriors as a hero and then years later realize that you might have made a wrong choice. I think that many men have felt the stress of the choice of being a man. In today's society there is Father's day and that is about it for men who take care of their children. Then there are Fatherless men who feel less of men because they do not have heir's to the throne. Whether or not you are a Father or not the role of leader falls upon your shoulders many times whether it be a minister in a church or Sunday School teacher or Coach or Manager at work. You are criticized when you do not step up to these roles many times.  Young men come up to you for leadership. The old proverb that talks about as a man gets older he becomes the wise sage the woman however fades out as does her beauty rings true today. When Laci Green gets fat and old and ugly no one will listen to her spout victimhood status that is the way it is. The worst thing is that women will be the ones who won't listen to her. That is the way it is. As I get older in life it is the men who act like "real Men" who impress me the most the "Jerks" the guys who stand by their principles who impress me the most. The men who act like victims do not impress me. The men who realize they have a job to do and won't be rewarded for it. Those guys really make me want to be a man more. I have no idea why a Man would give up his responsibility as a man? I can understand the choice of not accepting the path that is rough in becoming a man and I have been there. God is molding me right now in my life to make that step in becoming a better man. A Man of His own choosing and the first step is to stop listening to the temptation of becoming a victim.

Are Sacturary cities Constitutional ? I really want to Know!

  
When it comes to legislation I love gridlock, let me explain, think of all the unjust laws that our in the books of laws and then think how many that would be out there if we did not have gridlock or checks and balances. Even an opposing movement or Idea or organization can be a tool to be used to keep me or you from abusing the authority we have been blessed with in this country we do not want any organization to have too much power of authority whether it be A Church, Trade Union, Business ,Environmental Lobbyist, The Film Industry, and especially Federal Civil Government.

 I am a constitutionalist and a social conservative which means live right and you will not need civil government to punish you and that the United States Constitution is the supreme Law of the Land. I believe that a social conservative and a libertarian Idea such as The United States Constitution can coincide. You see as a social conservative we are bullied because of our Ideas on lifestyle and sometimes improperly legislated against. I am not going to assume why this happens but there is a blockade to prevent extensive legislation that hurt social conservatives and that blockade is the United States Constitution. Many times the supreme court when looking at the United States Constitution have given victories to social conservatives such as the recent decision to allow Hobby Lobby to choose what form of birth control to give their employees. I know as a constitutionalist I know our founders never dreamed that civil government would be in the affairs of business government such as birth control but that is the slow descent of where are freedoms have been taken away to argue for or against this claim of usurpation I would have to cite the constitution because again I am a Constitutionalist. I have a blog article where I discuss business and Property rights in the blog. This blog however is about sanctuary cities and if you are going to be against sanctuary cities or for them, buddy you better have a constitutional argument against or for them. I do not want to see propaganda films showing the big eyed kid being taken away from  their mother. We all know one of the biggest serial killers in England was a mother who was protected by the Father and do not show me the stats where Rape rises because of the fluctuation of Immigrants, rape is big in Chicago from illegal-immigrants as well as Chicago original residents. I want to know the constitutionality of the existence of the "Sanctuary Cities" This blog article looks at both sides of the Argument and if I feel like it I will write my opinion which is about as important as Meryl Streep's opinion on MMA Fighting.

 The Constitutional Argument For Sanctuary Cities

Under the Constitution, State and Local governments have every right to refuse to help enforce federal law. In Cases like Printz v. United States and New York v. United States 1992 the Supreme Court has ruled that the tenth amendment forbids federal "commandeering" of State Government to help enforce Federal Law.  This might help you understand why States are allowed to make laws on Abortion as well. What happened in the Printz Case The Brady Handgun Violence Act required "local chief law enforcement officers" to perform background-checks on perspective handgun purchasers, until such times as the Attorney General establishes a federal system for this purpose.

 County Sheriffs Jay Printz and Richard Mack, separately challenged the Brady Bill. In Both cases District Courts found the background checks unconstitutional.  In other words according the cases Local Government do not have to enforce Federal Law, you know like force a county clerk to marry a homosexual couple just kidding. You know what I am saying. Court cases like the one in Chicago also have said that cities and towns are free to expand the availability of social services however they please, then came the Supreme Court which ruled that cities had to give to everyone these social services including natural born and unnatural born citizens. This argument not only says that Cities do not have to enforce Federal Law but at the same time that basic social services given to citizens must be given to non citizens as well. One might argue that Jerry Brown has more authority over the "Sanctuary Cities" in California then the President of the United States due to the Tenth Amendment.

  The Constitutional Argument Against Sanctuary Cities 

  States refusing to obey federal Law can go back to where Virginia and Kentucky once blocked enforcement of the Alien and Sedition Acts passed in 1798 during the Quasi War with the French. Some states refused to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act and South Carolina also refused to enforce Federal tariffs. Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution reads This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, Shall be the Supreme Law of the Land: And the Judges in Every States shall be bound thereby, Any thing in the Constitution or laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.

 What is the Law that Federal Law Enforcement are to enforce? Well that law would be found in the US Code Title 8 Chapter 12 Subchapter 2 part VIII Section 1325  

 Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. The Keyword is the United States not State. In a Recent Debate in the New  York Times Jan C. Ting a Professor at Temple University's Beasley School of Law Argued that

 It was right for these politicians to critique sanctuary policies: Laws imposed locally for the protection of illegal immigrants interfere with the normal cooperation between law enforcement agencies.
That is why the Department of Justice under Attorney General Loretta Lynch, under pressure from a Republican Congress, notified sanctuary cities that they must be in compliance with 8 USC Section 1373, which prohibits any agency from restraining the exchange of information among federal, state and local agencies regarding the immigration status of any individual. The attorney general warned that sanctuary cities would not receive Justice Department funding in the current 2017 fiscal year if they did not comply. President-elect Trump and the Republican Congress can be expected to attempt to cut other federal funding to sanctuary cities in 2017.
Any prohibition against state and local officers sharing information and cooperating with federal immigration enforcement is a threat to public safety, and should not be supported by federal funding.
Law enforcement agencies have traditionally relied on each other for support and back-up in carrying out their respective missions: It helps build trust and avoids unhappy surprises. Now, more than ever, with law enforcement officers and agencies under both scrutiny and attack, such coordination and cooperation should be facilitated and encouraged.

Well now it's my Turn

  I love the tenth amendment and the Constitution and I abhor federalism and the centralization of anything for instance why should Mississippi be forced to teach evolution and why the heck should New York be forced to teach Creation? The bottom line States have certain Sovereign rights except when they violate the Constitutional rights of others and in some case Human rights in the case of slavery many slaves were not born in this country and were treated wrongly does that mean that men and women of different states have the right to step in?  Yes because one's God given rights have been violated. State rights that involve the removal of individual rights are not protected by the Constitution and calls for the interventions if need be. The tenth amendment leaves all thing not listed in the Constitution up to the states that is why the Constitution is pure and simple. If state taxes Alcohol accordingly it has that right. The right to alcohol is not listed in the bill of rights sorry drunks deal with it. In the Case of the Printz Case we see the Brady bill as an Unconstitutional Law yes so law enforcement do not have to enforce that law see the United States constitution you know the Second Amendment.

  The Question is do Local Law Enforcement have to corporate with Federal Law Enforcement on Immigration Law? Here is the Real Question are Immigration Laws Unconstitutional? Well no obviously Immigration Laws were legally passed through Congress constitutionally and therefore have to be enforced whether local governments agree to them or not which in many case can cause a civil war so we are right at a place where this needs to go to the supreme court and I would tell Jerry Brown and Lawyers to gather their information and lets hear their case and side of the Argument and go from there. I have a indication due to recent rulings on Abortion and the hearing of testimony on whether any rights are violated especially civilians of the United States that Sanctuary cities will become legal at this time they are not deemed legal and must abide by the current immigration law. I have mentioned before Loretta Lynch pointed that out to Sanctuary cities recently. I have pointed out right now Sanctuary Cities are in no way Constitutional but States do have the right to Challenge the Current Laws that are on the books and of course if you go by the legal theory of Nullification. The Federalist Papers would say that the role of states is to "sound the Alarm" regarding any unconstitutional exercise of power by Congress which include maybe wrongful Immigration laws that might harm Human rights if there be any in the books. The Constitution according to the Federalist papers gives the Supreme Court the power to review decisions of state courts in cases arising regarding the Constitution or Federal Law. In other words lets see this thing in court before we force any Cities to abide by Federal Law and go from there. 

Biffburroughs Respond to your Comments

 Comments and more Comments which are coming in on a daily basis on my YouTube channel, I do not respond to all of the comments because it becomes a huge waste of time especially when I do not have my mobile connected to my YouTube channel. Many Comments are not worth the time to respond. I really like just making the video and leaving the stage if you will because once you get caught in an argument on YouTube you are just spitting in the wind. The time you took to spit is the time that you could be making a blog like this one. Many commenters do not have real comments and are sometimes just Trolls or spammers. I try to keep an open forum in the comment section I did not start out that way to begin with. I have had several YouTube channels and comments were so outrageous and weird that I just blocked people now I realize those idiots that I blocked are the reason that some people have views so hey just keep the idiots online and hope someone has time to argue with them because I sure don't.
Well here are some Commenters and here is my response

 Dear Kevin Kipp:
 All I can Say is that I just read them and I do not Write Them most of the time. As far as Drama The Video has over ten thousand views and people rather hear and see the drama then me just reading. It is what is called making a story more interesting. There are plenty of places on YouTube to get drama free news, so try there to each his own not everyone likes onions.

Dear David Jones:
 Good Point! I keep that in mind at the firing range.
Dear S3PKAS ihjyugft
 I like kitties to but they are not for eating just looking they are so kawaii!

 Dear Filip Nikolic:
 We should do nothing to them they have a right to exist, but just like any ideology that they teach for instance we have a right to challenge it. The internet has educated many on the subject of toxic feminism and has freed many minds from the wrong Ideology, if you stick to your guns you will have a higher percentage of wins in the debate. You will not win every battle that is just life.

 Dear enlightenmenow1
 I really do not have a cause for you to join. At one time that would have been the case to join liberals and feminist for a cause like this but the liberals of today are not liberals of the classical sense and feminism of today is not the Susan B Anthony's of yester year. I would say your quote liberal friends are not of the liberals of today who embrace Marxism again I just read them I do not write all of them. The problem of liberalism is that the meaning changes as the years progress where as a conservative is one who wants to conserve and be responsible for their own action.
 I have given you an Idea of what I get as far as comments. You are free to comment on the channel but do not expect me to respond . I want to make videos for all of you that is good and I thank you for all the subscriptions.