Office of Senator Clarence

[Lincoln Republican]

Senator Clarence on Attack on Israeli Tourists

"I offer my condolences to the families and friends of those murdered today in Bulgaria and will keep those recovering from their injuries in my prayers. It is a sad reflection on our world today that Jews still are not safe from hate and terror... I don't know who is behind these attacks but urge the Napoleon Administration to cooperate with the Israelis and our other allies to find out and bring them to swift justice. If Iran is found to be behind these attacks- I urge President Napoleon to stand alongside our ally Israel as they respond in whatever manner they see fit to this act of war."

Well said Senator Clarence.  I fully concur.

[CLARENCE 2015!]

I have written an open letter to President Napoleon regarding my upcoming resolution authorizing the use of force against Iran- this letter is below...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Donerail]

Uh... they've already got them (it's why when I was SoEA we strengthened ties with our Arab allies.and attempted to do the same with Israel).

[CLARENCE 2015!]

Uh... they've already got them (it's why when I was SoEA we strengthened ties with our Arab allies.and attempted to do the same with Israel).

All the more reason- if they have them, they can enhance and multiply their arsenal with increasing ease... it will only become more difficult

[CLARENCE 2015!]

I have now submitted the resolution authorizing the President to initiate military action against Iran...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[CLARENCE 2015!]

Senator Clarence on Equal Rights Amendment

I've seen the ERA proposed by Senator Scott that will soon be before the Senate... I stand opposed to the ERA in its present form for the following reasons which I will also express in the Senate-

1- ERA places a blanket ban on any organization which discriminates membership based on sex. Now you may see discriminate as a bad word as we should... but should the Boys Scouts and Girls Scouts be integrated? What about Boys State and Girls State or the YMCA or fraternities and sororities in schools? I couldn't stand for the Moose or the Masons being forced to admit women. I don't believe these organizations are discriminatory or sexist and should not be penalized or forced to change their membership policies

2- ERA would render women eligible for the draft and for placement in combat arms occupations in the military. Both of these are unacceptable to me and unless an exception is made for this- the ERA will never have my support or the support of most women I know...

3- ERA does not address the issue of transgenders but may include them. I am proud to stand for gay rights but believe it is clear that a transgender is choosing to dress or act as the opposite sex or receive a sex change operation. Being a homosexual may not be a personal choice... being a transgender clearly is and I can not stand for allowing men dressed as women being permitted to use the women's restroom- if restrooms are still divided by sex under the ERA

These concerns and many others are the reasons why ERA has failed time and time again... such a blanket law is well-intentioned and I suport the sponsor's intent but the ERA is not the way to go about it. If these concerns are not addressed thru amendments I will propose to the legislation- I will not support the legislation

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

1. I might be wrong, but I believe that most discriminatory practices on gender equality are already prohibited by law, and therefore, all appropriate organizations are exempted from those laws under appropriate circumstances.  Nevertheless, I am willing to write in exceptions for gender groups that don't stand for sexism.

2. I'm actually not very comfortable with gender exceptions on drafting.  Of course, I am vehemently opposed to drafts under any circumstances, but I think women that were to be drafted would likely end up working in positions that have limited (if any) combat involved.  However, if this becomes an issue, I will write a provision into the amendment to fix this.

3. I think that transgendered males are still defined as males under the law, and so would be subject to restroom policies- the same would apply for females.

President Napoleon, as the author of this amendment, your input would be appreciated.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

3. I think that transgendered males are still defined as males under the law, and so would be subject to restroom policies- the same would apply for females.

What set of people do you mean by 'transgendered males'? My opinion of the language usage and of the current law is unformed until this is cleared up.

To Senator Clarence, dressing as such-and-such (gender expression or performativity for people who are hip to the lingo) can certainly be argued to be choices, but the feelings and perceptions that underlie this aren't, so it's a matter of how one is to deal with where what isn't a choice becomes what, arguably, is. It's similar to the distinction between homosexual inclinations and homosexual actions that for example the Roman Catholic Church makes.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

3. I think that transgendered males are still defined as males under the law, and so would be subject to restroom policies- the same would apply for females.

What set of people do you mean by 'transgendered males'? My opinion of the language usage and of the current law is unformed until this is cleared up.

To Senator Clarence, dressing as such-and-such (gender expression or performativity for people who are hip to the lingo) can certainly be argued to be choices, but the feelings and perceptions that underlie this aren't, so it's a matter of how one is to deal with where what isn't a choice becomes what, arguably, is. It's similar to the distinction between homosexual inclinations and homosexual actions that for example the Roman Catholic Church makes.

Sorry for not making that clear- I was referring to men whose gender identities conform to those of females and presumed that men which are in that demographic are required to use men's restrooms and that this wouldn't be affected by the amendment.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

3. I think that transgendered males are still defined as males under the law, and so would be subject to restroom policies- the same would apply for females.

What set of people do you mean by 'transgendered males'? My opinion of the language usage and of the current law is unformed until this is cleared up.

To Senator Clarence, dressing as such-and-such (gender expression or performativity for people who are hip to the lingo) can certainly be argued to be choices, but the feelings and perceptions that underlie this aren't, so it's a matter of how one is to deal with where what isn't a choice becomes what, arguably, is. It's similar to the distinction between homosexual inclinations and homosexual actions that for example the Roman Catholic Church makes.

Sorry for not making that clear- I was referring to men whose gender identities conform to those of females and presumed that men which are in that demographic are required to use men's restrooms and that this wouldn't be affected by the amendment.

I'd recommend using 'male-to-female transgendered people', which is considerably less confusing, in the future. (For the record, if that is the current state of the law, I oppose it, but I doubt this Senate will change it.)

[CLARENCE 2015!]

Senator Clarence on National Security Committee

"Seems I've lost out on my bid to serve on the Senate's new National Security Committee but I am very pleased with the committee's membership... one of the members is Redalgo who I have very much enjoyed working with in the Senate and the other two described their views as "similar to Clarence's" so I am confident these views will be represented. I will continue to be vocal on national security issues...."

On Power to Parents Act

"Despite SEnator Redalgo's declaration that he can no longer support the bill- I believe we can still achieve a coalition to override a potential veto and hopefully work with the President to acheive a compromise. I am going to continue debate and discussion with leaders such as TJ and Scott to end up with a bill that does the most good while still being able to be passed and signed"

On Re-election

"I will announce my plans for the next Senate At Large Election by Friday"

[CLARENCE 2015!]

Senator Clarence on Recent Abstentions

I've had a very busy personal life and have missed the debates on many of the bills.... If I do not participate in the debate on a bill, I will abstain. It is unfair to the author of the bill who worked very hard to bring it to the floor if I make  a judgment without having paid due attention during the debate

[Kaine for Senate '18]

While this is obviously your priority, I don't think you need to abstain just because you didn't participate in the debate.  As long as you read the bill over I think it's perfectly acceptable to vote.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Yea, I don't think it reasonable to expect every Senator to contribute to every single debate on every bill and as such we would have a lot of abstentions, wouldn't we? On some bills there just isn't that much contention, whereas on others, the valid points might have already been resolved and thus there is no room for more debate. In those cases, just read over the entire debate and make a decision regarding your own opinions of the underlying matter, whether all the concerns are dealt with and then vote accordingly.