Remembering the Armistice and the Veterans

I put out the flag earlier today, in honor of Veterans Day. But a storm blew in—with heavy wind, and heavy rains to come. I moved the flag to the window near the front door. It’s a balance of finding a way to honor those who would not be deterred by a storm, but still not allowing the symbol of our nation to be dishonored by neglect. So—indoors for the rest of the day.

Veterans Day, called Armistice Day until the 1950s, originally celebrated the end of WWI, but has since grown to include all those who have served the cause of freedom in the military.

The armistice—or ceasefire—was signed at 11:00 AM on the 11^th day of the 11^th month. So we always celebrate the date, rather than make the nearest Monday the holiday. Today just happens to be a Monday. I wrote in more detail on this last year, when it was the 100^th anniversary.

I love this, the Anthem Veterans Memorial, in Arizona
image from Wikipedia
more information here

I’ve written before about some of the veterans in my family—including my dad,  my son, and my grandfather. This weekend I got a note from FamilySearch.org[i] letting me know I had some WWII veterans in my family tree. So I followed the link. The first was my uncle, my dad’s older brother, whom I recognized. But there were many others also, mostly cousins of either my parents or grandparents. It’s a heritage worth noting on a celebration day.

Others have been honoring veterans in their families as well. One friend shared a story from a grandfather, sharing his memories of the day of the WWI Armistice. Since this is the story of the day’s origin, I thought it was worth sharing. The story is told by Darvil Burns McBride.

Only six years old when the war started, I do not remember much of its early years. I do have memories of the much talk of it, little of which I understood, and of the starving people in Europe where the war had devastated countries. I remember food drives and the women sewing clothes for the needy of those countries, especially for the little Country of Belgium. Dad, being sheriff, knew when the troops would be coming through the county. He would take us to the Safford Depot to see them arrive in the freight trains, which often made a short stop of slowly crept through the town on their way for departure to war. I still see their young—and it seemed to Mother—hungry faces, as they crowded near and peered from the open doors of boxcars. Others, in good weather, would ride on open flatcars, as many as could, sitting along the edge with legs draped over the side. The rest sat and lounged among the stacks of equipment and gear scattered helter-skelter over the cars’ rough beds.

Mother didn’t like to go to the depot; she said it made her sad. In those days these newly conscripted soldiers were referred to as Doughboys, instead of GIs. (A doughboy is a boiled dumpling, perhaps a common part of their diet.) By the time the war ended, I was ten years old. It had been nine months since my father had been taken from us, and we were then living in Thatcher [Arizona]. How vividly I remember that momentous day of November 11, 1918. School had let out for lunch hour. Eight of ten of us kids were walking west from the school, which would put me at my house in another three minutes. We had just overtaken one of the lady schoolteachers, Daisy Curtis, my fourth grade teacher. At that moment, I spied W. W. Pace, a stalwart of the town, and at that time possibly the chairman of the school board. As we approached him he stopped in the middle of the sidewalk, held up both arms for us to stop and excitedly said something to the effect, “I have an important message for you. I was in hopes I could get to the school before you were let out for lunch. School is canceled for the rest of the day—the war had ended! We received the news just a few minutes ago. Germany has surrendered.” The town went crazy.

A shout went up from our little group. I saw Miss Curtis dabbed a handkerchief to her eyes and bowed her head in silence. Since we were on Main Street, the town center less than a couple of blocks away, I became conscious of noise and a babble of voices as others received the news. They came out of their houses and hugged neighbors. Grabbing hold of the excitement, I forgot my friends and raced for home, where I blurted out the news to my mother, who held little Frankie in her arms. Wondering about the racket outside, she’d just stepped out onto the porch. In another ten minutes, the street had filled with shouting, dancing, laughing and crying people. Vehicles of all description appeared. Cars, buggies, bicycles tricycles, men on horseback: the din unbelievable. Anything men and women could find with which to make noise came out of storage that day. Dishpans and washtubs all took a beating, and in the middle of the banging, tooting and hollering, the school and church bells began to ring, and lie a famous America poet has said, “While high overhead with wild increase, the great bell swung as never before, seemed as if ‘twould never cease. And every word it ardor flung, from off its jubilant iron tongue, was War! War! War!” But our bells were saying, “It’s over! Peace! Peace! Peace!”

I ran down to the corner where the largest crowd had gathered. There, Don Pace had just arrived with two large cowbells, and with one in each hand he succeeded in doubling the bedlam. For the rest of the day, and for many, far into the night—happy, exuberant, unrestrained people went crazy.

The Armistice had been signed that day during the 11^th minute past 11 o’clock, the 11^th day of the 11^th month of the year.

Some moments, and some people, are worth remembering on into a second century. Those who defend our sacred liberty deserve this annual moment of remembrance—and more.

---

[i] FamilySearch.org is a genealogy website open to the public at no cost. It is provided by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who have always been interested in family history for religious reasons. Collaborating with the public helps with the Church’s interests while also serving anyone interested in their family history. Living people will not appear, unless you are the person to input that information into your own family tree for your viewing only. Also, only Church members may use the information for religious purposes for their own relatives; and for anyone deceased under 100 years, permission must be granted by the closest living relative.

Two Opposing Religions in an Ongoing Uncivil War

Rabbi Daniel Lapin was talking with Glenn Beck on radio, the third hour Thursday morning. It was a conversation worth hearing, about deep ideas.  

Let’s start with a definition of a religion, because that’s key to understanding some of the later comparisons. In the quotes of the transcript, I’ll refer to DL (Daniel Lapin) and GB (Glenn Beck).

Glenn Beck (left) and Rabbi Daniel Lapin
screenshot from here (subscription may be required)

DL: What it is that distinguishes a religion from, you know, a model railroad society, if you like, is that a religion has to tackle and answer the three basic questions, the fundamental questions. You know, if you’ve got an inquisitive kid sitting next to you on an airplane, the kids asks the three fundamental questions: where are you from, where you’re going, and what do you do?

Having established that, he takes on the first question for a comparison between his religious view and something more pagan.

DL: So, where are we from? How did human beings, capable of moving from being land bound creatures in 1902 to 2019 when we’ve got 10,000 airplanes in the air at any given moment. Anybody who remains an atheist in contemplating the fact that it’s not otters or beavers or camels or cows or kangaroos that have achieved this. It’s a being touched by the finger of God—a creature called human beings, made this leap into the air. We’re extraordinary creatures. But how did we get to this planet? And, as far as we know in the moment, uniquely in this vast empty universe? We’ve got to answer the question of how we got here.

And I answer that, that a God created us in His image and put us here. My answer is quick, brief, and simple. And nonprovable, by the way.

The religion of secular fundamentalism, which I think is a better term than—you’re right; I withdraw atheist—secular fundamentalism is the official state religion of America. But why are they a religion? Because they answer that question. They say, by a lengthy process of unaided materialistic evolution, primitive protoplasm turned into bookkeepers and ballerinas. That’s what happened. Now, that’s not provable either. But it’s a belief.

He planned to go on to the second big question. But Glenn detoured him with a question about heresy. Fundamentalists of a religion cannot withstand heresy. As Rabbi Lapin says, “leftism” in America is a religion of secular fundamentalism.

DL: And that’s what it is, because otherwise there’s no way to explain why a group of gray-haired old ladies in on the upper east side of New York have to file a lawsuit against a Louisiana parish for teaching creationism. What they are doing is just what the Moslems did when they invaded the Iberian Peninsula in the 7^th Century—basically demolish the Catholic churches and turn them into mosques. You cannot withstand heresy, if you are a devoted believer in your faith. And right there in front of you, right there in your face, somebody is committing heresy, you kill ‘em. And so, what is the connection between a group of ladies on the upper east side of New York and a Louisiana parish? The Louisiana parish has the audacity to violate their belief system—that we are here through a process of lengthy unaided materialistic evolution—by daring to teach creationism. Well, of course that’s outrageous.

He talks about the two cultures occupying the same real estate. And later in the discussion this comes up again. Glenn quotes from a 19^th Century Librarian of Congress wrote at the behest of Congress. There’s also an illustration of a map of the United States, with trees, one bent and gnarled running into the South, representing slavery, and the other is very straight and runs across the North, representing the blessing of liberty. (I’m not always sure where Glenn is quoting, but I’ve tried to put those portions in quotes to differentiate.)

GB: It says, “This map represents those colonies by two trees, whose striking contrast will be apparent to the most superficial observer. But not more, though, than the historic facts that make them appear. The student of history here can see at a glance that it would require him years of hard study to glean from textbooks, and many will see the moral of this subject here for the first time. It’s said that history repeats itself. We do not claim that it does, but there is a similarity between the first colony of the Old World and the first colonies of the New World.” The first colony of the Old World—what would you say that is? The first colony of the Old World?

Glenn Beck talks about the two trees described by
the Librarian of Congress
screenshot from here (subscription may be required)

DL: Garden of Eden?

GB: Yeah. And I would never have thought of it that way. I thought that was interesting. “The first colony of the Old World was established in the Garden of Eden, where good and evil existed, and the evil caused the downfall of man. So it was in the New World. Good and evil came here also. Good to Plymouth, bad to Jamestown. As the tree which bore the forbidden fruit caused the curse to be brought upon man in Eden, so did the tree of slavery Jamestown. There was constant warfare in the Old World between good and evil, and there has been in the New World. The evil of Jamestown has always been, and to this day, at war with the good of Plymouth. Much of the trouble in the New World was caused this way.

In 1620 each colony planted a tree, the tree of liberty, then quite small, was planted by the Pilgrims upon the Bible at Plymouth, where it receives God’s blessings, which accounts for its wonderful growth. The tree of slavery was brought from the Old World, and the people of Jamestown also planted this tree.”

It goes on to compare Lincoln to Father Abraham, who cuts down the tree of slavery.

I’m interested in the history repeating itself concept. Glenn and Rabbi Lapin talk about it as, not necessarily a repeat of events, but a repeat of spiritual beliefs that tend to play out the same way.

The discussing began with Glenn asking about a Fox News reporter who got fired recently for saying that, if the Democrats are claiming to believe in God, he didn’t recognize their God. “I think it’s more like Baal,” he had said. And got fired for that. But Glenn thinks he’s right. That led to discussing the definition of religion.

But later they talk about parallels between ancient pagan religions and what we see today. And it’s very uncivilized.

GB: OK. The reason why I say that I think this guy from Fox was actually onto something is not that they knowingly are worshiping. But we are unknowingly doing all of the same things their worshipers did. Can you go into that?

DL: Sure. Yes, certainly. One of the outstanding characteristics of both Moloch and Baal—and you’ve spoken about this many times; I’ve heard you—is that they used to sacrifice their kids. Now you’ve got a little bit of this as well among the Egyptians, during the pharaoh time. But, in practice, this worship means that you sacrifice your children as a way of expressing your fealty to this.

Well, how you do it and the reasons you do it are probably not that important. But we do it here.

In other words, right now in America there are two cultures. And you can find some of the nicest small towns in America which are basically governed and shaped by those who worship the big G of God. And then you’ve got cities like New York and Detroit and Baltimore and Newark, and many many other cities today, on the west coast, California particularly, that are run by those who worship something else entirely.

Now, where are the lives of young males sacrificed? It’s clear.

GB: Where?

DL: In these cities that are run by secular fundamentalism, young men in disproportionate numbers end up in the criminal justice system and in jail. Their lives are sacrificed completely. And that is an exact fulfillment. In other words, “What we do is so important that we don’t care if it costs the lives of our sons.” And that is what the culture is saying. We are so devoted to a lifestyle with absolutely no divine restraints.

‘Cause, after all, what has held Western Civilization together for centuries is really the essential rituals and restraints and rules of religion. We want to toss all of that out. None of that holds. We want to do whatever we choose to sexually, and we want to do whatever we choose to financially, which usually means taking it away from those who have created it and bestowing it upon those who are living multi-generational dysfunctionality.

So, as long as we can do the things we want to do, the fact that our sons end up dead and in jail—that’s just a fair price to pay. If you’re a believer in Baal or secular fundamentalism, that’s a deal with the devil you absolutely make. And you can see it. Just look at America.

GB: You’re also sacrificing your newborns, which they did.

DL: Absolutely.

GB: To be a follower, you had to have orgies and sex, get pregnant, and then you would return and sacrifice your newborn and celebrate, literally celebrate the death of that child. And that’s what we’re seeing with people who are touting Planned Parenthood.

DL: And if you think about it, it’s the most unbelievably selfish lifestyle. What you’re saying is, “I want to do whatever I darned well choose to, and if the next generation has to pay for it with their lives, so be it.”

What we’re seeing, Rabbi Lapin says, is what we see whenever societies follow this pattern.

DL: Because, in primitive societies—and all societies are stripped of faith in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob eventually devolve into primitivism. And we see that, by the way, today also with piercings, body piercings going on, very indistinguishable from the cannibals of New Guinea of a hundred years ago. Body piercing is an expression of primitivism and tribalism. And, when you strip away Biblical Judeo-Christian values, then automatically we devolve down into that.

There was another gross detail of paganism that is reappearing: feces. It happened during Occupy Wall Street. It’s showing up in city streets wherever homeless are allowed to live on the streets. In cities that used to be beautiful, but now they’re unsafe, stinking, and disease-ridden. And they’re all led by secular fundamentalists.

He said he’d been told over the years by law enforcement officers that, when homes were broken into in very wealthy neighborhoods near Los Angeles—well, I’ll use his words:

DL: They would tell me what the scene of a break-in sometimes looked like. When they had come to a place that had been robbed, usually on the west side of Los Angeles—Brentwood, Santa Monica, Beverley Hills, Beverlywood—in those upscale areas, when those houses were broken into, they almost invariably discovered that those who broke in had left a fecal business card behind, usually on the living room carpet. That’s what they did.

People who didn’t work for their wealth, but wanted to live off others—like slaveholders, expressed their contempt by defecating in the homes they broke into. And he added,

DL: We’ll also find that in low-grade street language, one of the worst invectives you can hurl at somebody also has to do with that part of the anatomy.

So, this is very primitive. This is very basic. This is basically toddlers who are 30 and 40 years old, still acting like toddlers. Baal is central to that.

We tend to think of people in our day as too sophisticated, to “evolved,” to fall for pagan worship; they’re not likely to call their god Baal, or even recognize what they do as their form of worship.

But without God, our loving creator, who defines good, and requires that we value life, family, truth, and property rights, there can be no civilization.

We are, again, at a point of repeating history. There was Cain against Abel. There was a civil war in ancient Israel between the north and south, over moral issues. There was the dichotomy between Jamestown, with slavery, and Plymouth, with the biblical blueprint for how to grow a civilized nation. There was our American Civil War between North and South, over moral issues—specifically, slavery. And today there is a split between people with Judeo-Christian values (including non-believers who nevertheless live by these values) and those who throw out those values and live by a creed of, as Rabbi Lapin puts it,

DL: We want to do whatever we choose to sexually, and we want to do whatever we choose to financially, which usually means taking it away from those who have created it and bestowing it upon those who are living multi-generational dysfunctionality.

In the Spherical Model, that dichotomy is also north (freedom, prosperity, and civilization) versus south (tyranny, poverty, and savagery).

It's not true, Rabbi Lapin says, that violence never solves anything. Violence usually solves difference. He doesn’t advocate that; he’s for solving them with the ballot box. But doing nothing allows the problems to continue festering. Not good news. And there’s no good non-apocalyptic future he’s laying out here. No one is willing to budge. He asks Glenn,

DL: Are you ready to crawl into your cave and say surrender? I don’t think so.

GB: No, I won’t. No, I won’t.

DL: And neither is the other side. I wish I could sing a lullaby and make everything good, but our job is not to massage people with warm butter; it’s to tell the truth.

As long as we love God—and the freedom, prosperity, and civilization that come from following His guidance—as much as the secular fundamentalists love their god—which brings slavery, poverty, and savagery—then telling the truth is what we must keep doing.

An Age of Populism

This past Saturday we had a specially scheduled extra Tea Party meeting to hear from author/historian Larry Schweikart. He’s the author of A Patriot’s History of the United States, published back in 2004. It was a NYT #1 bestseller, but that didn’t happen until 2010, after Glenn Beck talked about it multiple times on his show. Six years after publication. It was kind of a shock for an academician used to never selling more than a boxful of books.

He has written several other books, and is on tour now with the biography Reagan: The American President. There are other bios of Reagan; why do another? Dr. Schweikart says it’s because the others didn’t get to who Reagan really was. He says, “Reagan was the guy you saw on TV. He bled red white and blue.” That was not an act or a public face.

As an actor, Reagan definitely wasn’t a “method actor.” He knew how to be himself, but he didn’t like portraying someone he wasn’t. He only once portrayed a bad buy. But he did have two good roles: the dying George Gip, the Gipper, in Knute Rockne—he had played football and that was real to him. And the other was Kings Row, in which he plays a man who started as a wealthy socialite who loses his money and has to do labor. His legs are crushed in a railroad yard accident, and a sadistic doctor assures him they’re operable but then amputates the legs unnecessarily out of hatred. Reagan’s character is embittered and despondent for much of the movie, but when his friend tells him what actually happened, he responds with defiance. Did the doctor think he lived in his legs? He recovers his spirit and renews his will to live.

Dr. Schweikart, and many people, believe Reagan deserved an Academy Award for that role, but Spencer Tracy won that year.

There are other actors who are best playing characters like themselves. John Wayne was one. (Coincidentally, they both had the nickname Duke.) John Wayne also avoided playing bad guys. Whoever he played, he was visibly John Wayne playing that role—and we liked seeing him do that. Reagan’s acting method was like that. It’s different from Johnny Depp, or Tom Hanks, or Meryl Streep. But we’re OK with that.

His experience in media—which included sports announcing, and hosting Death Valley Days (history stories I remember watching weekly as a child), in addition to acting—helped him appear at ease in front of a camera. He knew how to speak directly to people, so the media didn’t have to (didn't get to) filter what he meant through them. That was something relatively new, for a president. FDR started fireside chats on radio, but wouldn’t have translated well to television. JFK was the first to benefit from television. But Reagan was the first to handle television and other media platforms with comfortable ease.

He had a simple approach to being president—two goals that very few people believed were possible, but he believed them and said so, and they connected with the American people:

1.       Defeat the Soviet Union.

2.       Build the economy.

The two goals were intertwined, according to Dr. Schweikart. For example, “The Soviets exported vodka, gold, oil, and spies. They still do.” So Reagan set out to control inflation, no matter the cost. By 1982 inflation dropped to zero. From 7-8%. That dropped the price of gold. Then Reagan met with oil dealers in Saudi and told them to burn their reserves, to control prices. The Soviets were outraged, because this affected their ability to sell their oil. Without money, they floundered in the Cold War.

Reagan allied with Pope John Paul II to do an end run around the Soviets. Together they increased funding to Radio Free Europe and Voice of America, pumping in rock music—which is the music of freedom. (Dr. Schweikart recommends a video on this: Rockin’ the Wall: How Music Ripped the Iron Curtain.) Rock music made Soviet people want to be like Americans—and even want to be Americans.

Reagan was out of office by the time the Berlin Wall fell, but ending the Cold War—that was Reagan’s doing.

Dr. Larry Schweikart
image from here

There are plenty of other stories. But I’m interested in some connections Dr. Schweikart made during the Q&A, about populism, which is something I don’t understand. I think our country works best when the people are good citizens, educate themselves on issues and candidates, and then make informed decisions when they go vote. I do that; I do my part.

But the outcome of voting depends on swaying those who haven’t done their study and due diligence.

There are people who make comparisons between Reagan and Trump. Their personalities and characters are quite different. But both of them understand the media really well. They both lived and worked in media before ever entering politics. And the public knew them through their media appearances long before getting acquainted with their politics.

Trump has also had a fairly simple message/plan:

·         Secure borders.

·         Appoint constitutionalist judges.

·         Lower taxes and roll back over-regulation to improve the economy.

These things, he told us directly, would Make America Great Again. He'd have none of this managing a superpower in decline, like Obama was doing. As Carter was doing before Reagan, too—another parallel.

I recall that my household was for Reagan in 1968. (Fun fact: the political pundits of the day thought he was too old to run in 1968.) We watched his speech at the Republican National Convention on TV. My dad was into politics, and even ran for office once. My mom wasn’t interested in politics—but she was interested in Ronald Reagan—whom she knew from movies and TV, and he was so handsome. (Another fun fact, or rather, personal opinion: my dad had a similar look, although blond—thick hair, rosy cheeks, similar face shape, at least in his younger years.) Anyway, it’s my experience that there was a good portion of the electorate, from at least the 1960s, who selected their candidate based on his popularity—his name recognition plus personal appeal to the common people.

Dr. Schweikart wrote a book called How Trump Won—which he wrote before the election. He knew what was coming when most of the media did not. I intend to read it, but I gather his theory is that only a populist candidate can win in today’s America.

The Democrats don’t have a populist candidate. That’s why their ridiculously large field is flailing. When asked who he thinks their nominee will be, he says, “She’s not in the race—yet.” People suggest Michelle Obama. Good guess, because she does have a sort of populist appeal. But he believes she’s not interested in politics or actually running the country. No, he’s predicting Hillary Clinton. Because she’s obsessed, and feels entitled. And certainly has the name recognition the others don’t.

I hope he’s wrong. I don’t believe she could win; I just don’t want to see her in front of our faces ever again.

But he made another somewhat wild prediction: Who will be the Republican nominee in 2024? Kanye West.

I did not see that one coming. Again, I hope he’s wrong. I’ve been paying attention, and I’m aware of Kanye West’s conversion to Christianity, and somewhat to conservatism. He seems sincere. People report that there’s true humility there. I’d much rather that than anyone the Democrats would put forward. But I prefer someone with a track record of living a Christian life through some hard times and still sticking with it. And I prefer as a president someone who is so well-versed in the Constitution that they could chat with Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay, and add his own federalist paper to their conversation. I don’t expect a person dedicated to writing and promoting his music will be spending sufficient time on economics and foreign policy to qualify.

I didn’t think Trump had either. But at least economics was his bailiwick.

But populism counts, Dr. Schweikart is convinced. For example, there may not be a person under 40 in the United States who doesn’t know who Kanye West is. Only a fraction of that large demographic have any idea who Mike Pence is—even though he’s the vice-president.

Populism requires a candidate who connects with young people who are not paying attention to politics. You’ve got to have someone who speaks their language, and appeals to what they’re thinking about—while convincing them that freedom, prosperity, and civilization are preferable to tyranny, poverty, and savagery disguised as “free stuff” that someone richer will pay for.

Dr. Schweikart told us to write down his predictions, and we'll see if he can stand by them. By the way, Kanye said on radio a year ago, “When I’m president…” referring to after 2024. It’s actually on his mind.

It’s a short wait to find out if Dr. Schweikart is right about Hillary Clinton. I heard on radio today that she has only until around the 15^th (or maybe 18^th) of November to get on the ballot in one of the earliest primary voting states.

While I had a historian handy, I asked, how do we keep our history, keep truth? He said that will be the fight of the next 5-7 years. The dinosaur media is being pushed out. New media, including online media is taking over. We need to write. And we need to make videos—to reach the youth. We need to be involved in popular culture.

As the late Andrew Breitbart said, “Politics is downstream from culture.” So, if we want to have a say in how we're governed, we have to contribute to the culture.

I don’t know how to do these that. But I hope there are people out there who do. Because apparently our future depends on what younger people watch, hear, see, read, and pay attention to.

Texas Ballot Propositions

There’s only one more day of early voting, and then Election Day is this coming Tuesday, November 5^th. So it's about time I worked through my plans for the ballot. And I’ll share that with you, in hopes that you will be a more informed voter.

Our ballot contains 10 statewide propositions for changes to the state constitution, plus one Metro bond proposition, and four places on the school board of trustees—only one of which is contested.

Below is a chart I put together of opinions I’ve gathered as I've come to my decisions. Mark Ramsay and Terri Leo Wilson are our State Republican Executive Committee District 7 chairs. The Republican Party of Texas (RPT) put out information, but only supported those bills that represented planks of the party platform. TCC is Texas Conservative Coalition. TFR is Texans for Fiscal Responsibility. Doc Greene is the host of American Voice Radio, a daily two-hour podcast. He attended our Cypress Texas Tea Party meeting last Saturday, where we discussed the ideas, and he gave his opinions, along with TCC, TRF, and the rest of us, so I wrote them down. I also have opinions from Empower Texans, and Grassroots America/We the People. And I added conversations with my son, Political Sphere, an attorney in a rural county, where he often brings me a different perspective. The final column is my choices.

Below the chart are links to several of the sources and analysis, followed by my analysis of each proposition and the rest of the ballot.

Sources

·         Empower Texans 

·         Grassroots America/We the People 

·         Republican Party Texas (supports only those that represent a plank of the party platform—the link shows the propositions, plus associated planks and information on those it supports): 

·         Texas Public Policy Foundation, by James Quintero and Shelby Sterling 

·         Texas Legislative Council (Lt Gov Dan Patrick, Speaker Bonnen, Exec Dir Jeff Archer—summary of both sides): 

o   TLC condensed analysis 

·         Texas Conservative Coalition analysis

·         Texans for Fiscal Responsibility short analysis 

My Analysis

Proposition 1: The constitutional amendment permitting a person to hold more than one office as a municipal judge at the same time.

The law currently disallows holding multiple paid public positions, with the exception of municipal judges who are appointed. Currently about 95% of municipal judges fit this category—serving multiple cities or towns at the same time, which allows for costs to be shared by the municipalities. The proposition changes the law to include not just appointed municipal judges, but also elected municipal judges. It’s a minor change. It affects mainly rural areas and helps them meet needs at reasonable cost.

Those who oppose the law say they fear corruption. Some say they like the concept but don’t approve of the way the law is written. I don’t know how to judge that. My son the lawyer has read the bill, would normally favor an advantage for a rural area, and is leaning against it. So, to be safe, I am leaning against the proposition, but I’m open to more input.

Proposition 2: The constitutional amendment providing for the issuance of additional general obligation bonds by the Texas Water Development Board in an amount not to exceed $200 million to provide financial assistance for the development of certain projects in economically distressed areas.

The short answer is, this would incur new debt, and it would obligate future taxpayers for the length of the bond. Paying for infrastructure is a basic purpose of the general budget, so creating a constitutionally provided new fund seems unnecessary and likely to be used less efficiently.

On the other side, there are those who say bonds are the best way to pay for infrastructure improvements, because they spread the debt over time (with interest, of course). They also point out that some areas “might” have trouble getting clean water. If they aren’t even certain of the need, it doesn’t seem like a good purpose for additional debt. My son, who lives in a rural economically disadvantaged area, where he advises the county commissioners court, points out that this allows the water board to give better loan rates, so that would be helpful. However, even he is giving it only a maybe. So I’m against it.

Proposition 3: The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide for a temporary exemption from ad valorem taxation of a portion of the appraised value of certain property damaged by a disaster.

This is something we understand here, after Hurricane Harvey. Houses that were essentially destroyed, or in need of tens of thousands of dollars of renovation to even be habitable, were being taxed at a rate that assumed no disaster had occurred. So, at a time when homeowners were doing all in their power to pay what it would take to recover their property, the government was coming in and saying, “But we need the full tax amount in order to help with recovery.” Not very convincing. My son points out that smaller government entities set their budgets based on assessed property values, and if a September storm comes and temporarily wipes out property values, that government entity will not be able to meet its obligations, which will be even higher with the disaster recovery added on.

The key deciding factor for me is, government isn’t entitled to tax on value that doesn’t exist. I would rather have the burden of recovering from lost tax revenue on government at such a time than on those who are dealing with several feet of water in their homes. I’m voting for this one.

Proposition 4: The constitutional amendment prohibiting the imposition of an individual income tax, including a tax on an individual’s share of partnership and unincorporated association income.

Texas doesn’t have an income tax. It should never have an income tax. This constitutional amendment is intended to keep some future legislature from coming in and imposing an income tax.

Note the wording. Vote for the bill to say no income tax.

While I don’t find anyone actually opposing the bill, my son, acquainted with tax law, points out that there will be unintended consequences, because the law considers profits by LLCs, partnerships, and other business entities other than corporations as income that cannot be taxed, essentially making the franchise tax unconstitutional. Only corporations would be taxed on their profits, then. I’m still voting for it.

Proposition 5: The constitutional amendment dedicating the revenue received from the existing state sales and use taxes that are imposed on sporting goods to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department and the Texas Historical Commission to protect Texas’ natural areas, water quality, and history by acquiring, managing, and improving state and local parks and historic sites while not increasing the rate of the state sales and use taxes.

The state has been taxing sporting goods sales, for the purported purpose of supporting Texas Parks and Wildlife. But the money has been going into the general fund, instead of being used for its stated purpose. This amendment simply requires that tax revenue to be spent for its intended purpose. There is no new tax, only better accountability for a tax already being collected. I’m voting for it.

Those against it tend to be against auto-allocation in budgeting. That means the legislature has no choice but to allocate certain funds or amounts to certain purposes. If the legislature could keep their word and allocate funds as promised (perhaps with exceptions under extreme conditions), then we could give them flexibility. But when they fail to do so, what do we do? My son suggests one other way would be to grant people standing to actually sue over the issues such as deterioration of parks, for example. But, since that’s not on the table, I’m still voting for this proposition. And we’ll have to deal with auto-allocation as a whole separate issue sometime.

Proposition 6: The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to increase by $3 billion the maximum bond amount authorized for the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas.

Back in 2007 voters approved the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas. Of that original bond, there remains $150 million not yet allocated, plus $286 million appropriated but not yet spent. Those in favor of the bond say this will last only through 2021 and then the whole research institute shuts down.

However, cancer research is not an essential function of state government. Private donations can be sought to continue the helpful research. Choosing not to take on additional taxpayer debt encourages seeking private donations, and prevents the costs of borrowing. So, while I’m in favor of cancer research, I believe that’s a private obligation, not a government purpose. So I am voting against the proposition.

Proposition 7: The constitutional amendment allowing increased distributions to the available school fund.

Funding of public schools in Texas is complicated. In short, there’s a Permanent School Fund (PSF), which is invested money, sort of an endowment. And there is the available school fund (ASF), used in current annual budgeting. Both of these are managed by the General Land Office (GLO), which has lands and resources invested that the proceeds of which go toward education, and by the State Board of Education (SBOE). This proposition would double the current cap of $300 million of GLO money that can come from the PSF to the ASF, and would also allow an additional $600 million SBOE funding toward the ASF.

This is a matter of investing less and using more in a current year—purportedly in years when the proceeds are positive enough to provide beyond the current cap. The GLO and SBOE would be required to coordinate to make the best use of funds.

Proponents look at the increased flexibility. For those that look at this as a question of state vs. local spending, it should be noted that the state makes many, many demands on local school districts, which it had better fund in order for them to meet those requirements. Unfunded mandates are bad when the federal government does that to the states, and they’re bad when the state does that to local districts.

Opponents point out that increased spending in a current year could decrease available income in the future, because the money is spent rather than invested. They also point out that increased spending does not guarantee improved outcomes from the schools.

I hold the rather radical view that more (and eventually complete) movement toward the free market would improve outcomes and lower costs in education, as it does with everything else that is not a proper role of government (protection of life, liberty, and property). But our state has a dedicated constitutional purpose of funding public education. So, facing that, the question is, what is the best way to fund it? If we could guarantee that decisions would always be wise, I’d be in favor of this proposition. But since we can’t guarantee that, I am uncertain. Many conservatives that I trust are favoring the proposition, so I am leaning toward voting for it, but I am still open to more information.

Proposition 8: The constitutional amendment providing for the creation of the flood infrastructure fund to assist in the financing of drainage, flood mitigation, and flood control projects.

We learned a lot from Hurricane Harvey. One of the things we learned was what areas were problems that need fixing before future storms, such as maybe a new reservoir in the Cypress Creek area of Spring, in the northwest part of the county. The special fund would allow for such projects, and would make smaller entities more able to meet matching fund requirements placed on disaster mitigation funds from the federal government. Now that we know what the problems are, let’s take care of them.

Many people are against this bill. I don’t fully understand their arguments. They’re not against funding the infrastructure; they seem to be against this particular approach, outside of general revenue. Some of them are against any use at any time of the Rainy Day fund. I think, if Harvey wasn’t a rainy enough day to access those funds, nothing is. I may be going against the crowd, but I’m leaning toward voting for this proposition.

Proposition 9: The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to exempt from ad valorem taxation precious metal held in a precious metal depository located in this state.

The question is whether to carve out a particular industry to benefit: precious metal providers. This would make it so that, as long as the metals are kept in a depository, they could not be taxed by local government entities—regardless of whether the owner plans to use them for commercial purposes. Currently personal property not held for producing income is not subject to property tax, but it could be subject to local taxing units. Government can only exempt tangible assets from taxation if the exemption is provided for in the state constitution, which is why it’s coming up for vote. Proponents say this would take away some uncertainty about the taxation of precious metal depositories and would do little to change taxing revenue. And, they say, it would prevent business from going to other states where precious metal depositories are not taxed. Others point out that the convenience of using a local depository for precious metals would outweigh the concerns about any possible tax. Also, they point out that this allows government to pick out winners and losers.

Compare to bitcoin mining. The mine for this is a machine, possibly called an antminer. This machine is very much like a precious metal depository; it works to “dig up” value. But this type of business would not be exempted as a depository.

People have mixed views on this proposition. I’m leaning against it.

Proposition 10: The constitutional amendment to allow the transfer of a law enforcement animal to a qualified caretaker in certain circumstances.

When a police office retires, he is not allowed to take his car with him, or other items of value. Currently, a service animal, such as a drug-sniffing dog, is considered a thing of value. A retiring officer would have to purchase the dog in order to keep it. But the dog is only of value to the organization when it is connected to its owner/trainer. When that person is no longer there, the animal isn’t of value to the department. This allows the department to gift the dog to the officer, which makes sense. So it changes ownership but not possession. The federal government already allows service dogs to go with their handling officers upon retirement (of the dog or the person). It makes sense to allow local law enforcement entities to also allow it. Everyone I checked with supports this one. I’m voting for this proposition.

Metro Transit Authority, Proposition A: Bonds not to exceed $3.5 billion for new bus system, HOV lane improvements, next phase of MetroRail, and other improvements.

The actual wording takes up an entire column of my ballot.

It’s harder to get analysis on this than on the statewide propositions. Metro has been mailing out colored flyers. But I don’t know anyone who favors it. The essential things, such as HOV lane improvements, don’t require a $3.5 billion bond, indebting us for the next couple of decades (plus whatever other bonds they add on before this one is retired). MetroRail has never been a good investment, so putting more money into that isn’t my idea of wise spending. Let them come back to us with a request for actual needs in a cost range that matches those needs. I’m voting against Proposition A.

CFISD Trustees 

The only other items on my ballot are four Cypress-Fairbanks Independent School District (CFISD) board of trustee positions. Positions 1, 2, and 4 are unopposed. Position 3 has three candidates: Gilbert Sarabia, Ryan C. Irving, Jr., and Natalie Blasingame. I have heart Gilbert Sarabia speak twice, to Cypress Texas Tea Party, heading into this election. I voted for Natalie Blasingame in 2017 and 2015 (she didn’t win either time), but I haven’t heard a word from her this election cycle. Ryan Irving is a 19-year-old student, and he hasn’t reached out to anyone I know; I don’t think he’s ready. CFISD provides more information about the candidates here. And you can listen to their candidate forum here.

Gilbert Sarabia was not able to attend the candidate forum (for a very valid reason—his mother was on the verge of dying). But I did still like Natalie Blasingame. I reread what I wrote about her in 2015, and I still agree with those things. So, while I was leaning toward Sarabia, I think I will once again vote for Blasingame.

Why Put Capitalism on Trial?

This past Friday, the STA Money Hour economists talked about Capitalism on Trial. Usually their radio show is about managing your investments and retirement, so this seemed different and caught my attention.

Luke Patterson was doing most of the talking; along with him was Max Gaines. Patterson started this segment by pointing out that we have nearly 16 million new eligible young voters, who were not old enough to have voted in 2016, the last presidential election. What is on the mind of these new voters?

Not the stock market, not tax cuts, and not deregulation, but rather things like climate change, and income inequality, and forgiving of student loan debt, and more free stuff.

If even half of these voters show up to vote, that could be a problem for Donald Trump. And the alternative—all of them: Warren, Sanders, Biden, even Buttigieg—are extreme (what he calls left, and what is southern statist tyranny on the Spherical Model) and open about their socialist plans.

The economic sphere is the center of the discussion this election. As he puts it,

Profiteering, capitalism, free markets are absolutely on trial—I think fundamental this election. The way of life in the United States I think is also on trial—what we want, and how we want to do things.

So, Patterson goes ahead and makes the case for capitalism. He sets up the defense with this information about what capitalism has done for the United States:

There are now 46.8 million millionaires around the world. That’s up 1.1 million from mid-2018. That’s according to a report released this week by the Credit Research Institute. Thanks again to the value of both financial, like stocks, and non-financial, like real estate assets. The report reveals that there are a lot more millionaires—again totaling 46.8 million millionaires around the world.

From the Credit Suisse Research Institute
Global Wealth Report 2019, p. 11

You’ve got the United States that’s a big part of that. About 25% of the global market capitalization, and the United States is the millionaire capital of the world, according to this report. This year the United States extended its unbroken spell of wealth gains, which they say began after the global financial crisis of 2008. The country now accounts for 40% of dollar millionaires worldwide and 40% of those in the top 1% of global wealth distribution.

The United States, and its system, makes a lot of millionaires. A lot of wealthier people.

This is just the beginning point. The opposition might even say this is a bad thing—creating more inequality, because they don’t understand wealth creation and they think someone gaining wealth means they’re taking it from someone poorer. So there’s more education to do to defend capitalism. Here’s more from the radio broadcast on how US wealth creators compare to other countries:

Luke: And on a per capita basis, there is no country even close. Not even China. Not even close to the United States. They are so distant in second, they’re not even second.

logo found here

What’s more, the biggest gain in the number of millionaires this year comes from—I’ll give you two guesses, Max. Is it Denmark, Switzerland, someplace in Western Europe, China? Gaining the most millionaires this year, with all those people, with a 6% annual GDP growth? Is it China that is creating the most millionaires? Who do you think it is? Western Europe? China? Gaining the most millionaires this year? With all those people, with a 6% annual GDP growth? Is it China that is creating the most millionaires? Who do you think it is?

Max: You’re putting me on the spot.

Luke: I think you know the answer. Give it to us.

Max: I’m not going to say Denmark.

Luke: No. No, you won’t. But it’s the economic system that’s being, I think, promoted by many on the left, as sort of the system to aspire to, the Western European style system.

He’s tells us the answer eventually. But first he’s making clear how the opposition is characterizing capitalism:

Again, capitalism, profit taking, and corporations, and billionaires especially are evil, and our system broken, and so it should be eliminated and rebuilt under a socialist system. That’s what they’re advocating for.

They don’t even apologize for it anymore. It’s not something that they’re saying, well, you know, it just needs to be tweaked around the edges, improve the capitalist system, or make better the things that need improving. They’re not saying any of those things. They’re saying, Listen, this thing is broken. It’s rotten from the inside. It has to be eliminated and criminalized, called out for being evil—to rise up, squash it, and rebuild under a socialist system.

Here’s the essential information, and the answer to his quiz question:

But, as it stands, according to this data, the biggest gain in the number of millionaires this year comes from none other than the United States, which added 675,000 new millionaires in the past year. 675,000 of the 1.1 million.

Hear me on this. This exceeded the extra newcomers in the next nine countries combined.

So, the United States created, this year, 675,000 new millionaires. This exceeded the next nine countries combined: Japan, China, Germany, The Netherlands, Brazil, India, Spain, Canada, Switzerland.

Let’s let that set for a moment. And repeat it. The number of millionaires created in the US this past year exceeds the number of millionaires created in the next nine countries combined. That’s not a small difference.

But, so what if capitalism creates millionaires? Shouldn’t they just feel guilty for that? Don’t we need fewer billionaires and millionaires? Unfortunately, the opposition believes that.

As Patterson says,

So capitalism is on trial. You’ve got Elizabeth Warren. She proposed the Accountable Capitalism Act (nice word), which obliges large corporations to obtain a federal charter requiring directors to consider the interests of all stakeholders—not only shareholders and customers, but also groups representing societies, such as their employees, local communities, civil society, including non-representative anti-business NGOs.

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Delaware—where, by the way, more than two-thirds of the Fortune 500 corporations have their legal home—has written a book arguing that corporations should be run for the benefit of their workers. The Financial Times also launched a new agenda: “Capitalism: Time for a Reset. Business must make a profit, but should serve a purpose too.”

People are buying into this nice-sounding irrationality. He adds,

In a recent letter by the Business Roundtable, 181 corporate CEOs disavow the profit motive. The corporate directors, accountability shareholders, the CEOs champion a new view now widely held by them. It says that profit could only be justified for virtuous conduct, that profit should merely be a byproduct of making certain contributions to society. It’s a proposition that the Business Roundtable already implicitly accepts.

So there’s the central debate question: shouldn’t making contributions to society be a higher value than making a profit? Patterson makes this assertion:

In fact, the profit that a business earns is a pretty good approximation of its contribution to society. One might think of it in terms of a simple equation: revenue (what people pay in a competitive market) minus cost (the value of resources used to provide a product or service) equals profit—which is a first order indicator of a business’s contribution to society.

Here's the equation more visually:

revenue – cost = profit

Profit isn’t bad. As Patterson says, “profit is one of the most powerful signaling devices in the free market.”

Back in 2013 I was taking an online Hillsdale College class on economics, and also reading Poverty of Nations. So I wrote a number of economics pieces, for example, here, here, and here. Professor Gary Wolfram, the Economics 101 teacher at Hillsdale, had pointed out that the decentralized free market system makes it possible for the market to prepare and provide what he wants to buy his wife for her birthday even before he has thought about it. It’s amazing. The wide variety of choices, at costs we’re willing to pay (exchange for the fruits of our labor) are far beyond what is available practically anywhere else in the world. He also said—and I’ve heard others point this out as well—capitalism is based on providing goods or services to people—to serve others. The only way to make a valuable exchange is to think about what will make the customer so pleased that they are willing to exchange their own profits (the fruits of their labors) for whatever it is you’re offering them.

Back to the defense of capitalism. Here’s Luke Patterson again:

In their search for profit, businesses create the dynamic for economic growth and prosperity, rising living standards. Is this not a contribution to society of the most dramatic kind imaginable? The contribution to society, the profits making people wealthier, bringing more people out of poverty? Is that not a contribution to society?

He later goes into some detail about estimates of costs surrounding Medicare-for-all, which is just one of the promises of “free stuff” that Elizabeth Warren fails to show how she will pay for. She says she’ll never take from the middle class. But studies show there isn’t enough wealth in the upper class to take from to pay for this giveaway, which takes profits, and even prices, out of the equation.

Here’s what we can know for sure: the free market creates wealth. It doesn’t just move money from some people and place it in the hands of others; it creates actual wealth—new surplus resulting from work. The free market has indeed lifted more people out of poverty than any other system.

It’s not just luck. It’s not just “Well, things are going OK for now, but that can’t continue.” It’s not just, “Sure, socialism has failed every time it’s been tried, but it just wasn’t ever done right.”

I know, for certain, that I am a better expert on what kind of healthcare I am willing to pay for, what foods I’m willing to buy, what kind of transportation will meet my personal needs—or anything else we make payment exchanges for—than some bureaucrat in a faraway office.

Prosperity requires the freedom to make those exchange decisions for ourselves. The person who earns the wealth should be the one to decide how, when, and whether to spend it, save it, or invest it. Any path that allows anyone else to make that decision leads to poverty.

So, when we’re talking economics with young people, we need to make sure that, if they insist that they care about the poor (which they think might include them), we let them know the way to lift the poor is more free market, combined with careful philanthropy—not more government control.

This Is Child Abuse

The case of James Younger, the 7-year-old being transitioned into a girl by his mother, against the will of his father, was ruled on earlier today. (I wrote about this case here.)

Jeff Younger and his son James
Image from SaveJames.com website

Earlier this week a jury ruled against the father, who was asking for sole conservatorship to prevent the mother’s transitioning their son—ruling that there should be a sole conservator, but it would not be the father. That was devastating news. (I’d like to know what went on in jury deliberations to get them to this decision. I think there was one dissenter, but a unanimous jury was not required.)

But today the judge, Kim Cooks, of the 255 District family court in Dallas, seems to have overruled the jury’s decision. There will be joint conservatorship, and the father, Jeff Younger, will have a say in medical decisions for the boy—which means the mother, Anne Georgulas (a pediatrician I do not recommend to any parents who love their children), cannot go ahead with chemical castration by puberty blockers or surgery without the father’s permission. Also, the father will not be required to pay court costs. 

The judge did, however, put a gag order on the father, so he is not allowed to talk about the case with the press. He has been manning a website, SaveJames.com, to get the word out and keep people apprised of the case, and this means that website will need to be taken down. (I downloaded court documents and some other materials while they were still available.)

After the Tuesday jury verdict but before today’s ruling, Texas Governor Greg Abbott tweeted this: 

FYI the matter of 7 year old James Younger is being looked into by the Texas Attorney General’s office and the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services.

I hope this means we can prevent any future case that puts a child in such peril. No Texas child should be abused in this manner while sane adults can step in and prevent it.

The mother had been asking for total conservatorship, supervised visitation for the father, without allowing him to say anything that did not affirm that the child is a boy—and she was insisting that he pay for the medical procedures to alter the boy’s body—twisting the knife, you might say.

Today’s ruling is at least a partial rescue and is good news.

It’s hard to know all the details of a case, but one detail we know for certain is that this is a very young biological male, in reality, whose mother is pretending (along with him?) and telling him that he is female. We know that she is willing to do away with his future ability to procreate or engage in normal sexual activity, and risk his physical and mental health in order to keep up the pretense.

There is so much that is disturbing in this case. One mitigating factor the judge may have taken into account was that the mother is not the biological mother; the couple used an egg donor. It’s unclear from stories I’ve read whether she carried the child—actually, children; James has a twin brother—or used a surrogate. But Jeff Younger is the biological father. To take all rights away from a biological parent and give them to a non-biological parent is troubling at best. In this circumstance it would be horrifying.

Family courts are messy places. Stories for another day.

James with his mother, presumably from her
physician website, from a tweet found here

Some information came out during the trial that makes me further question the mother’s sanity. She “realized” her son was a boy when he was three. The evidence? He requested a “girl” toy at McDonald’s. I don’t know what the toy was, but sometimes toys are interesting in ways that appeal to both genders. For example, some years ago there were little fairy dolls that you pulled a strap and they spun up into the air and fluttered down. They were pretty cool. It was the same principle as a non-girly version I had as a child, sometimes called a whirligig. It might have been made more intriguing to a girl when the fluttery thing looks like a fairy, but it’s still a pretty cool toy. And, at three, when children are exploring their world, they don’t even know that some distant marketing person decided an item might best attract either girls or boys.

What other evidence did the mother have? The three-year-old boy loved the movie Frozen.

Disney princess movies may always have been more attractive to girls, but that doesn’t mean boys don’t like them. My brothers, at age 4, enjoyed Snow White. It had messy dwarfs, woodland animals, and heroes, and was just visually worth watching. My grandson, at age 3, dressed as the snowman Olaf from Frozen for Halloween. We all sang along to the soundtrack. There was a reindeer and a hero, as well as a scary villain and a snow monster in the movie—not just princesses. Plenty to pull in every young viewer. Disney knows that; they make movies that way on purpose.

What kind of a mother jumps on evidence that thin to decide, for the entire life of her child, that he is not a boy as his biology clearly shows, but is a girl? An insane mother. Maybe one who had a fantasy about having a girl and a boy, and who now (with the dissolution of the marriage, and her apparent inability to bear a child naturally anyway) has no way to achieve that fantasy except by altering one of her existing children.

The father presented evidence that the mother has manipulated the boy. She withdraws affection except when he is behaving as a girl. When he is locked in his room for bad behavior, she tells him there are monsters who eat little boys.

The boy has always been happy to be a boy with the father. Could that be because he is trying to please the father? Yes. Just as much as he acts like a girl for the mother in an attempt to please her. This has been his life since he was three. What else does he know?

A week ago I mentioned the Candace Owens interview with Walt Hyer. He lived as a trans-woman for seven years, in his 40s, before transitioning back (as much as that can be done) into a man. His story began with a grandmother who used to take care of him. She thought it was fun to dress him up as a cute little girl, and she fussed over him, and gave him positive attention. This was their little secret, until he took a dress home with him to show his family, expecting their positive attention as well. He was too young to know different. The parents curtailed contact with the grandmother, but an extended family member used the information as an excuse to sexually abuse the little boy. These childhood issues were never resolved. He was actually seeking resolution to these issues when he began exploring transgenderism. If he had had a doctor who counseled him to resolve the real issues, rather than to transition, it would have saved him his marriage and family, his job, and a great deal of pain.

This little boy, James, whose mother calls him Luna, is being abused by this woman—and a society that allows her to continue. He will have to have therapy to deal with the confusion at some point. But his mother isn’t going to seek it. Will society even allow him to ask for help, once he’s of age to seek it on his own, to resolve the gender confusion?

I don’t know Jeff Younger, but I do know that a caring father would be going crazy dealing with what he has dealt with. When he would see his son on a video chat, the boy would be dressed up as a 6-year-old drag queen, long eyelashes and sparkly gown and all. And his only chance of being able to see his child depended on his remaining calm while witnessing the abuse. I saw a comment to an article suggest fleeing the country with his children, and disappearing. Matt Walsh, of The Daily Wire, said such a move “would be not only morally justified, but heroic.”  Any sane parent would understand the natural protective urge.

What kind of mother dresses a 6-year-old as a drag queen? Who teaches their child—son or daughter—that such a sexual look is appropriate? Who thinks that a person can’t be a girl without a dress on, or without nail polish?

If there is a person who exemplifies being controlled by societal stereotypes, it would be this mother.

This is, I believe, an important turning-point story. It exemplifies the corruption of the “woke” viewpoint.

These issues are not about any given person doing what they choose; they are about the demanding tiny minority exerting control over anyone who disagrees. I came across a good discussion of this assertion here. Note that, under Obamacare, all doctors were required to perform any transgender surgery a patient requested—with no conscience or religious exemption. Fortunately, that “transgender mandate” was struck down by a district court judge just this month. 

The data shows that gender dysphoria issues are often resolved through therapy and/or time; transition, claimed to be necessary in order to prevent suicidality, actually increases the likelihood.  It also deprives an otherwise healthy person of the possibility of procreation or normal sexual activity, and encourages surgically removing healthy body parts, against the medical axiom “First, do no harm.”

Image of tweet found at SaveJames.com/blog

Pretending that biological males are females denies real females their rights of privacy, and their accomplishments in sports.  It erases actual femaleness, harming all females.

Pretending that biological females are males also denies the value of being female, asserting that it is better to be a pretend male than an actual female. It isn’t progress for women that leads to this thought.

Sane people need to speak the truth, louder, while we still can.