Try Reading the Constitution, Part I

Our beloved Constitution is 233 years old today. That’s worth celebrating.

There’s so much opposition to our Constitution and our constitutional republic form of government right now that we might have reason to be amazed a year from now to be able to celebrate again, instead of mourning its passing.

Image from Texas Attorney General's Facebook page

In my very limited ability to preserve it, I thought our celebration could be going through the articles to make sure we know what they mean.

It’s not that long, around 4,543 words—plus amendments. For comparison, this year’s yet-to-be-finalized Texas Republican Platform is around 17,000 words. You could probably read the Constitution in half an hour.

Then the question is, would you understand it? If you haven’t tried it, you might be surprised at how clear it is—even with some legal and archaic word usages.

First a quick review of how the Constitution is structured.

You’ve got the Preamble. (We talked about that here.)

Then come the main three articles. Why three?

In case it is no longer self-evident, placing power in an individual ruler was something our founders intended to avoid. They assumed that, given human nature, if they divided up the power into different branches, each branch would be jealous to maintain its own power, thus checking the power of the other branches.

They divided these into the three basic actions a government would need to take: make laws, execute those laws (as Picard would say in Star Trek, “Make it so”), and judge according to those laws.

These separate actions are divided up into the legislative branch, the executive branch, and the judicial branch. The Constitution is laid out to address the powers and duties of each. Article I addresses the legislative branch. Article II the executive branch. Article III the judicial branch. These main articles are further divided into sections.

There are four additional articles related to additional details, like adding states, proposing amendments, handling debts, and ratifying the Constitution originally. And then come the Amendments. The first ten are what we refer to as The Bill of Rights; they were part of the Constitution by the time it was ratified and became law—effective December 15, 1791.  So far there are 27 amendments.

The Light of Freedom, by Ken Turner

This painting was done by my artist friend, Ken Turner, who did the painting "Out of the Ashes" I shared for 9/11. He said of this one:

After fasting and praying in 1987 about how to paint something about the Constitution, I had a dream in which I saw Washington signing the Constitution and knew how to begin. I then added figures symbolic of those yet to come.

It's going to take multiple posts to get through this exercise of reading through the three main articles of the Constitution for understanding. Next time we’ll start our series with Article I, pertaining to the legislative branch. Go pull out your pocket Constitution for that, so you can read along and see if we get it right.

Real Evil

This is an uncomfortable post to write. It will be even more difficult to illustrate. But some things are simply evil, and we need to be clear about that.

I try not to put images in my mind that are too ugly for replay. I didn’t watch Passion of the Christ, because I anticipated that the violence would be too much for me. In that case, I was glad the movie was made, for other people to visualize the suffering of our Lord and Savior; but, for me, seeing it depicted was more than I wanted to watch happen, even knowing it was just a portrayal.

I generally avoid violent movies. I manage the blockbusters, the Avengers and so forth, but it’s stylized and pretend and therefore not too upsetting. But I really prefer something quieter, with more storytelling. It’s a taste thing.

But the thing with violence is, no one is really killed or stabbed in the making of the movie. Real bullets don’t hit the actors. Real knives don’t stab real people. It’s all a simulation. It’s by counting on that safety for all involved that allows us to watch it at all.

Some studies show it’s nevertheless harmful—particularly to young people—because our subconscious doesn’t actually separate out simulation from real when we view it. And getting used to the simulation can inure you to the real thing. You can start thinking gunplay is normal. That’s a risk you take when you watch it.

Still, it’s not real; no one is being harmed, and we know that.

In the sheltered world I grew up in, I thought the same safe assumption should apply to nudity; if something was shown that implied nudity, I had the expectation that the person really was covered during the filming, and it was a trick of camera angles or something that implied nudity. And then, once I saw a showing of the movie The Bible, and the backsides of Adam and Eve were shown, and I was stunned. How could that be? That was real. Right in front of us children.

It wasn’t, I recognize now with my adult mind, a depiction intended for prurient purposes. Nevertheless, to a little girl who was taught the importance of modesty, it was incomprehensible.

The thing about nudity in media is—it’s real. A real person uncovered their body and allowed a camera to photograph them, usually for money.

Purpose and intent may make some difference. Private photos of childbirth, for example. But that does tell us something about the times when uncovering our body is appropriate: in intimate, personal, private circumstances.

Uncovering our body for the world to see is not empowering; it is degrading. We call it sin in my religion.

So, let that be a prelude to our discussion today.

There’s a French movie, being shown on Netflix (for the time being) that is about the sexualization of 11-year-olds. Just the “poster” advertising it caused such a stir that Netflix had to change it. But reports are, that was one of the least offensive images of the movie. (Here’s one of the reports, passed along from a family therapist, on Facebook.)

I’m purposely not mentioning the title. It’s not something a civilized person should seek out. But we can discuss what we know of it and apply principles.

Legally, if it is declared to be child porn, the laws against producing it don’t apply here in the US; it was made in France. But distribution laws would apply. And that would mean Netflix would be found guilty of distributing child porn. Everyone who watched it would be guilty as a consumer, but probably not prosecuted. However, those who passed along images on social media, or those who downloaded the movie to their computer would be prosecutable.

I listened to the Sunday livestream of the law guys Viva and Barnes. They discussed the law aspects. Neither was willing to watch the film. The images available in stories about it were disturbing enough. Reading descriptions, they are of the opinion that, probably if it were filmed in the US, and certainly in Canada, where Viva (David Frei) is located, it would be child porn and prosecutable as such. Child exploitation laws would also apply. But because it was made in France, and because it was already on Netflix, labeling it now as child porn is probably not going to happen. Barnes speculates that Netflix got clearance before putting it on their service. Still, pressure could very well cause them to take it down within a week, just to avoid a total boycott by a large portion of their customers.

The film skates close to a rather fuzzy line. There is nudity, but, according to descriptions, actual nudity is adult only, not of the children. But near nudity is certainly there. Sexting of a crotch is portrayed. Self-stimulation is portrayed. That qualifies as porn even if it is portrayal only, without the actual act being performed.

Ben Shapiro braved through it, to be able to comment, last Friday, based on what is actually in the film, rather than what is known about it. It was disgusting, as everyone says. However, he notes, as do a few others, that the portrayal isn’t in favor of sexualizing children; it shows it as horrifying and bad.

Does that redeem the film? Not in the least. As I’ve heard passed along from multiple commentaries, it’s like showing how bad animal cruelty is by actually beating animals on film for an hour and a half. Do people see that animal cruelty is bad? Yes, but you harmed actual animals to make the message—which means saying a message is more important to you than actually preventing cruelty to animals.

The Babylon Bee (parody news) illustrated for us in a story earlier today (and provides me a relatively safe illustration for this post):

from this Babylon Bee story

And in this case, actually hypersexualizing young girls is being done—there are, indeed, actual young girls in the film being hypersexualized. Are we supposed to be convinced that saying the message is worth sacrificing real lives?

Meanwhile, in California, the legislature just passed a law decriminalizing sex with children. Not entirely, yet. What they claim to be addressing is the problem you have when high school kids, with a possible upper limit of 19 and a lower limit around 14, date each other. And, of course, it’s not the dating that’s at issue, but the sexual act, but they’re making the assumption that it’s a “wholesome” love relationship between young people within a certain age range. However, they made it a ten-year age difference. That means they’re OK with a 25-year-old and a 15-year-old, or a 23-year-old with a 14-year-old. That’s the very type of relationship that can entrap a young person. The older person has adulthood credit, and seems to offer status—but at a cost of innocence, because adults are allowed to expect sex in a relationship that a child, by law up until now, has not been able to legally consent to.

The Babylon Bee had another accidentally true headline:

 

from this Babylon Bee story

California has been leading the nation in sexualizing children. Why? Not for the good of the children. Rather, it’s to accommodate the LGBT agenda. If you looked at what they’re doing in so-called comprehensive sex education and what predators do to groom children, you might not see any difference. Maybe that’s because the culture they’re supporting is grooming children, sexualizing them early, getting them used to things that would otherwise be repugnant to them.

Reread what Rebecca Friedrichs has revealed about sex ed in California (and other US) schools.

And reread what Kelly Litvak tells us, from experience with her daughter, about how the groomers patiently work to entrap.

In a brief moment of good news, last week we watched as the Texas State Board of Education met to discuss new health education standards. We were worried—because there had been heavy lobbying—that the board might weaken and give in to demands to sexualize our young school children. I’m happy to say they held strong, mostly on votes of 9-6. I’m uncertain how that affects local schools, such as in Austin, where they have already adopted those standards, however. Parents need to be ever vigilant.

As Betsy DeVos said, on Glenn Beck on August 28, 

[Parents] are paying property taxes. Grandparents are paying property taxes. Businesses are paying property taxes. And they should be able to say, “We want something different. We want something better for our kids.”

The odds appear to be against us parents and grandparents and taxpayers.

There’s this headline about what’s new at the UN, from September 4, 2020: 

Advocate for legalized teen prostitution takes influential UN post

'The idea of purchasing intimacy and paying for the services can be affirming for many people,' insisted Tlaleng Mofokeng, formerly an abortionist and now a U.N. special rapporteur.

 

Add this one, from August 25, 2020, with a paragraph from the story: 

Sexualized toys created for children: A disturbing trend, not a coincidence

Not mentioned on the packaging is a second button or sensor in the female doll’s genital area that, when pressed, causes the doll to gasp and make sounds like “Whee!” and “Oh!”

 

Hasbro has since pulled the doll from store shelves, but the placement of the button is disturbingly similar to grooming tactics used by child predators to normalize and desensitize kids to inappropriate touching.

 

The results of these cultural trends show up in stories of harm to children, some rescued, some not.

This is from The Blaze, September 1, 2020: 

Registered repeat sex offender allegedly chases down naked teen boy, executes him in the street

'He was pleading for his life'

 

Think about the grooming that victim probably went through before finding himself in the predicament that ended in his death. And we may not ever know what went into the luring of this girl who ended up in a tractor-trailer being shipped out of the country, rescued August 31, 2020: 

Border Patrol agents find missing Texas girl inside tractor-trailer at checkpoint

Sometimes a child is taken in a snatch-and-grab kidnapping, but more often it’s after grooming, frequently through social media like Tik-Tok. It’s shocking how often we see stories like this next one from August 27, 2020, and hard to stomach that the rescues are the rare ones: 

U.S. Marshalls recover 39 missing children in Georgia operation

If there were no market for sexualized children, there would be no slavery of them. That may be what shocks me the most. My life is sheltered enough that I have a difficult time imagining the depravity required for a person to choose to purchase sex, let alone with a child.And yet even I am subjected to images in media that are so sinful that I can hardly comprehend.

We can’t afford to tolerate these things. They do not represent open-mindedness, or tolerance of different viewpoints. They do not represent empowerment, or freedom. They represent, as they always have, depraved debauchery.

And enslavement. Every pornographic image represents a person enslaved in a way that coerces them to uncover their body and allow a camera to photograph them, sometimes doing things that should never be viewed by others, usually for money, possibly for drugs to feed an addiction, possibly just to be allowed to live another day—in a world where life is used up, literally, in about 5 to 7 years.

Porn is not innocent. It is not consented to as a real free person could consent. It is not harmless—not for the viewer, and certainly not for the victim in the portrayal.

If we are in a world where this evil is normalized for children—may God quickly come to our rescue!

Remembering Unity

My experience living in hurricane territory is that, when God wants to get the attention of people in the Gulf Coast—to turn them toward Him and to get them to serve one another—He sends a hurricane. We had a big awakening call in 2017 with Hurricane Harvey, so we were all relieved last month when Hurricane Laura took an eastward turn and missed us entirely—putting us in the preferable position of offering help, instead of suffering the need for help.

Nineteen years ago, a catastrophe brought us together. The whole country. We were temporarily unified—in a good and positive way in the wake of suffering.

So, looking back on that 9/11 catastrophe nineteen years ago, what did unity look like?

"Out of the Ashes," by Ken Turner

Earlier this week, one of my favorite artists, a friend, Ken Turner, shared his different versions of “Out of the Ashes” on Facebook—my favorite 9/11 image, which I share with friends every year at this time (and I carry a small copy with me that he gave me after a tour of his studio many years ago). He was originally commissioned to do the painting by Randy Dean (I think that’s the former NY football player) “to commemorate the loss and heroic sacrifices that took place on 9/11 and the weeks following.” Ken finished the painting about four months after the event.

There are various giclee versions (high quality original-like copies). There are three of the original version. One went to the FDNY (Fire Department of New York), one to Reagan International Airport, and the third hangs in the George H. W. Bush Presidential Library in Texas.

But when the painting was revealed at a reception in New York City, there were requests for additional versions. The NYPD (New York Police Department) asked Ken to paint a flag raising specifically for theirs, which now hangs in their museum.

NYPD version of "Out of the Ashes, by Ken Turner

And the Port Authority Police requested that he add, among the crowd in the painting, the faces of some of the 37 of their officers who died that day; he was able to include 10 of them. That giclee hangs in their headquarters.

When I look at this painting—any version of it—I remember. Not just the horror of the day, but the resolve, the unity, and the love that followed. People got in their cars and drove across the country to NYC, and stayed for days or weeks, working to rescue, clear debris, and do whatever they could to help. People set up funds, and offered love and support in any way they could find. We all said we would never forget.

I have briefly visited New York, but I don’t think I could adapt to that foreign land today. Large numbers have never even met a conservative (that they’re aware of). They define people like me—a person who loves the freedom, prosperity, and civilization that come from a righteous people following our Constitution in a free economy—as hateful, racist, bigoted, and whatever other label for evil they tack on at any given time.

They don’t remember how we loved and prayed and cared for them in their time of need.

Particularly we all—Americans everywhere, and many people around the world—honored and respected the police and firefighters of NYC who responded to help, running toward the danger, and some of them giving their lives.

Ken Turner says the title “Out of the Ashes” was given to the painting by Randy Dean, who commissioned it. But, in Ken’s mind there was always a subtitle: “No Greater Love Has Man Than This.”[i]

They deserve honor. Not just for that day, but for every day when they have put on the uniform and gone out to risk their lives in service of the people. These first responders do that all over the country.

But today, instead of being honored, they are maligned and defunded, even in one weird city in Texas.

A response to the Austin, TX, decision to defund their police.
KXAN photo/Richie Bowes, from here

There’s something really heartbreaking about seeing people this far apart, people who were unified, at least for a time, after that unforgettable date. And now we can’t even agree that what the police do is a good thing. As on 9/11, the enemies of civilization tear down and destroy. Then the truly civilized come in to rescue and clear away the debris.

These are irreconcilable differences, unless there is repentance—a change of heart and a change of direction—from those doing the hating, and the destruction in cities across the land. We can’t compromise with their evil.

Tough times, even catastophes, are all around us. That can mean simply ongoing pain and misery, or that can mean a reminder to turn to God, in a spirit of repentance.

I expect if someone is so far gone into savagery that they loot, and destroy, and even kill, and then call that good, they might not wake up in the face of real suffering. But for those who will turn to the side of good and light, I pray they will come to that side with an absolute minimum of apocalyptic suffering.

We don’t want another 9/11 like that one in 2001. But, whatever comes, people on the side of good and light—and the police, as a profession, are among them—will run toward the danger to help. It’s who they are.

---

[i] John 15:13. 

Say No to New Health/TEKS Standards

This is a call for action, something I don’t do on this blog very often. It’s mainly for Texans, but others may be interested in the issue, because this is going on all over.

Tomorrow, Tuesday, September 8, 2020, the State Board of Education is meeting to decide whether to adopt new standards for Health/TEKS (Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills). This is the first time health education standards have been up for review since 1997. You can review the draft here. 

In the new Health/TEKS, the undefined
"committed relationship" is equated with marriage.

It’s being used by those in opposition to civilization to promote—without any local opt-out or dissent—their version of sex education. If you think those who don’t want this to happen are just some old-fashioned prudes, exaggerating any negatives, maybe you need to do some research.

So I’ll share some of that here, plus a sample of what you can say to SBOE members.

We’re already too late for you to sign up to testify; that deadline was this past Friday. But for several days following the meeting, SBOE members will be accepting written statements on the issue. (I don’t know when the actual vote takes place, so immediate is best.)

The abortion industry is behind the new Health/TEKS standards; that can’t be good. I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but ever since they said student needed to be taught comprehensive sex education, so they could make wise decisions to prevent out-of-wedlock births, teen pregnancy went up and teen sexual activity went up. If you don’t think that’s intentional, you may not have been paying attention. (Read here and here.)  

Right now, the law leaves decisions about sex education to local districts, where parents can have input. If the new Health/TEKS standards are passed, all districts will be required to teach to the standards—at every grade level.

Fetal development is removed entirely; postpartum mood disorders are discussed at grade 7.

Here’s my sample letter. Feel free to adapt from this for your own, choosing what you feel is most important. Note also that an individual letter will have more influence than a copied one, so for that reason I do not recommend simply lifting my whole letter. (Where to send it is below the letter.)

 

Dear [SBOE Member’s Name],

I ask that you do not adopt the new Health TEKS. While there are some changes that are acceptable, there are enough problems that simple edits will not do. According to Texas Administrative Code §74.1, any standards/TEKS that are approved must be taught, and cannot be deleted or omitted; this directly contradicts Texas law. Be aware that the SBOE has no authority to approve Sex Education Standards/TEKS; Texas Education Code 28.004 requires that the local community has the right to determine the if, what, and when of sex education in their local public schools. In addition, the Texas Family Code 151.001 makes clear that any new standards must not violate deeply held religious beliefs, along with parents’ natural rights to direct the moral and religious teachings of their children.

Among the changes that ring alarm bells are the following:

—Human fetal development has been removed—from the section on human reproduction! This is not only a deletion of important scientific information, it removes the concept that the baby in utero is a human being—something very important to people who believe pre-born humans deserve protection. If there were no other problems with the Health TEKS, this deletion is so egregious that no parent should allow their child to be taught health at a public school when the mindset of the program directors did this on purpose.

—The word “risk” is used, an abstract, in relation to behavior that could lead to something as life-threatening as HIV, or to something as life-changing as pregnancy. Instead of simply saying, “This behavior is not appropriate for teens,” period, “and here’s why,” teens are told to assess what amount of risk they’re willing to tolerate (with behaviors they’ve never considered or imagined listed in detail for them)—in the same program that has already talked about teenage brain development. So it’s not like the curriculum developers don’t know this approach is inserting risk and chaos into the lives of teens.

—In three places, the phrase “or committed relationships” is added to “marriage,” meaning some relationship outside of marriage is equated to marriage. One of the most settled concepts in the social sciences is that outcomes for children are best when they are raised by their own married parents[i]. This should be taught as the norm.

You have not defined “committed relationships,” but let me simplify that for you: if there’s no ring, no public commitment announcement, with signatures witnessed and filed (a marriage), it’s not yet a commitment; it’s a hook-up or a shack-up.

You’re asking teens to define “commitment” that could qualify for sexual activity as something as amorphous as “going steady,” or dating just each other for the time being. This can and is confusing. For example, some San Antonio school districts use a program called Draw the Line/Respect the Line, which asks 13-year-olds to “List three important reasons for teens not to have sex.” Possible answers include: “want to wait until married or in a committed relationship.” This program’s version of “abstinence” is telling 13-year-olds it’s OK to have sex if you’re “going steady.” What happens to that 13-year-old when she gets pregnant, and the boyfriend is both unready and uninterested in parenting their offspring? The program replaced the word “trauma” with risk in this setting (p. 53 of the draft). Trauma is more accurate.

Maybe you should, instead, point out that there’s a formula for getting out of poverty in America. Do these things in this order: graduate from high school, get a steady job, get married, then have children. This is practically a guarantee of moving into the middle class, with or without college. But having sex when unmarried is the most common cause of generational poverty; it almost guarantees it. And you’re teaching them it’s just a little risky.

—Multiple times the term “parent or trusted adult” is used, to encourage children to confide. This is used as early as kindergarten. Children this young are not qualified to determine which adults can and cannot be trusted; getting children to trust them is what grooming behavior of pedophiles entails. Young children should be encouraged to talk to their parents; only if a child has no parents, then the term “legal guardian” could be added and explained.

—Additional information can be added to the Health/TEKS without clearing the additions through the SBOE or even a local parent committee. For example, where “consent” is the concept beginning at grade 6, Planned Parenthood produced “Consent” video series, available online for no cost (see, for example: here) could be used as supplemental material. This could happen even when parents across the state have been very clear that they want no Planned Parenthood material, in any form, used in their schools.

—Material is often not age-appropriate. For example, gangs are discussed in grade 3; sexual harassment, abuse, sexual assault, and sex trafficking are discussed in grade 5 (10-year-olds); options for unmarried pregnant teens, as well as post-partum issues, are discussed in grades 7-8, as though these are normal concerns of 12-13-year-olds; HPV vaccine is pushed (pushing any vaccine is inappropriate) in grades 7-8, even though the vaccine is unnecessary for women who are not yet sexually active and it has been untested and may be dangerous for girls under 20.

Let me say again, reject the new Health/TEKS standards. We Texas parents absolutely do not want this material forced onto our children.

I would appreciate a response letting me know how you plan to vote on these materials.

Thank you,

[My signature]

 

You can submit your comments to TEA at teks@tea.texas.gov and sboesupport@tea.texas.gov. Use "Health Education TEKS Review Final Recommendations Feedback" in the subject line.

You can also send your comments directly to your own and all the other SBOE members. Here’s their contact info:

District	Member	Party	Email
District 1	Georgina Perez	Democrat	georgina.perez@tea.texas.gov
District 2	Ruben Cortez, Jr.	Democrat	rubencortezfortexas@gmail.com
District 3	Marisa Perez-Diaz	Democrat	marisa.perez@tea.texas.gov
District 4	Lawrence Allen, Jr	Democrat	sboesupport@tea.texas.gov
District 5	Ken Mercer	Republican	sboesupport@tea.texas.gov
District 6	Donna Bahorich	Republican	donna.bahorich@tea.texas.gov
District 7	Matt Robinson	Republican	matt.robinson@tea.texas.gov
District 8	Barbara Cargill	Republican	sboecargill@sbcglobal.net
District 9	Keven Ellis	Republican	ellisSBOE@gmail.com
District 10	Tom Maynard	Republican	tom@maynardfortexas.com
District 11	Patricia Hardy	Republican	pat.hardy.1109@gmail.com
District 12	Pam Little	Republican	pam.little@tea.texas.gov
District 13	Aicha Davis	Democrat	Aicha.Davis@tea.texas.gov
District 14	Sue Melton-Malone	Republican	smelton51@gmail.com
District 15	Marty Rowley	Republican	marty@martyrowley.com

---

[i] See “Why Marriage Matters: Twenty-One Conclusions from the Social Sciences,” 2002, along with citations listed in that publication. See also, e.g., Mark R. Rank and Thomas A. Hirschi, 1999, “The Economic Risk of Childhood in America:  Estimating the Probability of Poverty Across the Formative Years,” Journal of Marriage and the Family 61(4):  1058ff. [81 percent of children living in non-married households will experience poverty during the course of their childhood, but only 22 percent of children living with married parents will experience poverty; 52 percent of children in non-married households will experience dire poverty (income 50 percent or less of the official poverty threshold), but only 10 percent of children in married households will experience dire poverty.]  Also, David Blankenhorn, “The Marriage Problem,” American Experiment Quarterly, Spring 2003, citing Suzanne M. Birch, Lekha Subaiya, and Joan R. Kahn, “The Gender Gap in the Economic Well-Being of Nonresident Fathers and Custodial Mothers,” Demography 35, no 2 (May 1999):195-203. “One of every three divorces in the US resulting in the physical separation of a father from his children plunges the mother and children into poverty. Father absence due to marital failure is a primary cause of poverty in the US.”

Doing a Mind Meld

There’s something Spock could do, on Star Trek, that would come in handy. He used to be able to put a couple of fingers on a person’s head—or other body part if it was a headless alien—and understand what the person was thinking. When we’re as unlike one another—or at least when we think so unlike one another—as now, this would be a useful tool.

Spock doing mind meld with Horta
image found here

I can’t actually do that with people who think very differently from me. Some of them are dangerous to even be around. But I can imagine—which, in reality, is what the writers of Star Trek did; spoiler alert: there wasn’t a real live Spock, just an actor playing a part.

So we’re about to do an interview. Actually several. Sort of a poll. We’ll ask the same question—with the possibility of followup, to several different individuals, to see if we’re understanding what they’re thinking. Remember, this isn’t what they say; it’s what they actually think. My speculation of that, of course.

Then, if you get a chance to encounter one of these kinds in the wild, maybe you can help us verify, or add to our data.

The Question: What are you doing this for?

Rioter—looting, burning, destroying: We have to tear down everything. You can’t start something new unless you level everything and build from scratch.

Follow-up Q: What is it you want to build from scratch?

Rioter: A new kind of society, where we’re in charge. We’ll make it fair—to everyone who does what we say. That's the really important thing—that we're in power.

 

________________

Protester—shouting, chanting, yelling, demonstrating: We have to make everyone aware of the wrongs in this society. We have to keep this up until there’s actual change.

Follow-up Q: What is the change you want to see?

Protester: People who have been oppressed, like blacks, will never be looked down on again. They’ll have all the opportunities of anyone else. And those who haven’t been oppressed—they’ll have to be taken down from their comfortable positions of privilege.

Follow-up Q: Have you, or have you seen anyone personally who has been oppressed?

Protester: Every black has been oppressed. It’s everywhere. It’s systemic. It’s in the air we breathe.

Follow-up Q: Can you give me an example?

Protester: I don't need no stinkin' example. It's everywhere you look.

 

________________

Politician (or other elite)—claiming it’s all Trump’s fault: We have to get him out of power. That’s the only way we can have the power to do what we want to do?

Follow-up Q: What is it you want to do?

Politician: Fundamentally transform this country into a socialist nation, so it will be fair.

Follow-up Q: What would “fair” look like under socialism?

Politician: No rich or poor. Everyone the same. We decide who gets what, and who does what. It’s good for everyone who goes along with us; it might be bad for some—but only those who don’t do whatever we say. That’s how we get unity—we get rid of dissent.

Follow-up Q: Will your personal wealth be the same as everyone else’s?

Politician: Well, as an elite I’ll need some additional resources, just to make things happen, after all. You can’t expect me to let lack of resources get in my way.

 

________________

Woke Supporter—social media demonstrations and expressions of support: I’m showing I’m hearing the oppressed. I recognize I’ve been privileged, which exonerates me from the guilt that those who aren’t woke are guilty of. We need society to change.

Follow-up Q: Have you ever intentionally treated someone as less than you because of their race?

Woke Supporter: Not intentionally, no. But I’m sure I wasn’t aware of stuff I did before I got woke, so I’d be guilty of that if I hadn’t become woke.

Follow-up Q: What would a changed society look like?

Woke Supporter: Everyone gets along. We’re all happy all the time. No one says anything that offends someone else. All the un-woke people just shut up.

 

________________

Always Been a Democrat—voting Democrat: We’re the good guys. We’re for the little guy. We’re against unfairness.

Follow-up Q: How do you know what the Democrats pursue is good for the little guy and against unfairness?

Always Been a Democrat: It just is. By definition. Republicans are racist, bigoted, xenophobes, homophobes, and fascists. They’re the bad guys.

Follow-up Q: What Democrat policies show they’re the good guys, and what Republican policies show they’re all those bad things?

Always Been a Democrat: I don’t get into the details. But that’s just common knowledge. All the news says so.

 

I already know what I think. But I’m interested when I hear someone unexpected—someone who looks like they ought to fit into one of the above categories but doesn’t—say what they think.

There was a video I came across this week. The interviewer is Jess Weber. He’s at a freedom rally in Beverly Hills, CA. And he’s talking with four black men, two wearing MAGA hats, asking them about interactions they had with protesters earlier. 

 

screenshot from here

They’re articulate. They’re clear. And they’re absolutely not oppressed. Here’s some of the exchange.

Interviewer: Tell me— The BLM movement was here earlier. What were you guys all debating about? What was the problem?

[There’s a call to let a man speak. I think they call him The Slayer. But I’m not sure, so I’ll just call him Man 1. He's the one in sunglasses.]

Man 1: He wanted to talk some nonsense about where this country really is, that it’s stolen land. I asked him, “Well, then, who do we give it back to?” He had no answer, which—most of their arguments have no answer.”

[footage from earlier, then back to main interview]

Interviewer: He kept saying that he built this land.

Man 1: Yeah, he didn’t build anything. He did build— I mean, right now, if you want to build something, you get a job, so you put your taxes back into your city. That’s called building something. Or start your own business. That’s what this country’s about. It’s not about getting some kind of like minimum wage job that you hope pays for your life. It’s about you getting out there and making your own way. But if you look at—where is it harder to make your own way? Blue states. Where they’re making it hard?

I talked to a guy last week that was going, “Well, the only reason our jobs went up is ‘cause the regulations got cut.” I go, “Yeah. More people got money in their pocket, huh?” Right?

 

Then they discuss the wrongness of being forced to honor people who were actually criminals.

Man 1: They want me to say some guy’s name who multiple, multiple times beat up his girlfriend. Multiple times, sexual assault.

Man 2: He’s not my Martin Luther King. He’s not my Martin Luther King.

Man 1: That’s who I’m supposed to die for? That’s who I’m supposed to sit there and get in a fight with my fellow citizens for?

 

They get into examples of other black lives that really should matter. Here, he’s talking about kids in Chicago who have been killed.

Man 1: Teenagers. In Chicago that died just in the month of July alone. Thirty-eight, if no one knows, 38 children in Chicago alone through this defunding BS that Black Lives Matter has been pushing. 38 kids in the month of July.

Man 2: What about those black lives? What about those black lives? What about all black lives?

Man 1: When have you seen a poster? When have you seen any of those faces on the cover of any magazines? But Oprah Winfrey is going to put someone on there who was working with her boyfriend in the drug trafficking trade down there. But we don’t want to talk about that.

 

The interviewer turns to a really big guy in a MAGA hat behind the others, refers to him as Megahulk. I don’t know if that’s his name, but it will do for now.

Interviewer: Megahulk, you almost turned green over there. Now, I want to know, what were you telling those guys?

Megahulk:  Well, I was trying to get them to understand, like, just, first, answer the question. We would give him a question, for him to answer, you know, ‘cause— “Donald Trump is racist.” “So, how is he racist?” “Uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh.” That’s it.

[footage from earlier, then return to main interview]

Megahulk: That’s it. And then they just repeat it and repeat it. I’m like, “Look, just answer the question.” But they can’t answer the question, because they have no facts on their side. They have no facts. They don’t do any research. They don’t do any type of higher learning when it comes to what they believe. All they know is what the media narrative tells them to believe, and that’s all they parrot.

 

We need to get to the other man in the group; I’ll call him Man 3. His is good. He’s saying Black Lives Matter is not about helping black lives at all.

Man 3: The whole organization is fake. I believe, I personally believe that the BLM movement is fake. It has nothing to do with advancing the lives of black people.

Man 1: They actually say they want to break up the family home.

Man 3: Exactly. Like, their main goal is to break up the patriarchal, like, nuclear family. They want the men removed out of the family, which is what Democrats want also.

If BLM really cared about black lives, why would it be solely isolated to incidents where a black life is taken at the hands of a white cop? That happens less than 1%....

Now, I like to equate this to— It’s the same as if I’m in a horrific accident. I have a massive head wound. I have a leg fracture, and a scratch on my finger. And here come the first responders, and they want to tend to the scratch on my finger. And I’m telling you, “What about the wound on my head? What about my fractured leg?” That’s what the BLM movement is. They’re tending to the scratch on my finger, and that’s not even what it’s about.

If you want to help us, let us tell you how you can help us. Don’t come in and tell us how you want to help us.

And don’t tell me that I’m oppressed. Because I’m not oppressed. I’m a black American. I’m a proud black American. And I’m not oppressed. I am not oppressed. I’m one of the freest persons on this world.

Man 1: I kneel for no man. I only kneel to God.

There’s a good finale to the whole segment.

Man 2: As you can see, black conservatism is the new punk rock. You know what I mean.

Megahulk: We’re the rebels. We’re the rebels. You want to be cool? Come join our cause.

Interviewer: One question: Who are we voting for in 2020?

All: Trump 2020!

 

This kind of clarity, this kind of positive energy—from people who are so much like me in ways that matter—this makes me happy to see.

Sometimes Spock was able to mind meld to place his thoughts into the minds of others. It would be handy to be able to do that. Take the thoughts from these positive, articulate men, and place them into the minds of people who are calling them—and us—all kinds of negative names. I don’t think that would overcome the rioters, the protesters, or the political elites. But it might have a persuasive effect on the woke supporters and the Democrats who do what they do because they don’t know better.