The Critical School Board Races, Part I

School board fights are going on across the nation. What does that mean? It means that people don’t want their children indoctrinated with ideologies at odds with their family’s values. They just want kids to be taught to read, write, do math, and think. They don’t want them inducted involuntarily into some wrong-headed social experiment.

So, we’re having that fight here in my school district in northwest Houston. To be clear, this highly rated school district failed my family over 20 years ago—which led to our decade of homeschooling. The kids are all grown, all graduated from college, and have all gone on to post-graduate education. To the person who commented a warning a while back that homeschooling my children was appalling, because of the way I think, and that I would ruin them for the real world—you’re too late. And you’re also wrong.

What is happening in our schools? Some good things, but way too many unacceptable things.

Langham Creek High School, in Cy-Fair ISD
image from Google Maps

 

What We’re Fighting

The current big concern is about Critical Race Theory. Let’s define the term so we’re on the same page. Critical Race Theory is an adaptation of Critical Theory, out of Marxism. In the original, it was an attempt to pit social classes against one another, to stir up the lower classes to empower the elites to take rights and property away from the relatively successful: the bourgeoisie, or the kulaks, depending on your language.

But that was a hard sell in America—because we have a great deal of class mobility. Most Americans who start out in a lower economic class do not stay there throughout their lives. They move up and down based on the increase in value they can bring to an employer, or to their entrepreneurial business. They’re not held down by the strata of their birth.

To the Marxists, that meant there needed to be another way: replace class/caste with race, and claim it’s unfair.

That has also been something of a hard sell, because America is based on—not a national heritage or land ownership, like other nations, but on the idea that all people are created equal before the law. This was at a time when every nation on earth thought slavery was just part of life. Some were slaves to others, and that was just their lot in life. America’s founders questioned that status quo, and challenged it. And they would have begun the country with slavery already outlawed if they could have persuaded enough of the populous to this new idea. Instead, it took most of an additional century and a bloody Civil War to get rid of that plague. But they paid the price and did it. And every country in the world that got rid of slavery (and not all have yet) did so because of that idea that all men are created equal.

Unfortunately, there were residuals of that abomination for yet another century, in the form of Jim Crow laws, by the same people who had been slaveholders. (Hint: they were all of the political party that starts with a D.) And so the Marxists—the ones who want to destroy our freedom, prosperity, and civilization—have tried rewriting and reframing our history to tell an entirely different story. That is, America is innately evil. It was founded on the idea of white supremacy, and every law and institution was put into place to support that idea. Therefore, now that we’re so much more enlightened than those evil white men of the past, we should be ashamed of our country, it’s Constitution, it’s institutions; we should destroy them all and start over to create a new Socialist utopia.

A tag-along idea is intersectionality, the idea that, the more victim groups you can claim to belong to, the greater your power ought to be. The “victimized” now get to oppress the “oppressors.” And the “oppressors” are born that way, based on accidents of birth, regardless of behavior or thought. So even our kindergarteners are guilty oppressors who ought to allow themselves to be oppressed by those with greater victim status.

Where teachers go to get indoctrinated in false history.

When you refer to the term Critical Race Theory, you’ll likely be told, “That’s not being taught here. In fact, that’s something that’s only taught in some college classes. Not here.” But the thing is, CRT isn’t a curriculum; it is an ideology, a way of thinking. So it shows up in various places where people who are CRT ideologues have had influence. It’s at all levels. And it is in our school district. It shows up in anti-bullying programs. It shows up in history courses. It shows up in teacher development magazines and programs that show, for example, “how to teach black boys,” as though they must be treated totally differently from other children.

Critical Race Theory is racist while claiming to be against racism. It is unjust while claiming to bring about justice. It is a lie.

Is that what you want our children to be taught about this nation they live in and are part of? I didn’t think so.

What can we do about it? Be aware, of course. Find out what our kids are being taught—check out the texts, ask questions, know the teachers. And let your desires be known. Disapprove loudly when necessary.

That’s the individual school/classroom level. The next level up is the school board.

 

Who We’re Fighting

So, let me introduce you to one of the school board trustees in Cypress-Fairbanks Independent School District. His name is Dr. John Ogletree. He has been in his position since around 2005. He is a pastor. He is very influential. Since the first time I saw him at a candidate forum I saw that he favored educational ideas and practices that I knew didn’t work. Add to that, he seems to me to be arrogant and condescending. Oh, and, by the way, incidentally, he is black.

Dr. John Ogletree, screenshot from here

He has been putting out tweets, a public forum, that some members of our community have been collecting. Some of these may not still be there; he started taking them down when he signed up to run again this year. But here’s a list shared with the Board—and the public—at last week’s school board meeting:

·       “Yesterday’s Ku Klux Klan members are today’s police officers.”

·       “White Evangelicalism is nothing but slaveholder religion.”

·       Six Things That White People Say That Highlight Their Privilege.”

·       “Riots are the American way” (in reference to police killings).

·       “This country was built on bad theology with White men holding bibles!!!”

·       “Wesley Hunt… is a Trump Republican. Don’t be fooled. He may share our ‘hue’ but he doesn’t share our view! I said what I said.” [Wesley Hunt was a candidate for Congressional District 7 in 2020.]

·       “White Evangelicals… are complicit in Madness, Divisiveness, and Evil.”

·       “If you want to understand white privilege just watch the videos of the insurrection on the US Capital Grounds.”

·       “When will the white pulpit be as repulsed by the taking of an innocent Black life as it is by the taking of the life of an unborn fetus.”

This is an ideological person. He believes these things. And he has been influencing our local schools for nigh unto two decades.

Those of you who are just trying to take care of your families and your jobs and don’t have time to pay attention to all these details—this ought to get your attention. You either have to pull your kids out of school, or you need to take steps to correct the schools. And you can start by getting this guy out of his position of influence.

Fortunately, we have good candidates. As of today, there are 32 days until Early Voting, and 47 days until Election Day. So we’ve got to get the word out.

I’ve been joining with a number of other precinct chairs within the district (somewhere around 74 precincts). We’ve been hearing from candidates, talking with them, vetting them, for a couple of months now.

There are three races open this year. All seven of the board members signed a resolution last fall, committing to spending our taxpayer funds on an “equity audit.” If you’re familiar with CRT, then you may know that “equity” doesn’t mean “equality.” They have hijacked that word (they redefine many words) to mean “equal outcomes.” If you look at anything, and the outcome isn’t divided up exactly as the demographics, then the only possible reason must be systemic racism. So, they hired some company to look at the district and find unequal outcomes, and then they would then take advice on programs to implement to change the outcomes. If you have blacks doing less well on math tests, for example, it must be because of systemic racism. So you implement all kinds of “anti-racism,” which means racism against whites or any other successful group. And when the outcomes continue to yield bad math scores, you double down.

So we need all of the school board gone. Three this year, and the other four when their terms are up in two years.

Ogletree has run as a slate with Don Ryan (who has been in since 2000) and Bob Covey (who has been in since 2004). It’s a non-partisan race, but when we know the party, sometimes it tells us something. Ryan and Covey are nominal Republicans. I haven’t always voted against them. But this year it’s time to say no more.

Don Ryan has come to our Tea Party meetings. More than once. Just last month he came to participate in our candidate forum. He assures us there’s no CRT being taught in our district—against testimony from multiple parents. When confronted with Ogletree’s tweets, he says he has worked well with him and considers him a friend, and will continue to support him. The three are running again as a slate, with PAC money behind them. The ROC PAC—not sure of the meaning of the letters. People are speculating things like “really old codgers.” (OK, it's really for their last names: Ryan, Ogletree, and Covey.)

image from campaign materials

 

Who We’re Fighting With

Ryan (position 6) and Covey (position 7) each have only one Republican opponent. So the decision there is fairly simple. I’ll be voting for Scott Henry for position 6 and Luke Scanlon for position 7.

Scott Henry is a dad with still one child in the district. He’s a businessman and brings that view to the board, which I appreciate. Much of the board’s business is mundane money stuff, but it needs to be done well, by someone with the right values. He’s not, by the way, related to the Superintendent, whose last name is also Henry. (Some of us haven’t been too happy with him either.)

Luke Scanlon is the founder of our local Tea Party, back in I think 2011 when about seven of us met in a room at the BBQ restaurant that lets us meet there for free. After getting us started, he went off to Harvard’s public policy school. When he came back, I think I heard he ran for an office, but not in my area. And I had kind of lost track of him. It was good to catch up. He and his wife had been childless back in the day, but now they have a beautiful 6-year-old girl (he proudly showed me photos on his phone), which is why the interest in the school board position. He has his own business developing people in their businesses and in life goals. And he teaches a college class or two. He was only able to attend one of our candidate forums (conflicts with teaching a college class, mainly, which is ending here in a couple of weeks). But I liked his answers at the one I attended. Unfortunately, it’s not one that was recorded. I saw him and his wife again at last Thursday’s school board meeting.

There have been a number of good candidates for position 5; everyone wants to get rid of Ogletree. Unfortunately, that divides the votes in an election with no runoff. I hope those I’m not supporting this time will consider running in two years. They have a lot to offer.

I, along with a very large majority of the precinct chairs who have worked on this, am supporting Natalie Blasingame for position 5. She definitely has energy and passion about this. She has run before. I’ve voted for her before. Hopefully we have enough community support to get her elected this time.

Dr. Blasingame has been in education for 29 years, at multiple levels. She has three words to signify her campaign: Choice, Voice, and Values.

I’d like to go into more detail on our three choices, especially Dr. Blasingame. But that’s going to require a part II. In the meantime, there are videos of some of our candidate forums:

·         From our August 21 Forum for Precinct Chairs

o    Opening and Initial Question & Answer Session

o    Responses to Republican Platform and Precinct Chair Q&A

·         From our August 28 Tea Party Meeting  (membership required to view posts in the group)

o    Natalie Blasingame

o    Don Ryan

o    Todd LaCompte

o    Grace Horner

o    Courtney Spradley

o    Scott Henry

Also, I’m aware of a few of the candidate websites:

·         Natalie Blasingame www.natalieblasingame.com

·         Scott Henry www.ScottforCyfair.com

·         Blasingame, Henry, and Scanlon together www.cyfairisdelection.com

More to come in part II.

United We Stand

from our neighborhood's
20th Commemoration of 9/11

This past Saturday I attended a neighborhood gathering to commemorate the 20^th anniversary since 9/11. It’s particularly poignant this year because of the resounding defeat Biden and team have thrown us into in Afghanistan.

We said we would never forget. And we haven’t. But the occupier of the White House has forgotten, and has shamed us all.

There was a purpose for going into Afghanistan. The terrorist-supporting Taliban government had aided and abetted Osama bin Laden and terrorist organization to recruit, train, and hide out, so they could wreak havoc on the US and the world. We had a just cause. And we fulfilled it. That mission was clear.

As happens in such cases, the bad guys hide out in caves and over the border, where they could get safe haven, only to return once the forces withdraw. That meant, if we were to prevent them from retaking power, we had to stay and help the local people stand up against them.

The least hint of giving up that support has led to increased power for the Taliban. The mission hadn’t actually morphed, but the way it was framed had. Supposedly we were no longer protecting our interests by tamping down terrorism overseas—rather than facing the terrorists on our own shores; now we were “nation building.” Some of that is true. We had to build up a government in Afghanistan to prevent a vacuum that the Taliban would return to fill. And after 20 years, and a media that wouldn’t frame it the way our soldiers understood their mission, the US in general no longer had an appetite for maintaining our presence there, even though they've been maintaining the peace much longer in Korea and Germany.

President Trump keyed into that anti-nation-building sentiment. And I'm not sure that was wrong. But his willingness—along with the willingness of his opponents—to leave was heard loudly, as a rallying cry, by our enemies. And his predecessors blithely pulled out without any normal consideration for how to do that without causing wreck and ruin.

The world is messy. It’s particularly messy in recent times. More so in recent months.

Todd Beamer, on flight 93
image from here

At the event on Saturday, we had a color guard, from a nearby Scout troop, present the colors and lead us in the pledges (in Texas we do the US pledge, and then the Texas pledge; I don’t know if any other state has one of their own). I talked with the scoutmaster afterward. It had been my husband who recruited them to do it. His wasn’t the only troop to offer, but his was the first. He was surprised that every troop within miles wasn’t jumping at the chance. He made sure his boys understood how important this event was. None of them had been born when it happened, so to them it’s like marking the Pearl Harbor attack for most of the rest of us. It’s not ancient history, but it’s before our time. So these young people need to be taught, and shown, what this day has meant.

There were a great many things marking this day. One was the transcript of the 911 call from Todd Beamer, a passenger on flight 93 over Pennsylvania, who acted heroically that day. Several friends shared it. This shows who Americans really are, and who we honor.

At our little neighborhood gathering, I think we did the quintessential American thing. We got together outside, on a beautiful sunny day in the shade of trees, honored the flag, honored the fallen, and then talked about what we can do together to make our community better. We had a number of school board candidates there, where we could get to know them better. I’ll have more on that another day. But this is the essence of self-government, to get involved at the local level. It gives me some hope that our efforts to maintain freedom may be fruitful.

We had a speech about the day. It’s short, and was seen only by our gathering, so I thought I’d share it here. It’s by our freshman state representative, Lacey Hull, who says basically what needed to be said, ending with this:

On September 11th, we lost so much. It was a tragedy that struck the heart of our nation. But it reminded us that we have a heart. That e pluribus unum isn’t just a motto; it’s one of our fundamental values, that out of many, we are one—one nation under God. May God bless America and each and every American. And may we never forget.

 

She’s right. I remember the unity we felt, as Americans—and along with friends of America around the world—in the days after 9/11. Criticism of America, already rampant even two decades ago, held its peace for at least a few months while we mourned and held one another up. I miss that unity.

As we watch, in horror, at the administration-caused catastrophe still ongoing in Afghanistan, including for American citizens, and for many who totally supported us these past decades, it’s hard to be hopeful about a future of freedom, prosperity, and civilization. We have leaders who want tyranny, poverty, and savagery, as difficult as it is to comprehend that. 

I know in the end that goodness wins; I’ve read the ending of the book. But I don’t know what we all need to go through between now and that ending.

Sometimes I write in order to organize my thoughts, to know exactly what it is I think. Other times I have to let ideas simmer for a while. I’m thinking about how to be joyful during catastrophic times. One idea is to keep a focus on what to be thankful for, and we still have a lot of that. Another focus is how much God is with us during difficult times.

Back in earlier days, when I had small children, and I was struggling with health issues that made daily life difficult, I remember praying that I could take joy in my children. The health issues continued for a very long time, but the joy in my children filled me. I took delight in the blessing of having those children and watching them grow.

So I know that, if I pray now for joy in these sad times, when our way of life is hanging by a thread, it’s a worthy thing to ask for and will be granted. But I don’t yet know what the answer will look like.

In the meantime, may those of us who love liberty and our constitutional republic hold together in unity, and invite all to unite with us in loving freedom, prosperity, and civilization.

Deep in the Heartbeat Law of Texas

On September 1^st, a number of bills became law, bills that passed during the Texas Legislature regular bi-annual session, ending in May. One of these was what is termed the Texas Heartbeat Law.

Since it passed, there has been a lawsuit asking for it to be, essentially, struck down—and stopped temporarily until such strikedown. That injunction moved through the courts, where recently the US Supreme Court ruled against the injunctions. More explanation below. But first let’s deal with the explosive panic from people who don’t like the idea of a state where killing babies is in any way limited.

Gov. Greg Abbott signs the Texas Heartbeat Bill
image from CBSDFW.com, found here

Here are the claims:

·         Women are going to be fined $10,000!

·         Uber drivers are going to be fined $10,000!

·         Roe v. Wade has been overturned!

·         Women will die because of this law.  

None of these things is true. You can read the law yourself, here. 

 

Arguing with Smoke

I made the mistake of engaging online, to an extended family member—who lives very far from Texas, never visits here, and who after many years of infertility is now raising a darling pair of twins, is in her 40s, married, and never going to have more children. So why she’s worried about this law in Texas is a puzzlement. But she posted something (no longer available for me to view) that claimed that the law put a $10,000 bounty on women. So I said the law doesn’t do that; it allows people to open a civil suit against providers who kill babies after a heartbeat is found. Then I provided the link to the actual text of the bill.

And I got attacked, by additional extended family whom I don’t engage with on social media, and who also never visit Texas, nor are of an age or inclination to ever have another pregnancy.

One said, “what ever trumpettes,” which has no actual meaning I can discern, lacking punctuation or point. Another said,

I will not be visiting Texas. This law is so restrictive. It even goes so far as to be able to charge a taxi or Uber driver that drives a woman to a clinic. Since there is a HIPAA law, no one else should even know why a woman is going to a clinic. It is none of their business. This law will not stop abortion, it will only cause more women dying. The fact that some of these laws that go so far as to criminalize a woman that miscarries is beyond crazy. The next thing you know, they will be charging women for having a period!

I kid you not. Of course no Uber driver is going to be held accountable, because they do not know what a woman is doing at a clinic, whether she’s pregnant or how far along, or just stopping by for birth control; nor do they have anything to do with the procedure. The law addresses abortion providers, not casual workers at other jobs going about their daily tasks. While it does outlaw abortion after detectable heartbeat, it does not provide any criminal penalty; it only allows the civil lawsuit. And what kind of idiot actually believes—and spouts off about it without any research—that this or any law criminalizes women for having a miscarriage, for which she has no control and probably mourns? 

Normally I wouldn’t respond at all. But I added one more comment. I pointed out the irony of the sudden resolve never to visit a state they never visit, and assured them Texas wouldn’t feel the harm from their continued absence. I pointed out the error about the Uber driver. I added that there is already an exemption for women whose life is at stake, untouched by this law, which has no provision about criminality for the woman anyway. And I called her out for not reading the bill—since I’d already provided the link.

The person who had, I think, intended to call me a “trumpette” [Is that meant as a sexist slur against a female who may have voted for Trump?] added, “another armchair anti- women’s rights throw up on the web comment,” which I guess is their ungrammatical code for, “How dare you present facts to us!” That was the end of my engagement, although others continued to add comments in the thread for a day or so.

Other than posting links to this blog, about which I avoid saying anything too controversial, because Facebook tends to censor, I don’t engage politically online. I read a lot, and offer “likes” and sometimes comments in groups where there is much agreement. But I don’t enjoy contentious arguments. And I especially don’t enjoy debate with fact-free spewers of lies and vitriol.

It’s like having a conversation with smoke. It has no substance, it’s annoying, and it follows you just to annoy you longer.

campfire smoke image found here

I do have something to say about speaking truthfully. This law, and others, are intended to reduce the number of babies killed in the womb. Those of us who are against baby killing think it doesn’t go far enough. But if we can only do an incremental movement thus far, at least it’s something. We’re honest about what the law actually does.

The other side can’t say, “We want to see babies killed in the womb as much as possible—any time a woman feels like doing it.” That would not attract people to their side. So they lie—about the Uber driver, the woman dying, the woman having a bounty put on her, the woman being in danger of breaking the law by allowing her body to spontaneously miscarry, various metaphors about A Handmaid’s Tale, etc. If there could be a debate with people who favor killing babies in the womb (and some who favor killing babies even after birth), then it ought to be on truthful terms. Let people know what side they're choosing.

 

About This Law

I wasn’t very happy about this law when it went through the legislature. After all the decades of incremental pro-life work, I felt impatient. Every law that allows abortion prior to a particular point acknowledges that life before that point is not worth protecting. Not good. But the actual abolition of abortion bill didn’t go anywhere this legislative session. So this was at least an increment, OK for now. And also, a trigger bill passed, to abolish abortion when/if the Supreme Court ever overturns Roe v. Wade. But the Abolish Abortion people have some persuasive arguments. Bradley Pierce, executive director for Abolish Abortion Texas talks about their reaction this week here. 

A number of people have been discussing how this bill doesn’t have any teeth. In the long run that might be true, but Robert Barnes, in his weekly livestream with Viva Frei, has a different take on the way the bill was designed. Here’s his explanation: 

What’s unique about this law is two things. One aspect is not that unique in that other states have looked at passing heartbeat bills. Whether that’s six weeks, eight weeks, ten weeks, that can vary. Sometimes it’s considered, you know— But the earliest a heartbeat can be detected typically is six weeks. I think the norm is more like eight to ten weeks.

But, putting that side aside, the key to this law is that it is only enforceable by private lawsuit. No government actor can enforce the law. So it doesn’t make it a crime. You can’t be suspended from medical practice. You can’t be fined. None of that. The only people who can enforce it is private citizens bringing a civil suit on the grounds that you did an abortion when the fetus had a heartbeat.

Viva Frei and Robert Barnes on their livestream September 5, 2021
screenshot from here

I’m still not sure how private citizens get the evidence they need to file a suit. Nevertheless, Barnes explains that it brings a new cause of action, that a private citizen may now have locus standi to file suit. “It’s like private attorney general actions.” He says,

It was a smart way of creating the suit, in my theory, in my view, because the problem was, the people who sued—the various abortion care providers and pro-choice groups—they sued the state actors. And the state’s point was, “We don’t enforce this law, so you can’t sue us. You can raise this as an affirmative defense, which the law allows for; you can raise this as an affirmative defense if anybody sues you. But that’s the only way you can resolve this.”

They didn’t like that, so they asked the district court to declare the law illegal and to enjoin it. The declaration action is still pending. They do have a right to [sue for] declaratory relief. But they wanted to stop it from even being enforced, while the declaration relief was pending.

The district court said there’s nobody to enjoin, because this is a private cause of action law; it’s not a state actor law. Fifth Circuit said the same thing. So it goes with the US Supreme Court, and the US Supreme Court splits 5-4 on the injunction aspect.

Barnes says this is why the law was written the way it was: “It was written so that you could not enjoin it.” Planned Parenthood and the like have a legal hurdle they can’t seem to get over. They’re enraged, he says, that “the state legislature came up with a smart mechanism that made it tough to sue outside of Texas State Court.” He says he thinks it should have been a 9-0 ruling. The three democrat justices and, “not surprisingly, Roberts would have enjoined it even though there was nothing to enjoin.” He explains,

You don’t enjoin a law; you enjoin somebody enforcing the law. That’s how federal courts have jurisdiction over state government actors. Otherwise they’re immune from suit.

Of course, in state court, the declaratory relief action of the Planned Parenthood case is still pending. That hasn’t been ruled on yet. He says, “So, really, what they’re mad at is having to face a lawsuit. But they don’t have any problem filing lots of lawsuits against people. So this is— It seemed to me a logical extension.”

The Mississippi abortion case is making its way to the Supreme Court, dealing with whether the standard should be viability or heartbeat, or life at any point, or whether it’s up to the states to decide on their standard. Things could change entirely next year.

So, overall, the panic over this Texas law is overblown. But that didn’t stop the US Department of Justice from filing suit against the State of Texas today. On what basis is hard to say. In the ACLJ podcast today, Jay Sekulow speculated that the DOJ suit is only for political show. They don’t have a basis for the claim. They mutter something about national interest. But if they have an interest in killing babies, while claiming that they are protecting life, liberty, and property, it’s probably not going to go well.

Meanwhile, the State of Texas has taken no action but to grant standing to ordinary citizens in their efforts to protect human life.

 

Abortion Disempowers Women

Back in the 60s and 70s, during the so-called sexual revolution, birth control pills were newly available to give women the opportunity to have sex without the resulting pregnancy. Early court cases determined that married couples had the right to make those decisions. And I’m not going to dispute that. Some women don’t do well having a baby every year or two during their entire reproductive life.

But the idea that women should be equalized with men by having sex without having to deal with the consequences of sex was not a good thing for women. It was not a good thing for men either, but you have to connect a few more dots to understand that.

Before the sexual revolution, meaning during the entire several millennia of human existence, women knew that a possible consequence of sex outside of marriage was pregnancy without a father for the child. It was a burden on society overall, but it was a particular burden on the woman, who would either raise the child alone, probably in poverty, or would deal with the heartache of giving the child up for adoption. Women knew this, and so did men. So if a woman was reluctant to have sex outside of marriage, a man understood that. It wasn’t necessarily that she didn’t find him attractive, or have feelings for him; it was that she had to think about the very serious consequences. So a man was more likely not to push a woman to have sex before he married her. And, if he did, he was more likely to marry her and care for the child—to do what was understood to be the honorable thing.

The shotgun wedding scene from Seven Brides for Seven Brothers
image found here

Once "the pill" became available, it gave men permission to assume a woman could/would avoid the consequences of sex. So he felt even more free from moral constraints than he did before. But women, while they sometimes could prevent the consequences, lost the respect that they previously had, and lost the expectation that sex—along with its consequences—should come within the marriage covenant.

Add abortion into that mix. If birth control failed, well, what was that to the man? It was her body, her problem. She had been given no promise from him. So she is left in the same predicament as before birth control, but she doesn’t understand how she got there. I mean, she knew about the basic biology. But how could a non-committal involvement meaning no more than a kiss lead her to this predicament? The woman was led to believe that sex meant, “I find you attractive, and I think I might really like you, and I’d better put out so you will like me in return,” rather than, “I want to be committed to you for life, so we can raise our offspring together.” 

That was a pretty overwhelming social change. Now, a man could offer to pay for her abortion. He could pressure her to have one—to relieve himself of responsibility, not to help her. Or, if she wouldn't abort her child, the courts could force him to pay child support—and maybe he would follow through and maybe he wouldn’t. But the consequences of sex without commitment weigh most heavily on the woman. And using abortion as a de facto birth control further burdens her. The man tells her, “You weren’t worth marrying; it was just about the sex.” Lust, not love. 

The pro-abortion crowd—rather than correcting the societal error, doubles down on it. It’s unfair for the woman “to be punished with a baby,” so let’s give her the right to kill that baby.

Is talking the woman into killing her baby, referring to this preborn person as just a "clump of cells," recovering the respect and protection she used to earn by abstinence before marriage? Hardly.

I comprehend the desperate feelings a woman has when she finds herself unmarried and pregnant, and abandoned by the sex partner who never intended to be father to her baby. But the solution is not to compound the sin; it is to repent. Let’s stop telling women it’s her body, when another entirely different person—with a heartbeat and DNA and potential—is the one whose life is at stake. Often when a woman is shown the developmental level of her baby, she chooses to step away from abortion herself, despite the challenges in her life.

We need society to repent of the sin—of killing babies to get rid of the “inconvenient” consequences of unmarried sex. Texas has declared its repentant state. Mississippi has declared its repentance. Other states are doing that. If the Supreme Court got out of the way, many other states would follow. And some others wouldn’t, but at least we could choose locally.

Individuals are moving ever toward that repentance, according to polls. The more we recognize the preborn as human life, the more people repent of their casual attitude toward infant sacrifice.

Part of repentance is re-valuing children. There are about three dozen families ready and willing to adopt every baby that becomes available in this country. Maybe we could trust that, as we honor life, every child would be wanted—even (maybe especially) those whose birth mother can’t manage to parent them.

Healing of our society can come through repentance. Let’s restore women to their honored state as bearers of new life, and stop degrading them as disposable sexual objects unworthy of concern about consequences. And let's never again be silent about the taking of innocent human life.

I Have More Questions

I write on the interrelationships of the political, economic, and social spheres. So why do I write so much about COVID-19? It has to do with the effect this illness—and the response to it—have had on our freedoms, our economy, and our social interactions.

I’m interested in treatments—and I wonder why they aren’t more widely known. And I’d really like to know why they have been so often censored. 

And I’m interested in mandates. Especially when the things being mandated go against science and everything we’ve known about treating disease for over a century. This seems to me to be very much related to our freedoms and threatens to affect them even more. The very idea of a vaccine mandate—knowing what we know about this one—troubles me greatly. I’m in a category of should-hesitate-to-get-the-vaccine, according to the WHO. So does that mean I should be prevented from travel and entering certain places or doing certain things, like I’m a pariah? I’m a supposed danger to society because I have a preexisting health condition that puts me at greater personal risk but no added risk to society?

The more I look at this pandemic—as it becomes endemic—the more questions I have.

Dr. Peter McCullough answered questions recently,  updating us on current COVID-19 treatments. He made three main points:

·       The virus does not transmit asymptomatically. (Since June, no more asymptomatic testing.)

·       The Delta variant is not stopped by the vaccine.

·       Early treatment is needed.

Let’s cover the relatively good news first, combining early treatment news and lack of asymptomatic transmission.

 

TREATMENTS

Dr. McCullough offers some general suggestions. He says you should evaluate yourself and your children when you get up in the morning. It used to be that we’d go to work or school with what we thought was “just a cold.” Don’t do that now. Stay home. If you isolate yourself as soon as you have symptoms, that is much more effective at stopping the spread than either masks or lockdowns. If you haven’t yet experienced symptoms, you’re not going to spread the virus.

Dr. Peter McCullough in interview with Dr. Al Johnson
screenshot from here

The good news is that the FDA has given emergency use approval for hydroxychloroquine (HCQ—which should be given along with zinc and azithromycin) and ivermectin for COVID-19 treatment. (I have read contrary information on this, so it may be that the news hasn’t yet spread.) So doctors shouldn’t fear giving it as an early treatment. HCQ appears to have a better response to the Delta variant than ivermectin. But early treatment is key. One proviso Dr. McCullough mentioned is, for African-Americans, ask if they have the genetic deficiency G6PD, which causes a blood disorder called hemolytic anemia. In any other case, use HCQ. With pacemakers, with all different types of disorders; it’s safe. It has been proven in over 65 years of use. It’s similar to Benadryl or Seldane in safety. There are over 250 studies showing it’s safe and effective as the go-to drug for COVID-19. 

Children are generally safe and don’t need treatment (drugs). If they’re healthy to begin with, they’re likely to experience no more than general cold symptoms for a few days. Last year, worldwide, there were 300 child deaths reported as COVID-19; only one had been considered a healthy child.

However, if there’s a persistent fever, they could use a child-adjusted dose of aspirin for a few days (yes, aspirin, as you would for acute rheumatic fever). Also, if the child has asthma, budesonide is the COVID-19 treatment of choice. Or they may need an oral prednisone, or maybe a Z-pak (azithromycin, an antibiotic).

Because healthy children risk only a couple of days of cold-like symptoms, there is nothing to gain from vaccination. There is much greater risk to children from a vaccine than from the virus.

Nutraceuticals are helpful for everybody: zinc, Vitamin D, Vitamin C. Also, “there’s a polyphenol supplement called quercetin,” about 500 mg daily. Those are good for everybody.

The Delta variant is the mildest so far. (New fears are out now about the Mu variant; if it has gone as others, it is milder but more contagious. However, there’s also fear it may be more vaccine resistant. He didn't comment on this.)

When you notice symptoms, he suggests getting a Sofia test.  It’s not as sensitive as the PCR test, which means, when it shows up positive, the virus is really there. No false positives, which have been a persistent problem.

And there are a couple of surprising suggestions. He has learned from oral hygienists, who have long known how to prevent the spread of viruses, you can brush your teeth with yellow Listerine, and rinse your mouth with it. You could also use a dilute human-safe hydrogen peroxide, or an ozone nasal spray. 

A nasal saline irrigation helps a couple of times a day too. That’s a neti pot. (Use distilled water, not just purified water; the minerals in non-distilled water sting. But once you’ve dissolved in the little packet of saline to distilled water, it doesn’t sting anymore. Personal experience.) It not only rinses out allergens, but also viruses and other pathogens.

He didn’t go into great detail, but there’s a solution you can use (I’m not certain how) of 1 teaspoon bleach in dilution with 500cc water.

So, a nutraceutical bundle and nasal and oral hygiene make a difference in prevention.

The treatment protocols, he reminds us, can be found at AAPSonline.org and Truth for Health Foundation, which publishes an updated list of treating physicians. Also, Dr. Al Johnson, who interviewed Dr. McCullough, has a protocol for treating long haul COVID-19, available at CovidRecoveryTreatment.com.   

The very few telemed centers have been overtaxed lately. Dr. McCullough says we need to push doctors to treat. They’ve been afraid to treat, and may not be aware of the many treatment options, or changes in FDA approvals. Give them the protocols, and insist on early treatment.

Treatment is probably not necessary for the healthy under-50—unless and until their symptoms show severity. For the over 50 or those with co-morbidities, early treatment is called for, as soon as the illness is identified.

Monoclonal antibodies, as are being done all over Florida, are useful. Regeneron is a brand name. But Dr. McCullough suggests getting this done as an outpatient. Call ahead to the ER and order it, so that you remain an outpatient. And make sure the IV is administered slowly; it must take a full hour. Too quick an infusion leads to a cytokine storm, the very thing you’re trying to prevent.

Convalescent plasma is being phased out. The problem was, they didn’t separate the vaccinated from the unvaccinated when collecting blood; the vaccinated don’t have enough antibodies to be useful in the production of this treatment.

 

NATURAL IMMUNITY vs. VACCINATED IMMUNITY

Now for the questions that came up for me as I listened to Dr. McCullough and others.

He cited Israel, Singapore, and Iceland, where, during the latest surge, more than 75% of COVID-19 cases and 65% of those hospitalized are fully vaccinated. He concludes from that, it’s clear the vaccines are failing against the Delta variant. He said it’s possible, but unproven, that the vaccine helps mitigate against virulence. But there are patients dying who have been fully vaccinated.

Chart found in Epoch Times article, here.

Dr. McCullough notes the lack of attention for those who have had the illness and therefore have natural immunity. He says,

Once you’ve had it, you have full immunity. There’s never been a bona fide second case. Analysis by Murchu and colleagues in Ireland showed in 615,000 individuals, 11 studies, that even poorly defined cases that didn’t catch the original illness, if they had antibodies or some other indication that they’ve had it before, the chances of COVID-19 were way less than 1%. So, natural immunity is robust, complete, and durable. And it cannot be improved upon with vaccination.

I wondered about the “never been a bone fide second case” followed by the “way less than 1%.” While searching for the analysis by Eamon O. Murchu and colleagues, I came upon an article reprint, original by Daniel Horowitz for The Blaze, citing the Israel report in July. (And this week their report was verified by Bloomberg News. Incidentally, this fact check framed comparing getting immunity by getting ill or by getting the shots, and says getting ill is a riskier way of getting immunity. But that’s not the actual question. The real question is, for people who have natural immunity because they’ve already had the illness—219,017,517 globally as of today—is there any reason to also get the shots? And the answer is clearly no.)  

Israel National News reported: 

With a total of 835,792 Israelis known to have recovered from the virus, the 72 instances of reinfection amount to 0.0086% of people who were already infected with COVID.

By contrast, Israelis who were vaccinated were 6.72 times more likely to get infected after the shot than after natural infection, with over 3,000 of the 5,193,499, or 0.0578%, of Israelis who were vaccinated getting infected in the latest wave.

Recurring cases (those believed to be) are not zero; it’s 8.6 cases per 100,000. Almost none requiring hospitalization, and no deaths. Breakthrough cases (cases after vaccination) are still considerably lower than those with neither prior infection nor vaccination. But clearly the vaccine does not really prevent infection. In fact, now they’re not calling for vaccination to prevent infection; they’re calling for it to hopefully prevent serious infection. (Which, of course you could do with the nutraceuticals and other recommendations, just saying.)

In the article Horowitz offers Dr. McCullough’s more complete explanation of zero cases:

Despite the endless search by the media to find cases of severe reinfection, they have failed to find it. Dr. Peter McCullough, cardiologist and vice chief of medicine at Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas, Texas, told me in an interview that “there has never been a confirmed second infection beyond 90 days with similar or worse cardinal symptoms and confirmed PCR/Antigen/Sequencing test” in a case where the patient already had a well-documented case with acute illness. He notes that most database studies that attempt to quantify reinfection “are not sufficiently reliable to declare recurrent cases” and usually contain a false positive PCR on one or more occasions.

When I looked up the study and a couple of associated articles (such as this one), the explanation is that it’s difficult to differentiate between a new infection and persistent viral carriage (a sort of semi-dormant condition with occasional flare-ups, as is common in Epstein-Barr virus, for example). There would need to be a comparison between the genome sequencing of a banked sample from early in the illness and another sample at the time of what appears to be reinfection. That banking is almost never done, nor is the genome sequencing, because there is no reason other than to answer the question of whether it’s actually a reinfection or not in the rare instance when these cases turn up. In many “reinfection” cases, it’s often hard to determine whether the original infection was actually COVID-19, or a false positive test or misdiagnosis (or failure to accurately diagnose).

I’ve known of a number of people who say they have gotten it more than once. I know they believe so.  But my question is, did they really?

I came upon this comment in a Facebook group. Not someone I know.

Horowitz provides an explanation about the power of natural immunity from Idaho physician/researcher Dr. Ryan Cole:

Dr. Ryan Cole, a Mayo Clinic-trained pathologist who runs the largest independent laboratory in Idaho, explained to me how infection-induced immunity is much deeper and broader. “A natural infection induces hundreds upon hundreds of antibodies against all proteins of the virus, including the envelope, the membrane, the nucleocapsid, and the spike,” said Dr. Cole, who has spent the past 16 months examining and culturing SARS-CoV-2 specimens. “Dozens upon dozens of these antibodies neutralize the virus when encountered again. Additionally, because of the immune system exposure to these numerous proteins (epitomes), our T cells mount a robust memory, as well. Our T cells are the ‘marines’ of the immune system and the first line of defense against pathogens. T cell memory to those infected with SARSCOV1 is at 17 years and running still.”

However, in vaccine-induced immunity, according to Cole, “we mount an antibody response to only the spike and its constituent proteins.” He explains how this produces much fewer neutralizing antibodies, and “as the virus preferentially mutates at the spike, these proteins are shaped differently and antibodies can no longer ‘lock and key’ bind to these new shapes.”

Further down in the article he adds this additional explanation from Dr. Cole:

The media has focused incessantly on antibody levels and the observation that they often drop months after the infection; however, as with other viruses, that does not indicate waning immunity. “Yes, our antibody levels drop over time; however, scientifically, the memory B cells that make antibodies have been proven to be present in our lymph nodes and bone marrow,” explained Dr. Cole. “They are primed and ready to produce a broad array of antibodies upon viral pre-exposure. It would be physiologically, energetically impossible to maintain high antibody levels to all the pathogens we are constantly exposed to, and we would look like the ‘swollen Stay-Puft marshmallow man’ of lymph nodes, constantly, if the immune system were required to do that.”

This coincides with an explanation I heard from Dr. Mobeen Syed.   He was looking at this article and this study it related to.   He adds helpful little cartoon drawings to illustrate. 

Dr. Mobeen Syed explains about bone marrow plasma cells (BMPC) and long-term antibodies.
screenshot from here

So, what we know is that natural immunity gained from getting the virus and recovering is both long-lasting and robust. Immunity gained from the vaccines is somewhat helpful for a time, but less so to variants. And natural immunity is several times more powerful than vaccine immunity.

What did Israel do upon finding the vaccine was failing against the Delta virus? Decided to require more boosters, including for the previously infected. I’m baffled.

The reasons could be a difference in interpretation of the studies. Or it could be ignoring the studies for some other reason.

 

WHAT I WANT TO KNOW

I’ve been writing about treatments for COVID-19 since March 2020. While a lot of this information was censored for a long time, the truth has a way of seeping to the surface. It’s surprising to me that the standard treatment is still, “Stay home and rest until you’re sick enough for the hospital.” That makes no sense.

I’ve put a fair amount of faith in the treatments I’ve learned about. So, I’d like to know if they’re being used and people are still being hospitalized, or are these hospitalized patients still being deprived of early treatment?

We’ve just gone through our third surge, now waning I believe. By now I have known a number of people who’ve had the illness. Except for a couple overseas, I haven’t been closely acquainted enough to anyone hospitalized to ask the questions I want to know. I feel like I would be intruding into their privacy to ask these questions.

I’m not an investigative journalist. And I’m certainly not a medical researcher. But I have to wonder why someone doesn’t ask and get answers to the questions I have about treatments, about vaccine efficacy, and about natural immunity.

If I had the power to do it, I would ask the following questions of people hospitalized for COVID-19 (if the patient died or is a child, then a spouse, parent, or loved one could answer these questions for them):

THE SURVEY

1.     What was your experience when you first noticed symptoms?

a.     What were the symptoms you noticed?

b.     Did you get tested? On which day of symptoms? And on which day of symptoms did you get results? What type of test was it?

2.     Did you receive at-home treatment instructions when you got your test and/or results?

a.     What were you instructed to do?

b.     Were you prescribed or recommended to take any medications and/or supplements?

3.     Were there preventative steps you took prior to your illness (other than vaccination, which is asked below)? What were they? (Possibilities might include healthy diet and exercise, supplementing with Vitamin D, zinc, and/or Vitamin C; under a doctor’s care these might include a prophylactic dose of a drug such as hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin. Or you may have tried something not listed here.)

4.     Do you know where you were exposed to the illness? (by a particular person, in a particular setting, at work for example, or at an event?)

a.     Did anyone else in your household get the illness? Were their symptoms mild or required hospitalization? List the various persons and the severity of their illness (ex: spouse—hospitalized, teenage son—mild).

5.     On what day of symptoms did your situation worsen enough to require hospitalization?

a.     Describe the worsened/new symptoms.

6.     What was your sequence of treatments and their results in the hospital?

7.     How long were you hospitalized?

8.     How long until you were considered over the illness—no longer contagious, and no longer in danger of succumbing to symptoms?

9.     Did you have symptoms that persisted after your apparent recovery? Such as shortness of breath, heart palpitations, brain fog, fatigue.

a.     What symptoms continued and for how long (so far, if they are still present)?

b.     Did you have symptoms that began after you thought you had fully recovered? What were they? (For example, some healthy fit patients go back to full activity and then find themselves relapsing or having the varied symptoms of long-haul COVID-19.)

c.     What treatment did you receive for long-haul COVID-19 (persistent symptoms)?

10. What was your vaccination status?

a.     Unvaccinated?

b.     One shot but not second?

c.     Two shots, but not more than 2 weeks before onset of symptoms?

d.     Two shots from 2 weeks to 6 months or longer (how much longer?) prior to onset of symptoms?

e.     Two shots plus a booster shot?

11. Had you been diagnosed with COVID-19 before?

a.     If yes, go through the above questions for that infection as well.

                                             i.    Do you have certainty—based on symptoms and/or testing and doctor’s care—that what you had previously was definitely COVID-19?

                                           ii.    When did you have the previous illness (months, weeks, and/or days before your current illness)?

12. What is your age?

13. Do you have any co-morbidities? (Common ones are obesity, diabetes, active cancer, atrial fibrillation, COPD, dementia, heart disease, hypertension, chronic liver disease, chronic renal failure, stroke.)