Pages

Monday, December 21, 2015

The Godfather vs The People

By Sam Frescoe, Veteran’s Recall
http://veterans-recall.blogspot.com/

Have you ever wondered why the federal government seems out of control?
Do you wonder why the same stuff keeps happening election after election?
Why to “voter mandates” not last longer than the first 100 days of any new term?
Well, unfortunately, I am here to tell you that there is a reason for your suspicion. The reason is simple to state and easy to understand. It’s also difficult to recognize when observed, even though it’s hidden in plain sight.
The answer to all of the above is that the federal government is the single largest mafia still operating in the United States. They are the Mob.
“So What?”
Why should this (let’s call it an analogy for now) be important to you and me?
It should be important to all Americans because the Mob has three driving motivations: get your money, get your obedience, and get your acceptance. Otherwise, they will seek to get your silence. In short, the Mob seeks to control you.
Why should you care?
You should care because the money that makes this happen comes from you: your wallet, your consent, your ignorance, your denial, etc.
As a side note, I find it ironic that citizens believe they need the Mob at all. If the Mob disappeared tomorrow, then the citizens would continue on their own merits. However, if the citizens disappeared tomorrow, then the Mob would be destroyed by its own nature.
Mob Rule is Not a New Phenomenon
“People say this is a problem of campaign finance reform, but that’s like an alcoholic who has a person with a liquid intake. No, it’s the corruption.” – Larry Lessig, Harvard Law Professor
“We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace – business and finance monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering. They had begun to consider the government of the United States an appendage to their own affairs. We know now that government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob.” – President Franklin D. Roosevelt
 “A mob is the method by which good citizens turn over the law and the government to the criminal or irresponsible classes.” – Ray Stannard Baker, an American journalist, historian, biographer, and author
“Our whole practical government is grounded in mob psychology and the Boobus Americanus will follow any command that promises to make him safer.” – H. L. Mencken, an American journalist, satirist, cultural critic and scholar
“The gentlemen that wrote the Constitution were as suspicious of efficient government as they were wary of democracy, a turbulence and a folly that was associated with the unruly ignorance of urban mob.” – Lewis H. Lapham, an American writer and editor
“In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.” – President Franklin D. Roosevelt
 “The government will take the fairest names, but the worst of realities – mob rule.” – Polybius, a Greek historian of the Hellenistic Period
“We stand equally against government by a plutocracy and government by a mob.” – President Theodore Roosevelt
The Mob is on the Side of the Mob
Today’s Mob represents the hidden-in-plain-sight power application mechanism of modern American politics. In general terms, the Mob is the combined effort of three factions: executive governments, social institutions, and money and finance. Each faction is aligned in an interlocking fashion to mutually support each other.
As a way of illustration, the Mob has a boss, a concierge, an under boss, captains, soldiers, and associates. Money and finance act as the boss. The concierge is played by the mass media and pop culture industries. The under boss is performed by the executive governments at all levels. Social institutions act as captains. The soldiers are split among activists and anointed classes. The associates are the die-hard, partisan electorate. Everyone else is treated as a cash generating pawn.
The government faction, through law and decree, applies force to realize new, favorable behaviors. The institutions apply judicial, academic, and dominate culture influences to widely normalize those new behaviors through judgments, indoctrination, and loudness. The financial factions, commonly known as lobbies, ensure the ruling elites of governments see the future according to the proper color of the least common denominator.
It’s all About Completing the Cycle
From where I sit, here’s how it works. The lobbies provide financial “security” to various government “untouchables.” In turn, the government applies force to create opportunities for institutions to build foundations for new narratives. Once those narratives are made sufficiently loud (in part by making dissent sufficiently quiet), the government provides monies to the institutions, directly and indirectly. When it becomes “good business” to support the narrative, the institutions begin to distribute funds to the various lobbies according to their needs, wants, and desires. That is one cycle.
Continuing the illustration, the boss directs the concierge to change the distribution of preferences. Nearly simultaneously, the under boss pulls the levers of power to direct behavior changes onto the masses. The captains help reluctant associates see the new business case. In turn, the die-hard and accepting associates curtail the pawns into compliance, acceptance, or silence. All of this is taken in trade (paying) for the promise of “safety” from the boss. This is one cycle.
Each time the cycle runs to completion the Mob gets bigger in size and overall power. Today, there are multiple cycles at different maturities running concurrently. This is why we are bombarded with ever-changing social movements, and why we are made to bailout “too big to fail” business, institutions, and industries every 8-12 years.
Fortunately, for Americans, there is an answer…the Constitution.
The Constitution effectively changes the mafia by restructuring the Mob. The intent of the Constitution is to place the People in the role of the boss and the several States as the under boss. The concierge is replaced by a mediator of “checked and balanced” fair play, the federal government. Because the boss and under boss roles are much closer to the captains, soldiers, and associates (businesses, activists, and participating electorate) there is a much greater advantage to restrain government in favor of sustaining themselves. Of course, there will always be pawns.
Going Forward
Instead of taking charge of the situation and addressing the problem directly, the People are empowering new groups of “promising” politicians to correct the missteps of prior groups of “promising” politicians. The focus is on selecting executive actors. The belief is that entrusting the future with those that claim to be willing to act on better thoughts and ideas will usher in a brighter future. Unfortunately, the belief in a powerful executive solution is a regressive lie.
The belief in a powerful representative solution, backed by a traditionally bound judiciary, is much closer to a liberating progressive solution. The focus is on enabling people to improve their lives according to their own merits. The key feature of this approach is the selection of representatives and judges that are deeply principled in the American way of life. This belief requires entrusting the future to citizens that earn their due and safe-guard how disagreements are resolved. 
In my opinion, embracing the American way of the past, that served our nation faithfully for over 150 years, in a new and modern way will require us to abolish (not reform, abolish) what has not worked for the past 50+ years.
The Great Society is a farce! Just how much more evidence do you need?
Hang on a second…CLICK…now that the mass media is turned off…just how much more evidence do you need?
Perhaps these are good places to begin?
Abolish lobbies! If a company or interest wants the attention of the government, then they can get their act together and get noticed in the same way as every other citizen…as an individual.
Abolish corporate donations to government actors of any kind, and on any level. Eliminate the ability of businesses of any kind, size, configuration, or status to contribute to financing of government actors at any level and in any manner.
Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment. The Senate was meant to represent the States, not the People. The People have the House for that purpose.
Amend the Constitution to allow the People to recall their Representatives and the States to recall their Senators. Allow recalled officials to stand trial for misdemeanors and felonies.
Amend the Constitution to mandate term limits on all publicly elected officials at the federal level. This includes at least all Representatives, all Senators, and all federal Judges, in addition to the President.
Abolish the use of oligopoly market structures.
What was once sufferable is no longer. If the Mob is a problem, and the Mob is aligned to protect itself, then it’s time to eliminate the Mob.
Your View
I invite you to tell me what you believe at samfrescoe@gmail.com. I am looking forward to addressing your comments and furthering our American discourse. Thank you. – Sam Frescoe

Thursday, December 17, 2015

Transgenderism and the Government



By Sam Frescoe, Veteran’s Recall
http://veterans-recall.blogspot.com/
While researching a post about the use of Title IX to protect a transgender teen I stumbled across the leading graphic. Being how I found this early in my research effort, I thought it was a joke, some sort of prank, a very well done prank. However, as my research continued, and the motives of the actors in the Title IX case I was researching became clear, I changed my mind.
From the perspective of digital art and presentation, the graphic is excellent and well done. The statement and figures are simple, sexy, and resonating.  If the publisher (I assume the artist) wanted to live up to their name, Anarchy King, then I must say you did a great job.
From the perspective of politics and social norms, the message is absurd at best and deceitful at worst. There are two statements presented as one: “There’s nothing wrong with a woman who has a penis” and “There’s nothing wrong with a man who has a vagina.” Really? – The artist wants you to believe the answer is “yes” as a result of “cultural brainwashing.” [i]
So what? Why should I care?
Normally I would ignore the following statement is objectively false on its face: “There is nothing wrong with a woman who has a penis nor a man who has a vagina.”  Normally, I would pass it by as just another piece of junk media. But this time…I cannot simply pass by as I’ve done many times before.
Why? I cannot be silent because the statement is meant to do two things: promote a lie, and eliminate dissent, both with the use of force by the government.
What am I looking at?
The Oxford dictionary defines “transgenderism” as “a state or condition in which a person’s identity does not conform unambiguously to conventional ideas of male or female gender.” [ii] The Gospel Coalition similarly defines the term as “an umbrella term for the state or condition of identifying or expressing a gender identity that does not match a person's physical/genetic sex.” [iii] These definitions are nothing more than a standardized label for a condition defined by nonconforming perceptions. On the surface this seems strictly clinical. Right?
Wrong! An “ism,” by definition, has nothing to do with the state or condition of anything. An “ism” is “a distinctive doctrine, cause, or theory” [iv] or “an oppressive and especially discriminatory attitude or belief.” [v] Therefore, if anyone professes that “transgenderism” is anything other than a social-political initiative, then that person is a liar. Additionally, if any government professes the same, then that government has already decided they are willing to oppress you for gain.
Words Have Meaning
The word “transgenderism” is constructed with three words: “trans,” “gender,” and “ism.”
Modern online dictionaries define “trans” as an adjective and a prefix. [vi]  As an adjective, the word refers to the misalignment of one’s gender identity with one’s biological sex. As a prefix, the word imparts the meaning “on the other side of,” “across,” “beyond,” “through,” “changing thoroughly,” or “transverse.”
The Merriam-Webster[vii] dictionary defines “gender” as sex, the behavioral typically associated with one sex, the cultural typically associated with one sex, or the psychological traits typically associated with one’s sex.
The Merriam-Webster[viii] dictionary defines “ism” as “a distinctive doctrine, cause, or theory” or “an oppressive and especially discriminatory attitude or belief.” The Cambridge[ix] dictionary defines “ism” as a suffix used to form nouns that refer to social and political ways of behaving, religious beliefs, or a field of study.
Putting this together, I came up with the following definitions for “transgenderism.”
First, transgenderism is a distinct doctrine, cause, or theory that one’s gender identity is out of adjustment with their biology and/or societal ethics, cultural and legal norms, mental, emotional, and/or spiritual traits associated with sex, aimed at influencing social, political, religious, and academic behaviors.
Second, transgenderism is an oppressive attitude or belief that one’s gender identity is out of adjustment with their biology and/or societal ethics, cultural and legal norms, mental, emotional, and/or spiritual traits associated with sex, aimed at influencing attitudes and beliefs.
Gender Identity
A significant hang-up I have transgenderism is the concept of gender, specifically gender identity. As I try to understand the subject I keep getting hung-up on how the terms “gender” and “sex” are used interchangeably. This seems to happen immediately after “gender identity” is brought into the picture. So, how does gender identity relate to transgenderism?
Medscape, an information source associated with WebMD, defines “gender identity” as “a personal conception of oneself as male or female (or rarely, both or neither).” [x] – Facts are funny things, aren’t they? – Gender identity is a subjective belief of an individual person.
The concept of being unhappy with your assigned sex is as old as the centuries.[xi] Until the 1950’s, these impulses were considered objectionable and labeled as sexual perversions. Then, in 1952, the term “transsexualism” was coined by a sexologist named Harry Benjamin. In 1957, the concept of gender was introduced by the psychologist and sexologist John William Money. Thereafter the disparity between anatomical sex and gender identity was referred to as a psychopathological condition called gender identity disorder. Recently, gender identity disorder was rebuilt as gender dysphoria, a state of unease or generalized dissatisfaction with life. – Again, facts are funny things. – Gender identity is a subjective belief of an individual person.
Putting it Together
Transgenderism is an outcome focused principle, reason, or philosophy that advocates for the subjective beliefs of sexually unhappy and “misaligned” individuals, and portrays those feelings as objectively true and morally right. The modus operandi of transgenderism is to use government sanctioned force against others not like themselves to realize changes to social, political, religious, and academic norms, attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors.
Why is this important? This is important because transgenderism champions are willing to solicit for, and support the use of, force to subjugate anyone that has a differing opinion.
If you don’t think this is so, it’s because you’ve either been hiding under a rock, got your head such somewhere it was never meant to be, or you are so stupid that there is no hope for your recovery. Just open up the web and search for LBQT in the news. You will find pages and pages of examples were the champions of transgenderism are grinding-up people’s rights.
In other words, because these people, having exercised their own freewill to feel unhappy about their situation, can’t convince you to give up your freewill to make decisions, are willing to use the force of government as a means to establish moral superiority.
As far as they are concerned, you are either with them, or you are against them. If you are against them, then you are a mortal enemy of humanity. There is no middle ground.
Why should you care?
I can hear it now. – Why should I care about this? It doesn’t impact me at all. They can do whatever they want. This is America. – It’s the declaration of many thousands just before they ram their heads into a dark hole of denial. – If you believe that the intent of transgenderism is to force societal change through government coercion or tyranny does not impact you, then I would like to personally invite you to quietly pack a bag, get a one-way ticket to another hemisphere, and leave.
"A cultural movement is the necessary precondition of a political movement." | The Objectivist Newsletter
Once again, the goal of transgenderism is not to lift up transgender people. The goal of transgenderism is to eliminate dissent with the force of government. Nothing could be more un-American than to permit, or promote, the primacy of any totalitarian idea over the representative republic codified by the Constitution of the United States.
The foundation of transgenderism is the belief that transgender people were made into substandard Americans and/or unworthy human beings. These are lies. All Americans, regardless of their origination, are endowed by their Creator with the inalienable rights to their life, to their liberty, and to their pursuit of happiness. The individual American, by admission of their actions, is the only person who can forfeit those rights. Those that champion the subjugation of others are worthy of being subjugated themselves.
Transgenderism has no American value. In its current form, transgenderism fails to steward the future of society, assumes the liberty of others is inferior to their own, promotes fixed outcomes in the name of opportunity, and is morally indefensible. America was deliberately founded on an idea that was good, not on an idea that felt good.
Government approval of transgenderism is unconstitutional. First, the Executive does not have the power to embrace any policy or process without being granted authority by the Congress (Art-2). Second, the enumerated powers of the Legislature do not include the creation of special rights (Art-1, Sec-8). Third, the First Amendment states that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion, or the right to peaceably assemble for the redress of grievances. Fourth, the Fifth Amendment states that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. Fifth, the Ninth Amendment states that the government is not allowed to deny or disparage the rights held by American citizens. Finally, the Tenth Amendment directs the Federal government to butt-out of matters that can be addressed by the States. All of these American rights apply.
Those Opposed are Starting From Behind
A quick review of transgender activism[xii] in America between 1975 and today demonstrates the need for Americans to get involved with protecting the rights of every American citizen. Currently, Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, is being used to further transgenderism. However, there are no definitions for sex or gender stated anywhere within the Act. The term “sex” is used as a noun that describes one’s sexual equipment. The term “gender” is not mentioned at all. Not until 1986 did the federal government weigh in on the transgender concept at all (the fact that this was done through a court decision, versus a legislative act, is noteworthy – Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57).
Politically speaking, given the wide acceptance of judicial fiat, and the lack of Congressional action, the Executive seems to believe that “making it up as they go” is acceptable. For example, the Chief Executive declared that transgender status was protected by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, under the term sex. In turn, the government is poised to act against any social institution, including associated citizens, that dissent on transgender issues.
Socially speaking, the number of universities that offer transgender, queer, lesbian, and other similar studies is increasing. These universities have gone so far as to mandate “safe spaces” for transgender people to gather for the purpose of indoctrinating other transgender people on the ways, means, and ends of being “victims of society.” The fact that dissenters are not tolerated within these spaces under any circumstances (you see…”safe space” means safe from other opinions versus safe from harm, loss, or actual violence). Why is this happening? It’s happening because if universities don’t abide by the Executive decision to extend Title IX protection to transgender students, then the government will withhold funding, licensing, and other permitting actions.
Medically speaking, there are efforts to demonstrate that the subjective nature of transgenderism is false through the objective nature of genetics. The premise is that if someone’s genes caused their feelings, then all dissenters are homophobic bigots. An example of this work is happening at the Center for Gender-Based Biology at UCLA (a university with Title IX funding).[xiii] So far, after considering the spectrum of differences and disorders of sex development (DSDs), and including conditions affected by hormone abnormalities, the Director of the Center says “the most promising approaches” are to combine “the effects of environmental factors on gene expression.” Question…why would a Title IX funded institution need to consider environmental influences on “expression” to show a genetic connection that mandated someone’s choice to feel “sexually misaligned” about themselves? Next question…why is the federal government contributing to this scientific fraud with our tax dollars?
Religiously speaking, examples of local and State governments going after citizens and businesses that dissent from the transgenderism message is growing. Force is being directed at a range of targets: from small bakeries that cannot put up a legal fight, to multiple Christian churches throughout a major metropolis that was able to fight back with a very public protest. Now the Executive is kicking around the idea of removing the 503(c) status for certain organizations. In my opinion, this will happen once they figure out how to sell the idea of removing this status from Judeo-Christian organizations, as opposed to Islamic or other organizations, without looking like a mob gang of unconstitutional, anti-American charlatans. If successful, imagine the target list that could be built.
Going Forward
What is the answer? If transgenderism is so bad, then what can be done about it?
First, you must recognize that American rights belong to all Americans, that they are more than “living” words on a page, and that they exist to secure the primacy of the individual over the collective. The fact is that if every American is free to live their life as they see fit, and exercise their liberty as they see fit, and pursue their desire to be happy as they see fit (without violating the identical rights held by others), then transgenderism in its current form would not exist.
Second, you must recognize the long-term risks for promoting the normalization of transgenderism. The fact is that America needs strongly protected families that make babies and raise them into full grown Americans prior to releasing them into society. Never forget to consider why a “social fence” was put up before you tear it down. There is always a reason for that “fence” to have been built.
Third, you must recognize that Congress must be made to do their job. It’s time to define the term “sex” for what it is, the sexual equipment provided at birth. It’s time to recognize “gender” for what it is, a subjective feeling driven by individual whims, not an objective fact proven by observable reality. Then, make law that specifically includes what is objective, and specifically excludes what is subjective, for use for making public policy and enforcing law. The fact is that it’s impossible to establish a uniform legal test capable of proving that a subjective feeling is true beyond a doubt.
Recognize what is happening and refuse to be silent. Refuse to be muzzled.
Recognize that the goal of transgenderism is to use the government to establish moral parity by eliminating dissent with the force of that government. The fact is that transgenderism is not about equal rights (an opportunity argument); it’s about making their rights superior to yours (an outcome argument). You must see the marketing words for what they are and take action.
Your View
I invite you to tell me what you believe at samfrescoe@gmail.com. I am looking forward to addressing your comments and furthering our American discourse. Thank you. – Sam Frescoe




Tuesday, December 15, 2015

That’s right! I have a problem with your version of Title IX.



By Sam Frescoe, Veteran’s Recall
http://veterans-recall.blogspot.com/




On 3 Dec 2015, the Township High School Board faced a decision to either accept or decline the settlement offered by the Department of Education Office of Civil Rights (OCR) for an alleged Title IX violation. The district position was that reasonable accommodations were already in place and acceptable. On 3 Dec 2015, the Township High School Board District 211 of Palatine, IL voted (5-2) in favor of accepting the settlement. [i] [ii] [iii]
The purpose of this post is to briefly examine the law and government actors associated with this case. My intent is to develop some insight into why this situation came about and concluded as it did. My hope is to gain a better understand of what is happening to American society and its discourse.
This post will read like a technical review. Unfortunately, due to the subject matter, this is going to be an unavoidable fact. However, I hope that I can simply and sufficiently state what I was able to discover during my research, and bring it all together so it’s more easily understood.
What do you know about Title IX?
Title IX is a comprehensive federal law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in any federally funded education program or activity. On June 23, 1972, the President signed Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. §1681 et seq., into law. The Department of Education has issued regulations on the requirements of Title IX, 34 C.F.R. § 106.1et seq.
How does the government address Title IX violations?
The OCR investigates Title IX complaints. The OCR mission is to ensure equal access to education and promote educational excellence throughout the nation through the vigorous enforcement of civil rights. [iv] The OCR enforces federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination by educational institutions on the basis of disability, race, color, national origin, sex, and age, as well as the Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act of 2001. [v] Particular focus is paid to enforcing the implementing regulations under 34 CFR Part 106. [vi]
ROE for Investigations
In the OCR v District case (OCR Case # 05-14-1055) the OCR made its ruling using a “preponderance of evidence” standard. [vii] There are several items of interest here: the role of the OCR, the degree of the evidence, and the duration of the investigation.
First, as stated before, the OCR is the agency responsible for enforcing federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination by educational institutions. To this end, the OCR issued a Case Processing Manual (V1.1), dated Feb 2015, that provides the procedures to promptly and effectively investigate and resolve complaints.[viii] This guide was intended to clarify the role of the OCR.
Second, in civil matters, there are two degrees of evidence: preponderance of evidence and clear and convincing evidence. The preponderance of the evidence standard is the least stringent. A preponderance of the evidence simply means that one side has more evidence in its favor than the other, even by the smallest degree. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff (the party bringing the lawsuit) to show by a "preponderance of evidence" or "weight of evidence" that all the facts necessary to win a judgment are probably true. [ix]  The Case Processing Manual specifically states that the OCR will determine the outcome of investigations using a preponderance of the evidence standard. [x]
Third, in this case the duration of the OCR investigation was at/near two years. After a review of Title IX, 34 CFR Part 106, and the Case Processing Manual, I was not able to determine any hard guidance describing how long an investigation should last. I found that investigations must be “timely.”
Putting it together…The OCR can investigate for as long as they wish until they determine a violation can be substantiated for any reason and/or by the smallest margin.
Just the Facts
I searched 34 CFR 106 for specific key words in the hope that I could discover some useful definitions.
The term “trans” is mentioned multiple times as a verb for exchanging custody of property and monies.[xi]
The term “gender” is not mentioned at all.[xii]  
The term “sex” is mentioned multiple times as a noun within a list, and as an adjective (sex act, sexual harassment, etc.). Additionally, the term is not defined as a stand-alone noun in any queried federal legal dictionary.[xiii] Interestingly, I only found one legal dictionary that defined “sex” as follows: in the human species the male is called man, and the female, woman.[xiv] Non-legal dictionaries define “sex” as the “state of being male or female”[xv] and “either the male or female division of a species, especially as differentiated with reference to the reproductive functions.” [xvi]
Searching other nondiscrimination laws and agencies seemed to provide additional insights into defining “sex.”
"The prohibition against discrimination based on sex was added to Title VII at the last minute on the floor of the House of Representatives... the bill quickly passed as amended, and we are left with little legislative history to guide us in interpreting the Act's prohibition against discrimination based on 'sex.'" [447 US 57, 63-64]
The EEOC states sex discrimination involves treating someone (an applicant or employee) unfavorably because of that person's sex.[xvii] Then, the EEOC states that discrimination against an individual because of gender identity, including transgender status, or because of sexual orientation is discrimination because of sex in violation of Title VII. [xviii]
What about other government actions regarding the definition of “trans,” “gender,” and “sex?”
In 2008, a District Court decided a transgender person was protected by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act under the term “sex.” [xix]
In 2011, the Obama administration issued guidance for addressing the needs of transgender people through the Office of Personnel Management. [xx]
In 2012, the EEOC ruled that Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which made it illegal to discriminate based on sex, also protected transgender employees. [xxi]
In 2014, the DOJ decided that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 applied to claims of discrimination based on gender identity. [xxii]
Putting it together…the legal definition of “sex” that was suggested when the law was written was wildly skewed in 2011 by a politician. The 34 CFR 106 statues do not specifically define the term sex. However, by its use, the term sex only delineates male from female according to reproductive biology. This seems to be an acceptable understanding per the legislative comments and available legal and non-legal dictionaries. It is not until 2008 that the transgender status became involved with the Civil Rights Act under the term “sex.”  Then, the affiliation became a matter of Executive policy in 2011 by the Obama administration. To date, the law has not been changed to define the term sex.
Oversight of Title IX Violations
According to Yale University, Institution for Social and Policy Studies, there is little information on the number of alleged Title IX violations that occur. Even though the law has been on the books for over 40 years, and the subject having the modern condition of being well-known, the leading resource for information about Title IX noncompliance comes from the press and not the OCR. However, the OCR publishes their reports at inconsistent intervals and includes different data each time. [xxiii]
Putting it together…there is no requirement on the Executive to consistently report the status of Title IX violations.
Is the sight picture clear, yet? Without the fear of public oversight, the OCR believes that they can coerce any federally affiliated educational institution as they see fit, for as long as they see fit, to achieve whatever results they desire, for all violations, objective and subjective.
Competing Narratives
In my opinion, there are several competing narratives at the heart of this matter. The loudest of these are three. First, the politicians, through government action, claim that it’s unjust to treat transgender people according to their biological configuration. Second, the district, through institutional proceedings, claim that there are reasonable accommodations for addressing transgender teens. Third, the local citizens, by their spoken words, claim that the federal government has enabled its agents to overstep their constitutional bounds. Because of their combined loudness it’s easy to get caught up in a fruitless debate and miss the greater narrative all together.
The greater narrative is that it’s now openly acceptable to replace reality with perception. Governments and local institutions are no longer requesting society to change. They are now forcing society to change. This is nothing less than a complete reversal of how the American constitutional republic was designed to govern. Unfortunately, with some notable exceptions, society is not even speaking up (much less pushing back).
It’s clear to me that the overall intent of those that dominate the popular narrative mean to create a new uproar over subjective discrimination. Their purpose is to replace the prior uproar of objective discrimination that has now fallen largely silent in the dominate culture. They are doing this because they believe the road to power is through addressing strife. Therefore, the first step to power is to create strife. Placing the subjective feelings of being transgendered above the objective reality of being equipped as a male or female enables their purpose.
Going Forward
As it’s presented today, the government enforcement of Title IX is tyrannical. The notion that there is a legal test that can be uniformly applied for sexual discrimination based on how someone feels is absurd and ridiculous. Electing to initiate force upon others because they have a different solution to the common problem is coercive, reprehensible, arrogant, and profane (it’s C.R.A.P.).
In my opinion this narrative will be with the American discourse for the foreseeable future. The foundation for this standard of conduct was laid by the prior generation, embraced by this generation, and seems to be increasingly accepted as normal by the upcoming generation. Given the ability of technology to compartmentalize information, and the next generation’s acceptance of that information and us of subjective reasoning, it’s highly likely that the transgender narrative will continue to gain strength in the American discourse.  Looking twenty years into the future, as the next generation comes of age to be hold political office, this estimate is particularly concerning.
To realize a redirection of this narrative will require the current generation to significantly sell the virtues of objective reasoning to the next. Additionally, the law must change to define critical terms objectively and in such a way that empirical legal tests can be developed. Furthermore, the law must be changed to empower local authorities to develop and implement local solutions that are acceptable to local citizens. Finally, the people must oust politicians and judges that do not operate according to the law, or that pledge to act contrary to the law.
Never forget that the people of a free society can do as they please unless restricted by law; whereas, the government of a free society cannot act unless specifically authorized by the law. “Making it up as we go” is a privilege exclusively provided to the people, not the government. If the government wants to act, then it must ask for permission of the governed first.
Your View
I invite you to tell me what you believe at samfrescoe@gmail.com. I am looking forward to addressing your comments and furthering our American discourse. Thank you. – Sam Frescoe


[vi] Township-High-211-Letter.PDF
[viii] Ocrcpm.PDF
[x] Ocrcpm.PDF