Pages

Friday, January 8, 2016

Progressive Feelings – Oppressive Happiness

By Sam Frescoe, Veteran’s Recall
samfrescoe@gmail.com
http://veterans-recall.blogspot.com/
The Sam Frescoe Project
 
Who wants fairness and equality in their lives? I do. I must admit, at first glance, the idea of more fairness and equality seems like a great American idea. Let’s face it, it sounds good to say and it feels good to consider.
Thinking of myself and looking inwardly, I might ask myself something like this: “Okay, Sam, how are you going to get more fairness and equality in your life?” This is a great question. How am I going to do for myself?
However, when I look outwardly, the question changes to this: “Okay, Sam, how are you going to prevent others from taking more fairness and equality from my life?” This is a dangerous question. It asks what I can force upon others.
Obviously there are thousands of additional questions that can be asked beyond the two I presented; however, as you can see, it doesn’t take long to run straight into questions that test morality and American character.
Who am I to impose my will onto another against their will?
Why does the value of my humanity outweigh another American’s?
When does my liberty to think, speak, and act oppress the same liberties of others?
Fiction or Nonfiction?
If a politician presented to you a “great idea” for a “great society” that will bring about “fairness and equality” for all, would you go for it? Maybe? It sounds like doing good!
What questions might you ask?
Now, a committee chair, with that same politician standing nearby, promises you that they presented a bill that outlined “fairness and equality” for all. In exchange for that promise, society will need to surrender to the government certain liberties, traditions, and rights concerning employment, public accommodation, business practice, family employment, housing, land ownership, commercial space, real estate dealings, licensing, registrations, permitting, use of lawful criminal background checks, issuance of job qualifications, the written word and spoken voice, differential treatment, boycotts, refusal to purchase, refusal to sell, refusal to trade, protected rights, relationships or associations, unemployment and employment status, pregnancy, childbirth, maternity related conditions, interns and internships, use of lawfully obtained credit history, victim status for domestic offenses, victim status for sex offenses, victim status for stalking offenses, all natural persons, proprietary partnerships, private and public associations, group associations, organizations, corporations, legal representatives and fiduciaries, trustees, bankruptcies, determination of personal and corporate liability, receipt of products, physical impairment, medical impairment, mental impairment, psychological impairment, medical history, law enforcement, compliance with federal immigration law, personal identity, personal self-image, personal appearance, personal behavior, personal expression, conduct in cyberspace, government agencies, clothing choices, grooming, use of makeup, selection of jewelry, issue of uniforms, fringe benefits and rewards, and all medical procedures.
Would you go for it? Does “fairness and equality” still sound good?
Now, a prosecuting attorney, with the same politician and committee chair standing nearby, asks you to trust this law because, unlike others before, will be more fair, firm, and responsible. Because this law is constructed generously it will be instrumental in remediating unfairness and inequity across society at large. In fact, punishments include up to a year-long prison term and $250,000 fine for violators. 
How does “fairness and equality” sound to you now?
Is this scenario fiction? Did I just make it up? – No, this scenario is not fiction. I did not make it up. This situation already exists within the United States of America, home of the free and land of the brave. Enter The New York City Human Rights Act.[i] In New York City it is believed by 51 politicians that government can proactively intercede on behalf of those that complain to eliminate “prejudice, intolerance, bigotry, and discrimination and disorder” from its 8.4 million inhabitants by force of government.
The New York City Human Rights Law – A copy of this law (as accessed on 26 Dec 2015) is available for review at The Sam Frescoe Project. Look under the documents section for project 16-001.
Mandatory Happiness
I believe that every American has an inherent right to pursue prosperity in terms of property ownership, personal safety, and financial security…the pursuit of happiness. I believe this right extends equally to all Americans. However, I am increasingly alarmed because I am not seeing this understanding reflected as the norm in modern discourse, the dominate culture, or across the spectrum of accepted political philosophies. I am seeing the pursuit of happiness in terms of equal outcomes, mandated uniformity, and recognition of feelings as class qualifiers. So, what is the role of government with respect to pursuing American happiness?
Is government the right social instrument to change unpopular behaviors? – No.
The progressive assumption is that because there is an inferior population that believes the superior population needs to change in order for them to feel fairly included and equally treated, then there must be a government program to effect that change on behalf of the inferior group. The fallacy is the assumption that the inferior population is small and will remain small. This does not hold because when a government subsidizes the solution to a problem, then more of that problem will develop. In other words, when a government recognizes parity of an inferior group with the superior group, then the inferior group will grow in order to gain recognition and begin to demand resources. In turn, because resources are limited, government will forcibly acquire and redistribute resources from those that have to those that do not. The moral foundation for this action is the assumption that wealth is wrongfully stolen versus rightfully earned. Therefore, differential treatment of others due to any dissimilarity is moral justification for action.
Of course, this is nonsense. It is plain to observe around the globe and throughout all of recorded time that dissimilarity of persons, peoples, and groups is a matter of natural law. Additionally, the progressive belief that wealth can be stolen gives rise to the idea that wealth is subject to ownership. Therefore, because wealth is owned, and can be stolen, it can also be earned. If wealth can be rightfully earned, and dissimilarity is a matter of natural law, then what is the true need for government involvement? Simply stated, the true need for government involvement is power.
Is government the right instrument to secure social guarantees? – No.
The progressive assumption about perceived social injustice is that future wrong-doing can be successfully addressed by adjusting the rules of society. They promise that Scenario-A can no longer happen because of Law-B. In other words, they present a type of social guarantee.
Again, this is nonsense. As with any human endeavor, when a government proposes change, that government cannot guarantee that this or that will happen. History has shown again and again, that regardless of the amount of force applied by the government onto a people, that government can never guarantee that anything will happen or not happen when anything is changed. This is not a useful argument for objective analysis or debate on any level because it assumes an outcome. Its sole purpose is to plant and cultivate fear.
Can government mandate happiness, meaning prosperity in terms of property ownership, personal safety, and financial security, on behalf of one individual without oppressing another? – No
Going Forward
The role of government is to conform itself to fundamental truths found in natural law.
-       Wealth can be owned; therefore, it can be earned or stolen.
-       Existence of dissimilarity is not grounds for one to oppress another.
-       Individuals have sovereignty over their personal property.
The role of government is to conform itself to the morally superior high ground.
-       An American’s earnings from labor are sacred. – No one may forcibly acquire or tax or penalize the earnings of labor of any person without the expressed consent of that person.
-       An American’s charity is sacred. – No one may restrict another person from the effort or results of doing what is good.
-       An American’s wholly owned property is sacred. – No one may forcibly acquire or tax or penalize the wholly owned property of any person without the expressed consent of that person.
The role of government is to recognize the inherent personal and social responsibilities of all American citizens without regard to any qualifier.
-       No one has the right to do what is wrong.
-       Social guarantees are not compatible with liberty or freedom and have no redeemable value.
A Solution
It’s time for Americans to take to heart the true meaning and value of the American way of life.  The American way of life is a liberating force for doing what is good, not a progressive license for doing what feels good. It’s because of what was done by some Americans to do good that all Americans can choose to do what feels good.
It’s time for Americans to set aside partisan hatred, turnoff the media crap, and elect morally strong statesmen, representatives, and judges. The American way requires leaders that are strongly aligned according to what is morally right, not what is dominantly popular. It is always up to us, the citizens of this nation, to select and empower those that have strong moral character and high respect for our common American ideals.
It’s time for Americans to take charge and remove those that believe otherwise. They work for us. Not the other way around.
Your View
Your thoughts and perspectives are important. I am looking forward to addressing your comments. I invite you to tell me what you believe at samfrescoe@gmail.com.
If you would like to review source information, review prior articles and post, or discuss particular points and issues among like-minded people, then please check out The Sam Frescoe Project on Facebook.
 
Thank you. – Sam Frescoe
 

[i] The New York City Human Rights Law; Administrative Code of the City of New York Title 8; http://www.nyc.gov/html/cchr/downloads/pdf/human-rights/nyc-human-rights-law.pdf  (accessed 26 Dec 2015)
Posted by at No comments:

Monday, December 21, 2015

The Godfather vs The People

By Sam Frescoe, Veteran’s Recall
samfrescoe@gmail.com
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
Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, December 17, 2015

Transgenderism and the Government



By Sam Frescoe, Veteran’s Recall
samfrescoe@gmail.com
http://veterans-recall.blogspot.com/
http://iamtheunison.deviantart.com/art/Transgenderism-429177632
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



Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)