Dear NFL “Protesters” – Where do I even begin?

By Sam Frescoe

http://samfrescoeproject.blogspot.com/

#SamFrescoe

Here we go again; righteousness done poorly is overcome by stupidity done well.

Over the prior weekend, the NFL went toe-to-toe with the American culture at large. Player after player, and team after team, condoned and encouraged the corruption of a pious gesture. Coach after coach, owner after owner, and the League itself openly cast their once proud “Super Bowl World Champion” heritage down to pettiness. Why? Because their hurt feelings were more important than their heritage and the foundation upon which that heritage rests.

That’s right! Grown men that handsomely profit from the promotion of a childhood game took it upon themselves to behave like brats in the name of righteousness. In doing so, they dishonored themselves, their teams, their League, their fans, and their sport; they dishonored their names, their families, and those that built the ivory tower upon which they sit; they dishonored a time American unity, symbols of that unity, and (by extension) Americans themselves. – It just goes to show that the saying is true, “Stupid is, as stupid does.”

Dear NFL Protesters – Even though you are formerly educated, in possession of extraordinary fitness, and are gainfully employed you still lack intelligence, mental capacity to think for yourself, and humility personifying gratitude. – The belief that you represent the voices of the oppressed because you feel that one man offended you is stupid. – The belief that your conduct couldn’t be understood in any other way than team cohesion is stupid. – The belief that the use of a rude and widely unpopular gesture makes you righteous champions of social justice is stupid.

Dear NFL Protesters – In a single weekend you successfully remade yourselves into the newest personification of the problems and attitudes that you claim to be resisting.

Here We Go Again

This past weekend, a number of NFL players, coaches, owners, etc. choose to “take a knee” or refused to take the field during the customary pre-game playing of the national anthem. This behavior was deemed to be fitting and acceptable in order to demonstrate integrity while drawing attention to social injustice.[1]

NOTE: POTUS Comments: While the comments of POTUS are part of the events of the weekend, those comments fall outside the scope and purpose of this article.

NOTE: Right to Speech: While speech is an American right, and an important factor of the events of the weekend, this line of discussion falls outside the scope and purpose of this article. [2]

Historical Framing – Don’t Drink the Kool-Aid

In 2016, Colin Kaepernick, former San Francisco 49ers quarterback, started protests by sitting on the bench during the US national anthem. [3] At that time, it seemed clear that Kaepernick intended his gesture to be a mechanism for drawing attention to police brutality and social injustice. [4]

“People are dying in vain because this country isn't holding their end of the bargain up as far as, you know, giving freedom and justice and liberty to everybody.” ^[5]

“People don't realize what's really going on in this country. There are a lot things that are going on that are unjust. People aren't being held accountable for. And that's something that needs to change. That's something that this country stands for: freedom, liberty and justice for all.” ^[6]

“Once again, I’m not anti-American,” Kaepernick said. “I love America. I love people. That’s why I’m doing this. I want to help make America better. I think having these conversations helps everybody have a better understanding of where everybody is coming from.” [7]

Kaepernick, in a moment of clarity, rightfully broadened his message to include politics and challenged the integrity of the electorate. – Bravo!

“We have a presidential candidate who's deleted emails and done things illegally and is a presidential candidate. That doesn't make sense to me, because if that was any other person, you'd be in prison. So what is this country really standing for?” [8]

However, poor messaging choices made social-political space for his aims to be recast as malicious intent.

Beginning July 2015, Kaepernick began promoting Black Nationalist and Black Lives Matter material on his social media platform.[9]

“I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color.” [10]

One of his leading advocates, Nessa Daib (his girlfriend at that time) posted on Twitter, “Please take the time to UNDERSTAND what he is saying…” versus actually explaining what we were meant to understand.[11]

What Kaepernick likely intended for doing good (restoring freedom, liberty, and justice for all) was transformed into ridicule and mockery.

Weekend Framing – Don’t Drink the Kool-Aid

Now, more than a year later, the messaging has changed again. Now, “taking a knee” is a symbol of America-hating and gross disrespect to Americans at large, especially our warrior dead. However, there are some that disagree with this observation.

Let’s suppose that I’m off-base and out-of-touch. Let’s suppose that all of this messaging and behavior is actually a clear and defined protest against the treatment of black and non-white people. Now, with all of this in mind, let’s address some simple questions:

What’s changed?

• ·         Do black lives matter more than before?
• ·         Are black communities better off than before?
• ·         Are legal statues being rewritten to remove bad law?
• ·         Is unemployment any better?
• ·         Is black-on-black crime being reduced?
• ·         Is black crime (villain or victim) being reduced?
• ·         Is the black abortion rate declining?
• ·         Is the dropout rate of black students in decline?
• ·         Are more black entrepreneurs being underwritten and financed?

What’s being done to make things better?

• ·         Are blacks voting in greater numbers?
• ·         Are black business owners offering testimony and advice to lawmakers?
• ·         Are more blacks becoming police officers?
• ·         Are more blacks seeking elected office?
• ·         Are more blacks petitioning for legislation?

It’s been more than a year sense Kaepernick brought all of this to the forefront.

• ·         Where’s the message of unity?
• ·         Where’s the doctrine of virtue?

It’s been a year.

Hateful Righteousness – Don’t Drink the Kool-Aid

I'm not opposed to purposeful protesting. – Peaceful protesting for a good and grand purpose is an American thing to do.

I’m not opposed to identification of wrong-doing. – If rights are to be restored, then wrongs must be clearly identified.

I am opposed to the notion that the American way of life is inherently corrupt and fundamentally evil. – These “protesters” want all Americans, everywhere, to believe their entire heritage and living memory is inherently evil, wicked, immoral, foul, horrible, disgusting, and corrupt because they cannot bring themselves to stand for an oppressive nation. Really?

How am I supposed to take them seriously when their messaging is egregious and shamelessly vicious?

·         If racism is real, then fairness and tolerance must be equally real.

·         If white privilege is real, then black disadvantage must be equally real.

·         If oppression is real, then liberation must be equally real.

·         If fear is real, then confidence must be equally real.

·         If resistance is real, then assistance must be equally real.

How am I supposed to agree with them when their messaging is incomplete (at best) and dishonest (at worst)?

·         They are athletes. They are celebrities. And, they want me to believe or agree that they are experts on oppression because they are professional football players?

·         They are professional football players. They are exclusive members of a well equipped and empowered team. And, they want me to believe or agree that they are experts in systemic oppression that is America itself?

How am I supposed to accept their claims while disregarding their presentation: as if speaking something aloud makes it so for everyone?

·         How can they talk about the complexities of American society, but never acknowledge that the same society is complex enough that others can read the same evidence and arrive at a different conclusion?

·         How can they proclaim to find it hard to believe that others could honestly and intelligently come to a different conclusion than themselves?

How am I supposed to accept their morality and judgment as prudent and wise?

·         What is the source of their moral authority?

·         Who made them moral givers?

Bottom Line

Dear NFL Protesters – You cannot lift up America to new levels by tearing down all of America to your depths. You, and those around you, are the beneficiaries of those Americans that addressed segregation, civil rights, voting rights, and the nonsense of Jim Crow laws long before you were thought to be a good idea. In doing so, they did what they did, fought as they fought, and died as they died so that everyone could benefit in ways that they could never have foreseen. – It’s time for you to master your own nature and build on the hard fought virtues of our American past.

At some point each American, without exception, must choose to identify with what is graceful, virtuous, and good or with what is evil, vicious, and bad. You cannot be a righteous champion by having it both ways.

Viciousness is a human failing, but virtue is a human triumph. Both are ever-present simply because human beings exist. Both represent the desire of human nature to cultivate thoughts, make decisions, and take action on those decisions. But, it’s not human nature that puts failings and triumphs into the world; it’s individual human beings.

Your View

Your thoughts and perspectives are important. I invite you to tell me what you believe with the comment section.

© 2017 – SamFrescoeProject.Blogspot.com – All Rights Reserved

---

[1] AFP. “NFL controversy has 'nothing to do with race,' Trump says”. 25 Sep 2017. https://www.yahoo.com/news/nfl-controversy-nothing-race-trump-says-222330098_.html (accessed 170925)

[2] The Bill of Rights is clear on this matter. “In order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers,” the following “declaratory and restrictive” clause was added, “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.” (US Constitution, Bill of Rights, Preamble and First Amendment)

[3] AFP. “NFL controversy has 'nothing to do with race,' Trump says”. 25 Sep 2017. https://www.yahoo.com/news/nfl-controversy-nothing-race-trump-says-222330098_.html (accessed 170925)

[4] Billy Witz. “This Time, Colin Kaepernick Takes a Stand by Kneeling”. 1 Sep 2016. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/02/sports/football/colin-kaepernick-kneels-national-anthem-protest.html (accessed 170926)

[5] https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/colin_kaepernick (accessed 170926)

[6] https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/colin_kaepernick (accessed 170926)

[7] Billy Witz. “This Time, Colin Kaepernick Takes a Stand by Kneeling”. 1 Sep 2016. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/02/sports/football/colin-kaepernick-kneels-national-anthem-protest.html (accessed 170926)

[8] https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/colin_kaepernick (accessed 170926)

[9] Ford Springer. “Kaepernick’s Support Of Black Lives Matter Began After Dating Activist DJ”. 31 Aug 2016. http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/31/kaepernicks-support-of-black-lives-matter-began-after-dating-activist-dj/ (accessed 170926)

Black Nationalist: (n) a member of a group of militant blacks who advocate separatism from the whites and the formation of self-governing black communities https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/black%20nationalist (accessed 170926)

Black Lives Matter: (n) a social-political organization advocating black supremacy; characterized by racism, sexism and transgenderism https://samfrescoeproject.blogspot.com/2016/07/sams-estimate-assessment-of-black-lives.html; http://samfrescoeproject.blogspot.com/2016/07/sams-estimate-assessment-of-black-lives_20.html

[10] https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/colin_kaepernick (accessed 170926)

[11] Ford Springer. “Kaepernick’s Support Of Black Lives Matter Began After Dating Activist DJ”. 31 Aug 2016. http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/31/kaepernicks-support-of-black-lives-matter-began-after-dating-activist-dj/ (accessed 170926)

Feminism Sucks! – Liberty Rocks!

By Sam Frescoe

http://samfrescoeproject.blogspot.com/

#SamFrescoe #feminism #feminist

On 12 Sep 2017, a group of Duke University feminists took it upon themselves to cry foul because they were systemically oppressed by the existence of all things masculine. – I just can’t make this up. Right now, in 21^st century America, at a major university, there is a group of children disguised as adults that believe they are being systematically oppressed by the existence of all things they deem masculine. That’s right; there is an entire segment of the American population that claims griever status because masculinity is inherently evil. – My God, do their fathers know?!

I must admit, that while at university it DID cross my mind that chemistry, calculus, and ancient English literature were oppressive; but, it NEVER crossed my mind to feel upset because of the mere existence of another person. – Dear God in Heaven, these so-called-champions of righteousness have their heads shoved so far up their backsides that they can see daylight in the dark of night.

Dear college feminists: Even though you are formally educated you still lack intelligence. The belief that you are oppressed because the natural delineation of manly and womanly nature (which has existed for thousands of years and to your benefit…you are alive today) is inherently corrupt. – You must be nucking futs crazy.

Here We Go Again

The Women’s Center at Duke University claims that they initiated the Duke Men’s Project as a way to call men into conversations about feminism and gender oppression. While reviewing their published materials, I made a number of observations that seem noteworthy. If you wish to read about the Center or its Project, then there are links listed immediately after this article.

Their Claims – My Translations

CLAIM: The Duke Men’s Project is an initiative to call men in to conversations about feminism and gender oppression. To this end, the Project offers two options: 1) a nine-week Learning Community to unpack expressions of masculinity through a feminist lens; 2) larger talks for all genders to engage in conversations linked to masculinity, male privilege, pornography, rape culture, male privilege, men taking up space, and emotional labor.[1] 

TRANSLATION: The Duke Men’s Project is about reinforcing the fallacy that men (collectively) are responsible for social, political, and economic violence inflicted on women (et al). The intent of the Women’s Center is to demonize all men.

CLAIM: Men doing gender equity work operate with a very specific set of privileges. Such men have a dual role as they are equipped with knowledge and perspective to be able to engage in: 1) gender equity work; 2) activism in a constructive way that acknowledges their privilege. The  Duke Men’s Project is a space that remains accountable to the great work women and non-male-identified activists and thinkers; and honors and respects the legacy and scholarship that men doing this work invariably benefit from that work. [2]

TRANSLATION: Men promoting third-wave feminism are granted special status by feminists after they forfeit whatever those feminists deemed inappropriately masculine. This requires men to voluntarily: 1) accept feminists as morally righteous persons; 2) subordinate their beliefs to the feminist world view; 3) advocate the idea that being masculine is inherently bad/immoral/viscous.

CLAIM: The Duke Men's Project is an initiative sponsored by the Duke Women's Center to increase male allyship in gender equity and gender violence prevention. [3] The Center claims to promote a campus culture that ensures the full participation and agency of women students at Duke. [4] The Center believes in systemic, patriarchal oppression.[5] The Center seeks to promote social justice, Womanist and feminist values, community activism, cultural-shifting, and collective action.[6]

TRANSLATION: The Duke Women's Center is socially and politically weak. Thus, the Center must have the allegiance of men to bolster their presence on the Duke campus. The cost of entry into this arrangement is to be subordinate feminist masters. Additionally, even thought the Center is sanctioned of Duke University and enjoys its protection,[7] the Center demonizes the University by declaring a general state of systemic, patriarchal oppression on the campus. – To bite the hand that feeds you is stupid.

In my view, the Duke Women’s Center is motivated by the desire to secure social-political legitimacy and power in order to exercise their intent to: 1) expand, augment, and control all things and ideas deemed feminine; 2) diminish, deny, or destroy all things and ideas deemed masculine. – Simply stated, the Center is motivated by emotions (rivalry, envy, jealousy, revenge, pride) in a demand for recognition.

In my view, the Duke Women’s Center, through the Duke Men's Project, seeks to demonize any person deemed unacceptably masculine under the guise of compassion and empathy. The Center wants you to believe that the actions of some (individual men that commit crimes against women) warrant the condemnation of all that is masculine (an entire collection of groups, ideas, and views). Those that advocate, support, or condone such a stance seek to appeal to prejudice (sex/gender) in order to adversely stereotype those that dissent from their views. – By definition, this is discrimination ^[8] and is unjust.

In this case, those responsible for the existence of feminist sexism at Duke include at least the following: the Duke University administration; the Duke VP of Student Affairs; the Men’s Engagement Intern (a Duke-paid employee); those involved with hiring the Intern; those associated with the Duke Women’s Center; volunteering male-identified students; and those that ignore, condone, excuse, deny, or encourage such behavior.

Back to Reality – Don’t Drink the Kool-Aid

False Flag – The Center wants you to believe that because there are men (individuals) that do commit acts of brutal force against women (individuals), that all men (collectively) are inherently oppressive to all women (collectively). Thus, all men are to be feared. Therefore, all women are in need of a “rescuer” (Duke Women’s Center) against oppression brought forth by the existence of men. This view is further reinforced by psychological manipulation (Duke Men’s Project) in order to further public compliance. Therefore, the Duke Women’s Center presents a “false flag” when it claims femininity is oppressed by masculinity because specific individuals demonstrated criminal behavior.

Authority – The acceptance of the Duke Women’s Center by Duke University is significant. Due to the fact that the University has a local monopoly over the determination of justice, the Center is bolstered as a legitimate agency within the university social fabric.

The Dilemma of Anti-Discrimination – The Duke Women’s Center envisions that inequality of human kind can be corrected through equal outcomes, to include feelings. However, because people are inherently different, their performance and choices and feelings are also different. Therefore, reality does not match vision. Disregarding the fact that there is no society in which this reality is false, the Center seeks to restructure Duke University by introducing “victims” while denouncing dissent as examples of oppression. At this point, intent trumps merit. In turn, messaging promotes claims of privilege, safe spaces, systemic patriarchy, and variations of political correctness.

False Liberalism – To characterize the actions and attitudes of the Duke Women’s Center as liberal would be to promote a falsehood. The ends of liberalism are life and property, and its means are liberty and toleration. Clearly, the Duke Women’s Center is not interested in either liberty or toleration, and quite willing to permit the subjugation of others, though it may be voluntary.

Morality – If you are willing to do demonize men for being masculine, then why aren’t you willing to be demonized as women for being feminine?

Logical Fallacies – Just because an individual could do something, does NOT mean that a similar collective actually did that something. – The conclusion of the Center that masculinity is bad/immoral/viscous does not necessarily follow from the fact that individual men behaved badly/immorally/viscously.

Political Calculus – Concerning the political economy of Duke University, the Duke Women’s Center believes that aggravating secondary effects (resentment of masculinity) is more profitable than reducing primary concerns (criminal behavior perpetrated by anyone).

Taken together, the Duke Women’s Center, an institution, and Duke University, an institution, sanction and promote doctrines and strategies that arbitrarily devalue men (collectively) on the basis of perceived masculinity. This activity is: 1) done openly and with the full knowledge and consent of Center leadership and University authority; 2) done outside the merits and behaviors of those individuals being discriminated against. Therefore, the Duke Women’s Center and Duke University are engaged in sexism.

Shoe on the Other Foot

Still don’t believe me…perhaps repurposing feminist messaging with a male/masculine voice can help. [9]

Women’s Project

The Women’s Project is an initiative to call women into conversations about masculinism and gender oppression. It aims to create a space of sisterhood and fellowship dedicated to interrogating female privilege and matriarchy as it exists in our lives, our community, and our society. Our intention is to rework current narratives of femininity for a healthier alternative; one that is inclusive, equitable and positive. There is a misinformed narrative that gender equity and masculinism hurts women, but through conversations on the limits of femininity and healthy alternatives we demonstrate that women have much to gain.

The Women’s Project facilitates a nine-week Learning Community, where a group of 15 female persons unpack expressions of femininity through a masculinist lens. The Learning Community discusses femininity while understanding how it exists under multiple spheres of oppression (like matriarchy, traditional marriage, the nuclear family, emotional self-control, personal responsibility, and divorce culture). We also hold larger talks and discussions for all genders to engage with conversations that are linked to femininity and female privilege. Past events have focused on promiscuity and divorce culture, female privilege, women taking up space, and gender disparities in the ability to do physical labor.

Women doing gender equity work operate with a very specific set of privileges, often referred to as the “glass elevator” effect. Thus, the Women’s Project is a space that remains accountable to the great work men and non-female-identified activists and thinkers have been doing for decades. Our space is one that honors and respects the legacy and scholarship that women doing this work invariably benefit from the work done. Such a beneficiary is permitted a dual role: 1) to equip women with the knowledge and perspective to be able to engage in gender equity work; 2) to engage in activism that constructively acknowledges female privilege.

The Women's Project is an initiative sponsored by the Men's Center to increase female allyship in gender equity and gender violence prevention.

Bottom Line

Dear Feminists: You cannot lift women up to new levels by tearing men down to your depths. You, and the men and women around you, are the beneficiaries of those Americans that addressed women’s suffrage, voting rights, and civil liberties long before you were a good idea. In doing so, they did what they did, fought as they fought, and died as they died so that everyone could benefit in ways that they could never have foreseen. – It’s time to count your blessings, embrace the goodness of human nature, and attend to the privilege of higher learning.

© 2017 – SamFrescoeProject.Blogspot.com – All Rights Reserved

Links

http://www.dukechronicle.com/article/2016/09/deconstructing-masculinity-duke-mens-project-aims-to-facilitate-discussions-of-male-privilege-and-patriarchy

http://rightwingnews.com/education/duke-mens-wimpification-project/

http://dailycaller.com/2017/09/12/duke-recruits-men-to-combat-toxic-masculinity/

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/10/02/duke-offers-men-safe-space-to-contemplate-their-toxic-masculinity.html

https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/59mp4a/duke-university-opens-new-program-for-male-feminists

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/education/article109609082.html

Sexism – The Duke Women’s Center, and the Duke Men’s Project, promote sexism.

• -       Fact: The Duke Women’s Center perceives sex/gender classification as masculine and feminine.
• -       Fact: The Duke Women’s Center perceives sex/gender stratification as “that which is masculine” to be inherently inferior to “that which is feminine.”
• -       Fact: The Duke Women’s Center promotes policies, principles, and guidelines (doctrine) that prescribe sex/gender classification and stratification.
• -       Fact: The Duke Women’s Center is engaged in plans, approaches, and schemes (strategy) that prescribe sex/gender classification and stratification.
• -       Motive: The Duke Women’s Center believes that masculinity oppresses femininity. The Center feels the perceived oppression to be real and manifest in a systemic patriarchy. Therefore, the oppression of the first compels action against the second.
• -       Intent: The Duke Women’s Center aims to convince men to voluntarily limit, subjugate, or abandon their masculinity in exchange for the benefit of being redeemed in the eyes of the Center.
• -       Institutionalization: The Duke Women’s Center is an administration sponsored and recognized agency that dedicates resources to realize its motive according to its intent.
• -       Normalization: Because Duke University accepts the Duke Women’s Center as a means of enhancing the “intellectual, social, cultural and physical development of students” in order for students to “demonstrate personal and social responsibility,”  the Duke Women’s Center enjoys a normalized relationship with the campus authority.

---

[1] Duke Men's Project. https://www.facebook.com/pg/DukeMensProject/about/?ref=page_internal (accessed 170914)

[2] Duke Men's Project. https://www.facebook.com/pg/DukeMensProject/about/?ref=page_internal (accessed 170914)

[3] Duke Men's Project. https://www.facebook.com/pg/DukeMensProject/about/?ref=page_internal (accessed 170914)

[4] About Us | Student Affairs. https://studentaffairs.duke.edu/wc/about-us (accessed 170914)

[5] Duke Men's Project. https://www.facebook.com/pg/DukeMensProject/about/?ref=page_internal (accessed 170914)

[6] About Us | Student Affairs. https://studentaffairs.duke.edu/wc/about-us (accessed 170914)

[7] About Us | Student Affairs. https://studentaffairs.duke.edu/about-us-student-affairs (accessed 170914)

[8] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/discrimination?s=t

[9] Duke Men's Project. https://www.facebook.com/pg/DukeMensProject/about/?ref=page_internal (accessed 170914) 

Police Misconduct – Our Republic; A Nation of Laws

By Sam Frescoe

samfrescoe@gmail.com

http://samfrescoeproject.blogspot.com/

The Sam Frescoe Project

#SamFrescoe

On 2 Sep 2017, the public became aware of the actions of a Salt Lake City Detective.

https://youtu.be/kWtY8MEJgBY

https://www.facebook.com/shaunking/videos/1528759813829598/

In my view, the actions of the Detective are completely unacceptable at all levels (his singular actions are not excusable); however, the actions of the Nurse are completely commendable at all levels (she singular actions must be heralded for all to hear, see, and learn).

So What?

This is why…

-       The Constitution matters – It’s our supreme law that protects your rights by restricting the government and its actors.

-       The Fourth Amendment matters – When the 4A states “persons” it means our bodies in their entirety.

-       Criminal Law matters – The Detective battered the nurse.

-       Civil Law matters – The Detective battered the nurse.

-       Civil Rights matter – Failure to execute due process of law.

Bottom Line

America is a REPUBLIC for this very reason; rights by law matter.

America is NOT a democracy; privileges by brute strength are not rights.

Going Forward – A Solution

The just role of government is to nullify the aggressor and restore the rights of the defender.

SOLUTION-1: Restore the just rights of the nurse. Drop all charges. Pay all losses to wages, legal fees, and court costs. Ensure her privileges are fully reinstated at her place of employment.

SOLUTION-2: (Local Actions) Actor-1 must be punished in proportion to his willful violations: 1) remove his law enforcement credentials indefinitely; 2) terminate his employment indefinitely (includes all pays, allowances, benefits, retirements, pensions, policies, and privileges).

SOLUTION-3: (Local Actions) Actor-2 and Actor-3 are to be reprimanded for failure to act. This should result in a reduction in pay for one year and ineligibility for promotion for two years.

SOLUTION-4: (State Actions) Actor-1 must be charged, arrested, and tried for battery under criminal law. If convicted, then the maximum punishment must be attached and executed.

SOLUTION-5: (State Actions) Actor-1 must stand trial for battery under civil/tort law. If found negligent, then the maximum monetary judgment must be attached (up to the full value of his home and estate to include all insurance policies).

SOLUTION-6: (Federal Actions) Actor-1 must stand trial for violation of civil rights of the nurse.

SOLUTION-7: (Federal, State, Local Action) Present a medal, of appropriate honor, onto the nurse with full citation noted courage, bravery, and steadfastness.

LAW-1: "In order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers...restrictive clauses" are added (Bill of Rights, Preamble)...“The right of the people to be secure in their persons…against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” (US Constitution, 4A)

LAW-2: In criminal law, a physical act that results in harmful or offensive contact with another's person without that person's consent. (General Definition, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/battery)

LAW-3: In tort law, the intentional causation of harmful or offensive contact with another's person without that person's consent. (General Definition, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/battery)

FACT-1: Actor-1, a police detective, knowingly violated Law-1, Law-2, and Law-3 without cause. Actor-1, having been shown the law and local agreement of authorities failed to discharge his duties in accordance with the agreement, the law, and the Constitution; thus, willfully elected to violate his oath of office and sacred public trust. Evidence as shown by body-cam video and witnesses present.

FACT-2: Actor-2 and Actor-3 (standing in close proximity to the event), both uniformed officers, having witnessed violation of Law-1, Law-2, and Law-3 may have neglected their duty to uphold the law and keep the peace; thus, may be in violation of their oath of office and sacred public trust.

FACT-3: The nurse executed her duties to the fullest extent possible and while under duress.

Your View

Your thoughts and perspectives are important. I invite you to tell me what you believe with the comment section.

© 2017 – SamFrescoeProject.Blogspot.com – All Rights Reserved

Great Dates in American History – September

By Sam Frescoe

samfrescoe@gmail.com

http://samfrescoeproject.blogspot.com/

The Sam Frescoe Project

#SamFrescoe

#SamFrescoe #American #History

American history is important. In my view, by studying the past we may better understand who we are today and where we must go tomorrow. My purpose today is to review major events in American history.

In your view, what are the major events in your American history? – Please leave a comment or send an e-mail (samfrescoe@gmail.com).

“The supreme purpose of history is a better world.”
– Herbert Hoover, 31^st American President (1874-1964)

“No matter what accomplishments you make, somebody helps you.”
– Althea Gibson, an American tennis player and professional golfer (1927-2003)

1st Monday Annually

Labor Day

                                          

9 Sep 1850

California joined the United States as a State

15 Sep 1857

William Howard Taft was born

11 Sep 2001

9/11 Attacks (World Trade Towers, Pentagon, PA)

Going Forward

“If we know where we came from, we may better know where to go. If we know who we came from, we may better understand who we are.” - Anonymous

“Preserve your memories, keep them well, what you forget you can never retell.” – Louisa May Alcott, an American novelist and poet (1832-1888)

“Maintaining one’s culture, values and traditions is beyond price.”
– Getano Lui, Council member for Iama

“Every man is a quotation from all his ancestors.”
– Ralph Waldo Emerson, an American essayist, lecturer, and poet (1803-1882)

– Sam Frescoe

© 2017 – SamFrescoeProject.Blogspot.com – All Rights Reserved

American Rights – Not LGBT Rights

By Sam Frescoe

samfrescoe@gmail.com

Sam Frescoe Project

#SamFrescoe

Okay, Americans! – Is the Constitution and Bill of Rights authoritative across and within the several States of the United States? Are American rights, Constitutional rights, commonly applicable to all Americans? If either answer is YES, then I invite you to turn your attention to California and Senate Bill 219 (SB-219). Why? Because the State of California is about to trounce your liberty to speak, worship, and associate as you please.

BLUF – Bottom Line Up Front

Enactment of California SB-219 will nullify the Constitutional rights of all Americans located within the State of California. – This article examines SB-219 because I want to show you how this bill, if enacted, will nullify your Constitutional rights; and to explain how such nullification will erode the Constitutional rights of every American.

So What?

Simply stated, if you need, want, or desire to live in, visit, or conduct business in California while expressing your thoughts, honoring your faith, or associating by contract as you please, then defeating C SB-219 is mandatory. More specifically, if SB-219 is enacted, then everyone standing on California soil that is deemed hostile to a segment of the LGBT community will be at risk of a criminal conviction, a $1,000 fine, and one year in prison.[1] – In other words, if you value Constitutional rights, then the possible passage of SB-219 is a clear and present threat that must be defeated.

What is CA SB-219?

On its face, SB-219 is a bill concerning issues regarding “Long-term care facilities: rights of residents.” Within the bill there is language that indicates the same and specifically limits the reach of the bill to long-term care facilities, nursing homes, etc. Additionally, on 6 April 2017, the California Senate Judiciary Committee reviewing the proposed legislation and recorded minutes saying that “this bill would create additional privacy protections for all long-term care facility residents…by focusing on the needs of a particularly vulnerable community.”[2] Unfortunately, all of this is a smoke screen designed to cloak this bill in false virtue.

A quick read of the bill quickly reveals this legislation for what it actually is: an instrument of coercive activism. – The judicial reviews published by the California Senate and Assembly clearly demonstrate the intentions and motivations of the bill’s sponsor and its supporters.

“The purpose of this act is to accelerate the process of freeing LGBT residents and patients from discrimination.”[3] – Translation: SB-219 is a legislative instrument in direct support of highly-specialized social activists.

“This bill makes a number of legislative findings and declarations related to the vulnerability of California’s lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) seniors and the risks they face because of this.”[4] – Translation: LGBT persons are too weak to stand up for themselves because they are LGBT persons.

“This bill would make a Legislative finding: those LGBT seniors have a heightened need for care, but often lack the family support networks available to non-LGBT seniors.”[5] – Translation: The government wants you to believe that the State must provide for the care of LGBT persons because they might “lack family support.”

“This bill would make it unlawful, except as provided, for a long term care facility or facility staff to take any of the following actions wholly or partially on the basis of a SB 219 person’s actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, or HIV status.” [6] – Translation: Regardless of conscience, if you own/operate or work at a long-term care facility, then you may not exercise your conscience with LGBT persons.

“Willfully and repeatedly fail to use a resident’s preferred name or pronouns after being clearly informed of the preferred name or pronouns” is unlawful (SB-219, 1439.51). – Translation: Regardless of any other consideration, failing to speak according to the government script with an LGBT person is a criminal act.

This bill is an instrument of coercive activism exclusively beneficial to LGBT persons. Judicial reviews make the following claims:

“…empirical evidence shows that discrimination against LGBT people is a serious problem in California’s long-term care facilities”^[7] – Translation: The government wants you to believe that LGBT-discrimination is out of control across the whole of California because 39 testimonies supporting the bill, and the 8 testimonies opposing, represents a balanced presentation of evidence.

“…this bill is supported by a broad coalition of senior, LGBT, labor and civil liberties groups, and government organizations, who are concerned that LGBT individuals and particularly transgender individuals are especially likely to experience discrimination and harassment in long-term care facilities.”^[8] – Translation: The government wants you to believe that the supporting the bill is good and virtuous because multiple lobbies (that will directly benefit from enactment of such a law) claim that “discrimination and harassment” might occur.

Regarding California civil rights, Civil Code Section 51, the Unruh Civil Rights Act, “The true scope of protection under the Unruh Act is actually even more broad than these categories because the California Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Unruh Act in an expansive way, holding that it is meant to cover all arbitrary and intentional discrimination by business establishments.”[9] – Translation: Because the legislature believes California courts will not stop them, the legislature is free to recast existing law for their own purposes regardless of what is actually stated within the law.

The opposition raised concerns about religious liberty. They claimed that the bill did not provide an exemption for religious institutions that provide long-term care.[10] Particular concern was expressed about the rights of those long-term care facilities that are run by religious organizations.[11] The bill’s author, state Sen. Scott Weiner, countered as follows: “Everyone is entitled to their religious view. But when you enter the public space, when you are running an institution, you are in a workplace, you are in a civil setting, and you have to follow the law.”^[12] – Translation: The government believes all First Amendment rights are trivial.

The opposition raised concerns about free speech. How can you believe in free speech, but think the government can compel people to use certain pronouns when talking to others?” said Greg Burt of the California Family Council.^[13] This concern was addressed by claiming the misuse of names and/or pronouns was a form of discrimination; therefore, unlawful.^[14] – Translation: The government believes your First Amendment rights are trivial.

The opposition raised concerns about the just reach of government. A legal expert warned that it is “pretty unlikely that, if this law is enacted, such prohibitions would be limited just to this [nursing home] scenario,” UCLA First Amendment scholar Eugene Volokh. [15] This concern was addressed by stating the bill only pertained to long-term care facilities. – Volokh teaches free speech law, religious freedom law, church-state relations law, and several other areas of law at UCLA School of Law. Additionally, he clerked for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the U.S. Supreme Court and for Judge Alex Kozinski on the Ninth Circuit.[16] – Translation: The government believes it is unbounded.

Going Forward – An American Solution

American Rights are all the rights any American needs. – All American citizens have identical and coequal rights to speak, believe, associate, and contract as they need, want, or desire. If this is false for any citizen (LGBT or otherwise), then the just course of government action is to nullify the hostility of the aggressor; thereby, restoring the just rights of the defender.

The ability to choose the course of your own life according to your justly possessed capacities is a key characteristic of the American Dream. – If a citizen, or community of citizens, needs, wants, or desires their interests to be peaceably acknowledged by others, then according the same peaceable acknowledgement to those others supports the interests of the individual or group and vice-versa. In this way, everyone is free to pursue their preferences as long as that exercise of freedom does not detract from another’s exercise of freedom.

Extend the benefit of doubt – Jerks are everywhere, and nowhere, whether we know it or not. Thus, because we cannot know the “jerk” status of everyone we encounter, this principle is applicable to all human endeavors. If a particular population needs, wants, or desires a just recourse for wrong-doing, then the activation of that recourse must be just as well. Thus, the benefit hedges against precedent that will continue to unjustly harm others.

Sticks and stones – Insults and slights are just that (and nothing more). You are singularly responsible for your thoughts, feelings, behaviors, and circumstances that you create. Master your tongue and accord the same to others.

A human being cannot be forced to respect another; they can only be forced into submission in the name of the other. – Regardless of the people-group you incline toward, if you want to be respected as an American citizen and human-being, then it’s incumbent on you to be a respectful American citizen and human-being. Respect cannot be taken; it must be earned by according respect to others.

SB-219 is profoundly un-American and must be stopped.

Your View

Your thoughts and perspectives are important. I invite you to tell me what you believe with the comment section.

© 2017 – SamFrescoeProject.Blogspot.com – All Rights Reserved

See through the Subterfuge – This is what’s Happening

SB-219 is a textbook case of Regressive Activism (Regressivism).

The regressive political philosophy puts forth the following beliefs: human nature is fluid; there are no absolute standards; anything goes…except claims of the contrary; and government does not have natural limits. – In the SB-219 case, the government wants you to believe the LGBT orientation is normal despite the evidence at hand, that everyone can be suppressed in favor of other considerations, and they have inherent authority to force compliant behavior.

Decide for yourself; is the elective, unique behavior of 3.3% of Californians, and 0.4% of all Americans, normal? – Relative to the Constitution, does this matter?

323.1M persons reside in the USA, overall (2016 US Census)

39.3M persons reside in California, overall (2016 US Census)

1.3M LGBT persons reside in California (The Williams Institute, 2015)

The regressive political philosophy operates according to the following principles: 1) reject founding principles; 2) human inequality is not a foundation for opportunity; 3) equal outcomes hold primacy over all other concerns. – In the SB-2019 case, the government wants to suppress your speech, your religious expression, your choice of association, your choice to contract, and your conscience. The government wants you to believe that the LGBT person must be protected because they are too weak to do it themselves. – The government wants you to believe that because non-LGBT persons could oppress an LGBT person, then that non-LGBT person will oppress an LGBT person. Therefore, non-LGBT persons are inherently evil and aggressive; and LGBT persons are inherently weak and victimized. Therefore, the government must oppress non-LGBT persons in order to bring them down to the level of LGBT persons.

The strategy of the regressive political philosophy is to act in the name of “doing for the greater good.” In other words, the intent of the regressive activist is all that matters. – In the SB-219 case, the intent of the government was made crystal clear.

While the government claims to be acting in an anti-discrimination capacity (a liberating ideal) they are in fact acting in a highly discriminatory manner (an oppressive ideal). – In this case, the government believes that outcomes (feelings) trump opportunities (behavior choices). But, they have a dilemma: their beliefs do not match reality because individual persons naturally make individual choices; thus, a spectrum of outcomes results. Therefore, the government must declare that oppression exists and is a defacto truth. In turn, the government feels justified in compelling a preferred outcome: outlawing the offense, subduing known offenders, and coercing potential offenders into submission. The end result is that government oppresses everyone in the name of those deemed oppressed; and, because those deemed oppressed receive unearned benefit from being “victimized” there is an incentive to create more “oppression” (real or otherwise).

Night Watchmen – Raise the Alarm

Do not be deceived, SB-219 is an attempt by the California political class to leverage a revolutionary social movement (the LGBT/LGBTQ Movement) to secure more power onto themselves. As a result, the political class is using government functions and institutions to enlarge, entrench, and enrich itself while viewing citizens only as parts of tribes and voting blocs resulting in diminished individual rights and freedoms.

PROTECT the Rights of All Americans

The Constitution is the supreme Law of the Land (Constitution, Art-5, Para-2 & Art-7, Para-1). – In order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added (Preamble, Bill of Rights): Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech (1A); Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion (1A); Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people peaceably to assemble (1A). – In all cases, the Government is prohibited from taking action against the citizenry.

PROTECT Liberating Ideals

Liberalism seeks to actualize the harmony of interests among individuals by insuring that the freedom of each is compatible with the freedom of all.

PROTECT American Ideals

In a freedom-loving society of republican governance with democratic processes, to realize harmony, each individual must be allowed to follow his or her own preferences as long as they do not detract from another's freedom. People thus need to cooperate by tolerating one another and forgoing coercion and violence.

PROTECT Practical Logic

Just because an actor could do something, does NOT mean that the actor actually did that something. – The position or prowess of the government, however informed, does not make the government the defacto subject matter expert. – If 23 specialized lobbies testify in support of government reach, with 1 similarly specialized lobby in opposition, then the evidence is stacked.

DENY Government Reach

Where in the Constitution does it authorize any State to criminalize speech, religious expression, or association? – How was the power to criminalize speech, religious expression, or association bestowed to the State of California? – If this is adopted, then what is the remedy available to the citizen for settling unjust losses or harms? – Explain why the need of any State government to protect LGBT persons as a protected class supersedes the need of the LGBT individual to do that for themselves?

RESIST the Nature of Governments

The fallacy of SB-219 is the assumption that the population being “protected” is small and will remain small. This does not hold because when the government subsidizes the solution to a problem (“protecting” an abused minority), then more of that problem (the abused minority) will develop. The nature of all governments is coercive; meaning, once power is secured, more power is sought.

---

[1] Anders Hagstrom. “California Could Start Jailing People Who Don’t Use Transgender Pronouns” The Daily Caller. Posted 170825-1454

[2] SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair. 2017-2018 Regular Session. SB 219 (Wiener). Version: April 6, 2017. Hearing Date: April 25, 2017

[3] SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair. 2017-2018 Regular Session. SB 219 (Wiener). Version: April 6, 2017. Hearing Date: April 25, 2017

[4] SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair. 2017-2018 Regular Session. SB 219 (Wiener). Version: April 6, 2017. Hearing Date: April 25, 2017

[5] SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair. 2017-2018 Regular Session. SB 219 (Wiener). Version: April 6, 2017. Hearing Date: April 25, 2017

[6] SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair. 2017-2018 Regular Session. SB 219 (Wiener). Version: April 6, 2017. Hearing Date: April 25, 2017

[7] SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair. 2017-2018 Regular Session. SB 219 (Wiener). Version: April 6, 2017. Hearing Date: April 25, 2017

[8] SB 219. Date of Hearing: July 11, 2017. ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY. Mark Stone, Chair. SB 219 (Wiener) – As Amended July 5, 2017.

[9] SB 219. Date of Hearing: July 11, 2017. ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY. Mark Stone, Chair. SB 219 (Wiener) – As Amended July 5, 2017.

[10] SB 219. Date of Hearing: July 11, 2017. ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY. Mark Stone, Chair. SB 219 (Wiener) – As Amended July 5, 2017.

[11] SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair. 2017-2018 Regular Session. SB 219 (Wiener). Version: April 6, 2017. Hearing Date: April 25, 2017

[12] Anders Hagstrom. “California Could Start Jailing People Who Don’t Use Transgender Pronouns” The Daily Caller. Posted 170825-1454

[13] Anders Hagstrom. “California Could Start Jailing People Who Don’t Use Transgender Pronouns” The Daily Caller. Posted 170825-1454

[14] SB 219. Date of Hearing: July 11, 2017. ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY. Mark Stone, Chair. SB 219 (Wiener) – As Amended July 5, 2017.

[15] Anders Hagstrom. “California Could Start Jailing People Who Don’t Use Transgender Pronouns” The Daily Caller. Posted 170825-1454

[16] http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/ (accessed 170827)