Opinion
Featured Image
U.S. ConstitutionMike Flippo/Shutterstock

LifeSiteNews has been permanently banned on YouTube. Click HERE to sign up to receive emails when we add to our video library.

July 5, 2021 (American Thinker) – The crisis at the nation’s southern border has grown exponentially. Some states are beginning to take an approach to this crisis that would appear to be more in line with the Founding Fathers’ vision of America than what America has evolved (or devolved, depending on one’s perspective) into.

Instead of waiting on the federal government to act, states are taking matters into their own hands. Texas is transferring $250 million from the Texas Department of Criminal Justice to a disaster fund to build its own wall along the border with Mexico. While technically this is the federal government’s responsibility, if the federal government is unwilling or unable to act, the Founding Fathers would have been more than enthusiastic to see local governments taking this duty up for themselves. The Founders greatly distrusted a strong centralized government, as evidenced by the weak Articles of Confederation that they wrote to organize the country.

Florida announced that it will send law enforcement to Texas and Arizona to assist along the border. Nebraska announced that it would do the same. Have some states found a way around bumbling federal policies? It seems so. 

The Founders did not envision the country being ruled by a centralized ruling class. The vision for this country was one of decentralized power, where citizens would take time off from their respective trades, serve in office for a short time — not for a lifetime — and then return to their lives. 

The country has changed from what the Founders imagined and intended. The rugged individualist, the Gary Cooper, strong, silent type that Tony Soprano loved to reference, has disappeared. That spirit has been replaced by an attitude that Big Brother will care for all…er, older non–birthing person sibling will care for all. The Founders foresaw this, which is why the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, is a litany of what the government cannot do instead of what the government’s responsibilities should be. 

The vision for this country was truly one of self-reliance, not one of a government providing for the people. The Founders were heavily influenced by John Locke's Second Treatise of Government, which clearly states that “the great and chief purpose of men's uniting under government is the preservation of their property.” This sentence explains it all. Government is supposed to preserve our property, not provide us with property. The Founders were all too familiar with government seizing property and wealth, hence the Constitution’s Third Amendment barring the confiscation of property to quarter soldiers without the consent of the owner.

Somewhere between the founding of this republic and now, government has pushed the limits of what it is constitutionally supposed to and allowed to do. Clearly, Lord Acton was correct: “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” and “Limitation is essential to authority. A government is legitimate only if it is effectively limited.” 

Apparently, some in power have decided that it was more convenient to neglect the duties of securing the border and protecting the property of the citizens in this country because it was far more important to keep power by ensuring votes for themselves. Locke and the Founders believed that people organize themselves through a government to set rules to govern their behavior in order to settle disputes and to secure their property. What happens when government, specifically the federal government, refuses to secure the property of the people? 

It appears the answer is that the states themselves will step up and begin to cooperate and assist each other independently of the federal government, as Florida, Nebraska, and Iowa are doing. Unfortunately, the republic’s system of checks and balances has broken down. The biggest offender is the Supreme Court. Tasked with determining the constitutionality of laws, the court has taken on power by ruling on issues that are not mentioned in the Constitution.

Amendment X clearly states, “Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Simply put, anything the Constitution does not grant the federal government the power to do (for instance, determining when the appropriate age is for children to operate a motor vehicle), each state has the right to decide for itself. The Supreme Court has, over the years, taken to “legislating from the bench,” meaning creating law by interpreting what should be law based upon legal, linguistic gymnastics by way of reinterpreting the Constitution, rather than taking it at face value. Such real-world decisions made by the Court that practically codified issues not mentioned in the Constitution include, but are not limited to, Roe v. WadeLockett v. Ohio (concerns sentencing guidelines), and Roper v. Simmons (deals with age of the offender in capital punishment).

— Article continues below Petition —
PETITION: Support Texas Dad risking everything to save his son from being "transitioned" into a girl
  Show Petition Text
7708 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 9000!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.

In 2019, LifePetitions launched a similar petition on behalf of Jeff Younger (the father) and his son James, asking for support and for the Texas state authorities to intervene in a unbelievable case in which the Dallas courts keep flip-flopping over which parent has parental rights and, ultimately, whether or not James must be forced to live as a girl and suffer the trauma of so-called gender "transitioning," as his mom believes he is a girl.

Incredibly, we now seem to be back at square one.

Jeff Younger currently has a gag order put on him, which prohibits him to speak out in defense of his son. But, because he has recently decided to ignore that order, to save his son from irreversible surgery, this brave Dad now faces possible arrest.

Please SIGN and SHARE this urgent petition which does two things: 1) Supports Jeff Younger (again, the Dad) in his fight to save his son, James, from so-called gender "transitioning;" and, 2) Calls on Texas' Attorney General to intervene in this case and quash the gag order against Mr. Younger.

CLICK HERE to WATCH the latest LifeSite interview with Jeff Younger. Hear about the latest developments with his son, as well as the real dangers of gender reassignment surgery and other “transititioning” methods.

Currently, even though he shares 50/50 parental rights to James, which has allowed him to stop the chemical castration of his son, Jeff’s ex-wife recently sued to have full parental rights and to "give her sole medical and psychological decision making."

Jeff is also being threatened with jail time from the gag order, which he believes was intentionally done to stop him from helping pass legislation in Texas to ban sex-change surgeries for minors.

Jeff says that the gag order "prohibits me from speaking on all manner of political topics. And I’m not even allowed to tell you in that gag order whether my son’s a boy or girl."

But Jeff is speaking out, no matter what, because of the real danger that his son is in if he undergoes "transition" surgery.

Indeed, so-called gender "transitions" present many unsafe effects, some desired, some undesired, though all dangerous for one's physical and mental health.

Puberty-blocking drugs and cross-sex hormones have not been proven safe. For example, the FDA has NOT approved Lupron and GnRH analogues for use in blocking puberty.

Risks associated with these pharmaceuticals include: low bone density, high blood pressure, weight gain, abnormal glucose tolerance, breast cancer, liver disease, thrombosis, and cardiovascular disease.

And, additional risks and potential harms include: 

For Males: Stunting of penile and testicular growth, sexual dysfunction, prevention of spermatogenesis, and disruption of normal brain and bone development.

For Females: A menopause-like state, blockade of normal breast development, decreased blood flow to vagina and vulva, sexual dysfunction, thinning of vaginal epithelium, vaginal atrophy, prevention of menses/ovulation, and disruption of normal brain and bone development.

In other words, these medications can sterilize and cause medical harm to vulnerable, confused children.

And, the stunning part about this: studies show that 85% of gender confused children eventually become comfortable with the sex of their bodies.

Please SIGN and SHARE this urgent petition which supports Jeff Younger, a Texas Dad, who is fighting to prevent his son, James, from being "turned into a girl." At the same time, we appeal to Texas State Attorney General, to intervene in this case and quash the gag order against Jeff.

Thank you!

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

'Save James: Father risks arrest to save 9-year-old son from forced gender-transition': https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/save-james-father-risks-arrest-to-save-9-year-old-son-from-forced-gender-transition

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/mommy-says-im-a-girl-a-fathers-final-chance-to-save-his-son-comes-in-court-in-october

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/6-year-old-boy-forced-to-live-as-a-girl-while-mom-threatens-dad-for-not-goi

FOR MORE INFORMATION ON THE DANGERS OF PUSHING GENDER IDEOLOGY ON CHILDREN:

Many eminent psychiatrists are now speaking against the faulty notion that sex is fluid and a matter of choice. In particular, they are concerned about the welfare of children and young people in this regard.

Dr Paul McHugh, former psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins University, who has researched the occurrence of gender dysphoria for 40 years, has stated that the notion of gender fluidity "is doing much damage to families, adolescents, and children and should be confronted as an opinion without biological foundation wherever it emerges". [See more below.]

And, the American College of Pediatricians (ACP) is definite about the promotion of transgenderism as being harmful public policy:

"Human sexuality is an objective biological binary trait: 'XY' and 'XX' are genetic markers of health – not genetic markers of a disorder. The norm for human design is to be conceived, either male or female…Conditioning children into believing that a lifetime of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex is normal and healthful is child abuse. Endorsing gender discordance as normal via public education and legal policies will confuse children and parents…” [Read more below.]

Here is what Dr Paul McHugh said on this topic: https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-chapman/johns-hopkins-psychiatrist-transgendered-men-dont-become-women-they-become

This is the ACP statement on Gender Ideology: http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/gender-ideology-harms-children

About the medical risks associated with medical interventions to attempt to change the sex of the body: https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2020/01/59422/

About some of the unconscionable practices some medical professionals are engaged in:

https://www.christianpost.com/news/testosterone-being-given-to-8-y-o-girls-age-lowered-from-13-doctors.html

https://www.christianpost.com/news/parents-of-gender-confused-kids-demand-investigation-govt-funded-study-puberty-blockers.html

  Hide Petition Text

The power overreach does not end with the Supreme Court. The other two branches are just as guilty and often work together to accomplish the amassing of power. FDR and Congress at the time oversaw the largest growth of the federal government at any time in American history through laws passed by Congress and executive orders written by the president.

Once individuals, or branches of government, gain power, they are reticent to relinquish those powers. The answer to the federal government being derelict in its duties to protect our border and property can be found in Amendment X, in that the Constitution does not prohibit the states from protecting borders or property and thus allows the states to come to the aid of one another to do so. 

Imagine what else could be accomplished by cutting out the heavy-handed red tape of the federal government and the states taking care of issues themselves. This may be the way to restore our country and our freedoms.

Reprinted with permission from American Thinker

Comments

Commenting Guidelines

LifeSiteNews welcomes thoughtful, respectful comments that add useful information or insights. Demeaning, hostile or propagandistic comments, and streams not related to the storyline, will be removed.

LSN commenting is not for frequent personal blogging, on-going debates or theological or other disputes between commenters.

Multiple comments from one person under a story are discouraged (suggested maximum of three). Capitalized sentences or comments will be removed (Internet shouting).

LifeSiteNews gives priority to pro-life, pro-family commenters and reserves the right to edit or remove comments.

Comments under LifeSiteNews stories do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews.