Identity, Orientation, Change Ban: A good end requires the whole truth

If sexuality is fluid (and it is) and if there are transgendered adults who've gone through sexual-reassignment surgery and hormone treatment, etc., only to regret it and stop taking the hormones (and there are), how can anyone of good conscience deny people the full, professional, nonjudgmental help of a therapist throughout the process? How can anyone say that counseling supportive of the client/patient should only be allowed in one direction and not back again? Doesn't the exact same thing apply to both gender identity and sexual orientation? If the therapy is completely non-coercive on the part of parents and therapist(s), how can the exact same thing also not apply to children, especially those who only became same-sex attracted after suffering same-sex sexual abuse? Why are those children thrown under the bus when sexuality has clearly been proven to be fluid, particularly for youths, and able to be modified via pure talk-therapy (no force, no lies)?


Tom Usher

It strikes me as an act of extremely selfish desperation on the part of people to deny such children assistance in regaining their prior opposite-sex orientation if that's what those children want. And how in the world can such therapy bans be justifiably extended to adults? Can you imagine being an adult wanting to modify same-sex attraction only to be told that it's illegal for a licensed psychologist or psychiatrist to affirm you in that goal and help you achieve it? What kind of freedom or liberty is that? Who's gaining what stranglehold on those professions and to what ultimate end?

Why are so many people so afraid to address this issue? I'm as economically, democratically leftist as anyone I know of (well to the left of Bernie Sanders' stated economic positions). However, I do not understand the supposed leftist-ness of being opposed to the "conservative" (I say it's actually very balanced civil-libertarian) position put forth in this linked article: "Special Report: Liberalism, Transgenderism, and Gay Conversion Bans," by Dennis Saffran.

Many "conservatives" won't like this, but from a leftist international relations and foreign policy position, look at it this way. Right-wing Zionists had a lock for the longest time on their issue. Any Jew not falling into line was smeared as anti-Semitic. Attempts to do that still occur but are having less and less impact. Little by little, more and more Jews, especially young ones, have stepped forward to not only question the right-wing narrative but actually denounce it as utterly inconsistent and counter-productive.

What may have happened is that a group has developed a near lock on the issues of identity and orientation to the extent that many economic leftists have been cowed and intimidated and are afraid to even question, let alone disagree with, those self-assigned gatekeepers who appear to insist that facts showing them wrong not be allowed to even be considered.

We are never going to be free until we put truth first. Using false means is never justified by truly good ends. False means always lead to a false end. A truly good end requires truth, whole truth, as the means.

Saying all sexual orientation is a result of being born that way was a lie. Saying that sexual orientation is immutable is a lie. We're at our current state on this issue as a direct result of those massive, deliberate lies. There is no way it's good.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

On Donald Trump, Jr. and Russia, Russia, Russia

What happened concerning Donald Trump, Jr.'s meeting with a Russia lawyer was not illegal. "There is one final law to be considered. Under the Federal Election Campaign Act, soliciting and/or receiving foreign donations is prohibited (11 CFR 110.20). This includes “money or other thing of value.” Is information, by itself, a “thing of value?” One could attempt to make that argument, but it has never been interpreted that way." (


Tom Usher

If you want to make the argument that it was illegal, you'll have to face applying it, including retroactively, to all candidates. If you think Hillary Clinton did not hold any meetings with any non-US citizens/nationals where she knew she'd be hearing information (of value) to further her campaign, your crystal ball is better than mine.

You can't arbitrarily decide when to apply a standard (including a new interpretation or application) and remain credible.

Are you really willing to take down every Democrat too whose campaign included anyone who ever met during that campaign with a non-US citizen/national to obtain valuable information for the campaign? I'm not.

More importantly and not covered by Gregg Jarrett, there was no solicitation (or receipt).

See: and

I've read both and see no way to prevail using the position that either the emails or meeting was illegal.

Here's something else for you to ponder while you're at it. What if the lawyer had supplied proof positive of major law breaking by Hillary Clinton, so major and so condemnable by both sides of the aisle, that she'd not only have had to withdraw from the race but would have definitely faced criminal charges, conviction, and sentencing to a long prison term? Would you claim that the Trump campaign broke the law obtaining it in the meeting between Trump and the lawyer?

Supplying actual evidence of any important illegal activity (above the level of infrequent, minor infractions) by any candidate for public office is "meddling" I more than welcome from any nation's government.

If it is ever declared illegal for a candidate or campaign in the US to accept and disseminate such evidence, you can be sure that declaration is a criminal-protection declaration at the direct and negative expense of what little democracy we have.

How could a candidate be working to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States while knowingly concealing the important illegal dealings of that candidate's election opponent, illegal dealings that, depending upon the nature of the crimes(s), could constitute plotting the violent overthrow of the Constitution? Some laws trump others. In the secular state of the US, we start at the top (the US Constitution) as the law that trumps all others. Concealing such illegality would constitute aiding and abetting by simply keeping silent about it. That would certainly be a greater legal infraction than any violation being claimed against Trump, Jr. right now.

The above constitutes a lightly edited compilation of various social-media commentary of mine over the last several days.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

No, Jonathan Chait, We Don't Have a Road Map to the Trump Campaign’s Collusion With Russia

The idiocy of this article (Now We Have a Road Map to the Trump Campaign’s Collusion With Russia, by Jonathan Chait) would be astounding were it not for the fact that idiocy is the norm these days.


Tom Usher

Look, the article says the emails may or may not have been from "Russia" while also saying that they were from Russia. What is going on? Is it that everyone is smoking grass or taking acid or what?

That's just one glaring aspect. It happens all the time. When it's pointed out, many act as if they just don't care so long as it's anti-Trump.

Even more important is the fact that if the Trump campaign was colluding with Russia, then why in the world would the campaign not know the source of the emails and whether that source is credible in terms of actually having email the Russians also supposedly hacked right from Hillary Clinton or her email recipients, etc.?

Look, if Vladimir Putin ordered Clinton be hacked and then Putin's government said to the Trump campaign colluding with Putin that the Russia government has Hillary's emails and will give them to the Trump campaign, why would the Trump campaign not trust Putin and, more importantly, why would the Trump campaign not use its own cyber experts (you do realize Trump had, and has, computer whizzes, right?) to check the authenticity of the emails themselves? In addition, the Trump campaign could simply have submitted them to WikiLeaks, who would have done the heavy lifting on authentication for them.

Lastly, no such emails ever surfaced. The only emails anyone ever got were leaked via other means. Hillary's "legal" team destroyed the rest before the FBI could even see them (if the FBI even ever asked to see them: the ones destroyed before they were destroyed).

The article is nothing but quite wild speculation/propaganda, but what's new?

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment