The lunacy in Texas reveals eternal truths

Jude and James Younger

In a Dallas family court last Thursday (October 24, 2019), Judge Kim Cooks read out her ruling granting joint custody and joint decision-making to the parents of James and Jude Younger. Such decisions are routinely handed down in courtrooms throughout America. This one, however, captured national attention both because of the nature of the case and because of the startling conclusion.

Jeff Younger was married to Anna Georgulas in December 2010. Soon afterwards, they decided to use In Vitro Fertilization with donor eggs to have children. In 2012 Anna gave birth to twin boys who were named after the first-century pastors of the Christian Church in Jerusalem, James and Jude. By February 2015 Anna asked Jeff to move out which he did in April. Not long after that, the marriage was annulled.

When James was three years old, his father learned that Anna was teaching him that he was a girl and was making him dress that way in her home. This despite expert testimony at trial that the idea of gender does not develop in a child’s mind before one is five to seven or eight years old.


James with Dr. Anna Georgulas

When he was five, she enrolled him in kindergarten under the name Luna and falsified his school documents to claim he was a girl. She never obtained a legal name-change for the child—Jeff would not consent. Nevertheless, she slapped a restraining order on Jeff that prevented him from coming onto school grounds or talking to any parents of James’ classmates. The entire school staff conspired to treat James only as a girl named Luna.

Through all this, Jeff testified that James wants to be called by his real name and that he refuses to wear dresses while living with him. Nevertheless, his mother, Anna, went to court seeking sole custody of the boy so that she could proceed with his transition without need of the father’s consent.

Those are the basic facts of the trial that began on October 15. Georgulas took Younger to the 255th Family District Court to limit the boys’ ability to stay overnight at their dad’s home and to force Jeff to call his son, Luna. She also sought to force him to take a class on transgenderism and to complete two years of counselling.

Jeff Younger and James

On Monday, October 22, the jury reported an 11-1 decision that Georgulas should have Sole Managing Conservatorship of the twin boys. This decision electrified the nation. It meant that Georgulas would have the power to force everyone in James’ life to treat him as if he were a girl. The jury also opened the door to allowing his mother to start the off-label use of dangerous hormone blockers as early as next year.

Jeff Younger was devastated. He was overheard saying, “I’ve lost my boys!” The trial, which had been sparsely attended and little-reported, suddenly became national news. Judge Kim Cooks, who reportedly had already written her own verdict, took the unusual step of recessing the trial after hearing the jury but before reading her final decision.

Life Site News launched a petition seeking 25,000 signatures to save James from the ideological lunacy of transitioning a person who is incapable of informed consent. By Friday morning, there were more than 76,000 signatures.

Texas Governor, Greg Abbot, tweeted that James’ situation would be investigated by the Attorney General and by the Department of Family and Protective Services. Other Texas politicians, from Ted Cruz to the Speaker of Texas’ House of Representatives, called for state and federal laws protecting children from irreversible chemical and surgical transitioning prior to the age of consent.

Three days passed before Judge Cooks read out her verdict. Although scores of people assembled to hear her final judgment, including several reporters who had covered the trial from the beginning, only one TV news crew was allowed into the courtroom to hear the final verdict.

Judge Kim Cooks

Cooks’ verdict set aside the jury’s conclusion. Instead, she gave 50 / 50 joint conservatorship to Younger and Georgulas – including joint medical decision-making. For the moment, at least, James will be spared chemical castration. However, the judge also slapped a gag order on both parents. It is unclear what will happen regarding the indoctrination of the boy at school, church and other social settings. Nor do we know if his father will be forced to call him by his non-legal name and pronouns.

There are many aspects of this case that require serious reflection. Throughout the trial, the courtroom was filled with confusion about what to call the boy. This may seem a minor point, but it is alarming. His legal name is James. No one has ever contested this. His obvious sex is male—as it is listed on his birth certificate and shared with his twin brother.

You would think that a court of law would simply stick to these facts. Nevertheless, throughout the trial, the court allowed legal falsehoods to be spoken by attorneys and witnesses. This does not bode well for the survival of the rule of law.

Second, the trial put a spotlight on the travesty of family courts generally. When marriages fail, kids suffer and government is empowered. Stop and think about it. How did we ever get to the place where a government entity has the power to approve or reject the mental abuse of a boy, or to inject a healthy, male minor with chemicals that are not approved by the FDA?



For that matter, what lunacy is it that a judge is given the power to force a man to call his own child by a name and to speak about him with pronouns that are neither legal nor factual? When did we give a judge the right to curtail the First-Amendment speech of two parents by slapping them with a gag order?

Family court is the result of no-fault divorce laws. Courts hold plumbers to their contracts with greater diligence than they hold couples to their marriage vows. Unable even to determine who is at fault for depriving children of a stable home, courts are put in the position of micromanaging two different households and policing everything from the length of a haircut to conversation around the kitchen table.

Nor should we overlook how Artificial Reproductive Technologies (ARTs) commodify children. James and Jude were not conceived in the marriage bed but in a laboratory dish. The eggs were bought and paid for from some woman who was willing to let her body be exploited because she needed the money.

Last January HB 289 “Codification of marital rights” was introduced into the Wyoming legislature. It was not about preserving the natural rights of parents. It was, rather, about using the force of government to transfer rights from the real parents to “adjudicated parents” who have no biological or adoptive ties to the children. Mercifully, it died in committee. James’ story should impel us to defeat it again.

The vast amounts of money that people lay out for IVF also creates a mindset. Time and again we see people who pay for IVF sue because they are unsatisfied with the “product.” The Texan reported that the IVF order was for two boys. Did Georgulas change her mind? If sex is customizable in babies, why not in toddlers?

Beyond the general problems with IVF, it is even more important for children to know and be loved by their own married parents. We owe them that. If Wyoming wants to be a just society, all family law should be directed toward that goal. Marriage is for the sake of children as much as for their parents—perhaps more so.

One day James will be an adult and he will still be dealing with the psychological and physical trauma of this lunacy. One day both James and Jude will want to know their genetic mother. Even if records of her existence are destroyed, the rapid advance of genetic testing will likely enable them to find her.

No matter how children are commodified and marketed today, we cannot erase a person’s deep-seated longing to know his or her parents. Every last one of us is wired for family. It’s only human.

WTE: Subsidies for renewable energy hurt coal communities

PacifiCorp operates 24 coal-fired generators in the Mountain West. The latest plan, filed with regulators last Friday (October 18, 2019) has 16 units shutting down by 2030 and four more by 2038. These units are not worn out. Generators are being taken offline with years and sometimes decades of useful operational life remaining.

Their press release said that the loss of coal-generated capacity will be replaced by, “increases in lower-cost wind, solar and storage to manage the phased coal transition.” All told, 4,500 megawatts of coal-generating capacity is set to be replaced by 7,000 megawatts of solar and wind capacity. Only one of these coal-fired units will be replaced by natural gas.

This will have devastating effects on Wyoming’s coal mines and the communities that depend on them. For instance, the Naughton power plant near Kemmerer buys fully half of the coal excavated from the Kemmerer mine. PacifiCorp’s plan will bring that number to zero. That does not translate to a mine operating at half-capacity. It likely means that the mine will shut down altogether.

Similar scenarios will play out in Douglas, with the shuttering of the Dave Johnston plant by 2027 and in Rock Springs after half of the Jim Bridger units are decommissioned.

All this is driven by proponents of renewable energy who triumphantly announced that solar and wind energy have finally become cheaper to produce than electricity from coal and natural gas. This estimation is based on calculations for the Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE).

The LCOE purports to assign a dollar cost per megawatt hour for each of the energy sources. The theory is straightforward: Add up all the costs—from plant construction to operational costs—over the lifetime of a plant and divide that number by the total megawatt-hours projected over its lifetime.

In the real world, however, much depends on fluid market dynamics that LCOE can only guess. Lazard’s 2018 report estimates that wind energy costs as little as $29 and as high as $56 per megawatt hour. Coal’s LCOE, on the other hand, is between $60 and $143. That’s an extremely wide range of estimates. Worse, LCOE estimates are rarely transparent enough to know whether state, federal and local government subsidies are included in the calculations.

These subsidies are a huge part of the story. For instance, Production Tax Credits (PTCs) give $22 per megawatt-hour to corporations for wind-generated electricity—regardless of need. That’s almost half of the market value of electricity. This has (at least) two effects on coal-generated electricity.

First, it manipulates the market and rewards corporations for generating wind power. Second, it can force coal-fired power plants to waste their output during those times of the day when wind and solar are dumped on the grid. This artificially drives up the overall cost of coal-generated electricity.

Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) are another form of market distortion designed to disadvantage coal. These state laws require a certain percentage of electricity to come from wind and solar sources. Until that threshold is met, coal-generated power is unmarketable. Several west coast states have RPSs that depress the market for coal.

By putting a government thumb on the scale, they artificially drive up the cost of coal generated electricity while lowering its market value. Meanwhile, RPSs make intermittent and unpredictable energy generation appear more valuable than a realistic market would sustain.

PTCs and RPSs are only two examples of market distortion caused by uneven government subsidies. According to James Conca in Forbes magazine, “On a total dollar basis, wind has received the greatest amount of federal subsidies. Solar is second. Wind and solar together get more than all other energy sources combined.” According to Michael Lynch (also Forbes) in 2015, solar received 326 times more subsidy than coal—per megawatt-hour—and wind got 69 times more.

While Wyoming’s coal communities are under siege, progressives don’t seem to care. Articles and opinion columns confidently preach that renewable energy has arrived, and that coal communities are a thing of the past. Many of my neighbors and friends remain unconvinced.

Have renewable energy sources really eclipsed coal and gas? Or are skewed subsidies picking winners and losers? Some proponents of renewable energy are claiming that solar and wind is cheaper regardless of subsidies. I am not so sure. There is, however, one sure-fire way to know the truth: Stop the subsidies. We don’t need a socialized power grid. We need a level playing field.

If renewable energy has truly come into its own, taxpayers will save billions without adversely affecting renewable energy. On the other hand, if subsidies are propping up expensive and unreliable energy supplies, they need to end now. Our coal communities are too precious to throw under the bus.

Subsidies for renewable energy hurt coal communities

PacifiCorp’s profit plan seems to be a constantly moving target. Last April it announced plans to shutter coal-fired generators as early as 2022. By June—immediately after the EPA announced a new approach to carbon dioxide—plant closings were delayed for as many as ten years. Then, in early October, plans changed yet again.

The corporation has 24 coal-fired units in the Mountain West. The latest plans have sixteen shutting down by 2030 and another four gone by 2038. The closings are not driven by worn-out equipment. Generators are being taken offline with years and sometimes decades of useful operational life remaining.

Rather, the oft-repeated reason for the changes is that they will save PacifiCorp hundreds of millions. Their press release said that the loss of coal-generated capacity will be replaced by, “increases in lower-cost wind, solar and storage to manage the phased coal transition.”

All told, the projected loss of 4,500 megawatts of coal generating capacity over the next 19 years will be offset by approximately 7,000 megawatts of solar and wind capacity in the next six. Only one of the coal-fired unites will be replaced by natural gas. The rest will simply be taken offline entirely.

Naughton Plant, Kemmerer, WY

All of this promises to have devastating effects on Wyoming’s coal mines and the communities that depend on them. Historically, the Naughton power plant near Kemmerer buys fully half of the coal excavated from the Kemmerer mine. PacifiCorp’s plan will bring that number to zero.

That does not translate to a mine operating at half-capacity. It likely means that the mine will shut down altogether. This scenario will be played out in Douglas with the closing of the Dave Johnston plant in 2027 and in Rock Springs as two of four coal units are taken offline by 2028.

To soften the blow, PacifiCorp emphasized that its new integrated plan, which was set to be submitted to regulators last Friday (October 18, 2019), does not shutter coal generators as aggressively as the most cost-effective alternatives. An earlier proposal would have saved customers $599 million we are told.

At the heart of these sea changes in Wyoming’s coal industry are economic considerations. In 2018 proponents of renewable energy triumphantly announced that solar and wind energy has finally become cheaper to produce than electricity generated from coal and natural gas.

This estimation is based on calculations for the Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE). The LCOE attempts to assign a dollar cost for the production of one megawatt hour of electricity broken down by energy sources. The theory is fairly straightforward. The idea is to add up all the costs—from plant construction to operational costs—over the lifetime of a plant and divide that number by the number of megawatt-hours that the plant will produce during that lifetime.

Used windmill blades buried in the Casper landfill

In the real world, however, so many factors are unknown and dependent on fluid market dynamics that LCOE estimates are less than conclusive. So, for instance, Lazard’s 2018 report calculates that windmills cost as low as $29 and as high as $56 to generate one megawatt hour of electricity. Coal, on the other hand, costs between $60 and $143 to produce that same megawatt-hour of electricity.

One can’t help but notice that these are extremely wide-ranging results. Different organizations post different results. Each one seems to find results that support whatever conclusions are favorable. After hours of research, this writer was unable to find any consistent averages that would make comparison any easier. To make matters worse, LCOE calculations were typically unclear whether state, federal and local government subsidies were included in the formulae.

Government subsidies are a huge part of the story. They come in a wide variety of forms. Production Tax Credits (PTCs) give $22 per megawatt-hour to corporations that dump wind-generated electricity onto the grid—whether it’s needed or not. That’s almost half of the market value of electricity. This has (at least) two effects on coal-generated electricity.

First, it manipulates the market and rewards corporations for generating wind power even if it is more expensive to produce. Second, it can force coal-fired power plants to reduce their output during those times of the day when wind and solar are available in abundance. This drives up the overall cost of coal produced power since the generators are not operating at peak efficiency.

Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) are another form of market distortion designed to disadvantage coal. These state laws require a certain percentage of electricity to come from wind and solar sources. Until that threshold is met, coal-generated power is unmarketable.

Such laws make it advantageous for power grids to buy as many megawatt-hours as possible from solar and wind when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing. RPSs artificially cause the cost of coal generated electricity to rise while simultaneously depressing the market for coal-generated electricity. Meanwhile, they make intermittent and unpredictable energy generation appear more valuable than a realistic market would sustain.

PTCs and RPSs are only two examples of market distortion caused by uneven government subsidies. According to James Conca in Forbes magazine, “On a total dollar basis, wind has received the greatest amount of federal subsidies. Solar is second. Wind and solar together get more than all other energy sources combined.”

According to the same article, “Solar also gets the most state-funded subsidies, some of which greatly exceed the federal subsidies. In my own State of Washington, where electricity prices are 8¢/kWh, the State pays me 54¢ for every kWh generated by my rooftop solar array, whether I use it or not. This has made my total electricity costs -7¢/kWh over the past two years, and will for the foreseeable future.”

All told, according to a 2015 Forbes article, solar energy companies receive 326 times more subsidy than coal—per megawatt-hour. Wind energy, though less, still gets 69 times more.

J.C. Penney's home, Kemmerer, WY

Coal communities of Wyoming are experiencing great distress. Meanwhile, proponents of renewable energy are telling them to get over it and admit that their way of life is a thing of the past. They confidently claim that renewable energy has finally arrived, and that fossil fuel is no longer viable economically.

Many of my neighbors and friends are confused and frustrated. They remain unconvinced and confused in a sea of acronyms like LCOEs, PTCs and RPSs. I can tell you from personal experience that it is possible to spend frustrating and fruitless hours digging for data and still have no clear answers.

With so many competing claims, there is only one sure-fire way to find the truth: Stop subsidizing them. We don’t need a socialized power grid. We need a level playing field. If renewable energy has truly come into its own, getting rid of unfair subsidies will save billions in tax-payer money without adversely affecting the renewable-energy industry.

J.C. Penney Mother Store, Kemmerer, WY

On the other hand, if these subsidies are the culprit that is destroying coal communities around the Mountain West, putting an end to them would call a ceasefire to the war on coal and let our mine workers be the masters of their own fate.

WTE: Seeing our neighbors from 2,000 miles away

It’s not every day that a welder from Uinta County gets to share the podium with the president of the United States. But that’s what happened last Tuesday, October 8, 2019. Andy Johnson did not seek the spotlight. The spotlight fell on him—with all the fury of a bureaucracy scorned.

The achievement that put him on the dais with President Trump was that he stood for his rights as an American citizen against the threat of financial ruin. By quietly standing for property rights, Johnson not only won the case but also helped to expose injustices that threaten the lives and livelihoods of every family in America.

Johnson’s story was recounted by Nick Reynolds in the Tribune Eagle last weekend. (Trump highlights Wyoming man’s battle with the EPA, WTE October 12, 2019). It can also be read in his own words at https://pacificlegal.org/our-fight-with-epa/.

One of the more striking details of his story was how government inspectors from the Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency did not themselves know if he had broken any rules. If those whose business it is to know the law don’t know whether the law has been violated, how is it possible for anyone to know the law?

Even more outrageous was Johnson’s encounter with an inspector from the EPA. Johnson recounted: “He said he did not know if we were in violation or not, but we would have to spend a lot of money and prove that we were not!” The demand that someone prove his own innocence is outrageous and fundamentally unconstitutional.

There is no federal law that requires what the EPA demanded. It was only unpublished internal “guidance” that caused their agents and enforcers to assess daily fines that eventually rose to $16 million. Only when the Pacific Legal Foundation helped the Johnsons file suit against the EPA did the tables turn. Within months, the agency dropped all fines and ceased demanding the demolition of the Johnsons’ pond. It never did, however, admit any fault in the matter.

In a county of only 20,500 people, the Johnsons should be a household name. One of our own families stood up to an obvious injustice from an overwhelming leviathan and won. That’s more exciting than the Cowboys going to a bowl game!

Sadly, however, our world is so distorted that many are more familiar with the latest news cycle in Washington, D.C. than they are with their neighbors down the street. It’s a sad commentary that our next-door neighbors need to travel 2,000 miles away before we can see them and their struggles.

Sadder still is the mentality that would submerge the identity of our neighbors into the swamp of identity politics. We must not let the toxic filter of red/blue politics poison community cohesion.

The executive order was especially urged by Russell Vought, the acting director of the Office of Management and Budget. He called it “a major step forward in the effort to drain the swamp, and to get our arms wrapped around the administrative state.” He said, “We want to make sure that the American people… are no longer bullied by their federal government.”

When the Johnsons participated in the signing of President Trump’s “Executive Order on Promoting the Rule of Law through Transparency and Fairness in Civil Administrative Enforcement and Adjudication,” they represented all Americans—not only half of us. The ordeal that Andy, Morgan and their kids endured will have lasting effects on our own property rights and the rights of our children and grandchildren.

They endured years of bullying under the arbitrary and awesome power of the EPA. They deserve our gratitude for helping to spotlight hidden injustices. We should be thankful, too, for elected and appointed officials who noticed the problems and are working to do something to protect our neighbors and friends.

Andy Johnson took his opportunity at the podium to say, “I would just like to thank the president today for signing this executive order which will hold the EPA and other government agencies more responsible for their actions. Thank you.”

Andy, thank you for speaking so eloquently on our behalf. If we didn’t hear you until you were 2,000 miles away, accept our gratitude now. You have not only spotlighted a problem in Washington. You have also revealed a problem back home.

We would all do well to quit our fixation with Washington and turn our eyes to the people down the block. An executive order can begin to fix Washington’s problems. But a friendly smile and a handshake across the fence has a far more immediate and lasting impact where it counts.

Seeing our neighbors from 2,000 miles away

Stock pond on Sixmile Creek, Fort Bridger, Wyoming

It’s not every day that a welder from Uinta County gets to share the podium with the President of the United States. But that’s what happened last Wednesday, October 8. Andy Johnson did not seek the spotlight. The spotlight fell on him—with all the fury of a bureaucracy scorned.

The achievement that put him on the dais with President Trump was that he stood for his rights as an American citizen against the threat of financial ruin. By quietly standing for property rights, Johnson not only won the case but also helped to expose injustices that threaten the lives and livelihoods of every family in America.

The ordeal began in 2011 when the Johnson family applied for a permit to build a stock pond on their property. They crossed every “T” and dotted every “i” that state and federal statute required. Then they saved and worked for more than a year in order to improve their property and make Sixmile Creek more ecologically friendly.

When the work was practically done, in 2013, the Army Corps of Engineers came calling. It wanted to inspect the pond. While a pair of agents were making measurements and taking notes, the Johnsons asked repeatedly if there were any violations of federal law. They kept receiving variations on the answer: “We don’t know.”

If federal agents themselves, whose business it is to know the law, don’t know whether the law has been violated, how is it possible for anyone to know the law? Neither the Wyoming State Engineer’s office, nor anyone in local government, knew of any federal regulations that the Johnson’s had failed to meet. Nevertheless, long after the project was completed, the Johnsons received a letter demanding that they stop construction.

Eventually, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) got in on the act. Richard Clark, from Region 8, could not tell them whether they were violating any federal regulations. He could only tell them that they would have to spend a lot of money to prove that they were not. The demand that someone prove his own innocence is outrageous and fundamentally unconstitutional

A full six months later, the EPA demanded that the pond be torn down. It threatened the Johnsons with criminal penalties and civil fines ranging from $37,500 to $75,000 per day until their private land conformed to EPA demands.

There is no federal law that requires what the EPA demanded, but the agency claimed this authority under unpublished “guidance” to its agents and enforcers. Despite lacking statutory authority, the EPA continued adding fines until the Johnsons allegedly owed $16 million.


Andy Johnson and his pond

Only when the Pacific Legal Foundation helped the Johnsons file suit against the EPA did the tables turn. Ten months later, on May 9, 2016, the agency dropped all fines and ceased demanding the demolition of the Johnsons’ pond. It never did, however, admit any fault in the matter.

In a county of only 20,500 people, the Johnson’s story should be common knowledge. One of our own families stood up to an obvious injustice from an overwhelming leviathan and won. That’s more exciting than the Red Devils winning a state championship!

Sadly, however, media manipulation has so distorted our view of the world that most people are more familiar with the latest news-cycle in Washington, D.C. than they are with their next-door neighbor. It’s a sad commentary on communities everywhere when our next-door neighbors need to travel 2,000 miles away before we can see them and become aware of their very real struggles.

To make matters worse, once the Johnsons stood next to President Trump, they faced a new danger. Their identity as real people and fellow citizens of Uinta County is easily swallowed up by the swamp of identity politics. Don’t let this happen.

Their story should not be filtered through the toxic filter of national politics. Those who did not vote for President Trump should be every bit as thankful for their steadfastness as those who did. And those who did vote for President Trump should not diminish their achievements by submerging them into the person of a president.

Pres. Donald Trump, Liz Murrill (Louisiana Solicitor General),
Morgan, Rowan, Andy Johnson, and Russ Vought (OMB)

I don’t know if Andy is politically red or blue. I don’t know if his lovely wife, Morgan, shares his political hue or differs in some regard. What I do know is that they and their kids are members of our beautiful little community and that they deserve kudos from all of us. The ordeal they endured will have lasting effects on our own property rights and the rights of our children and grandchildren.

When Andy, Morgan and their youngest child Rowan participated in the signing of President Trump’s “Executive Order on Promoting the Rule of Law Through Transparency and Fairness in Civil Administrative Enforcement and Adjudication,” they represented all Americans—not only half of us.

The executive order was especially urged by Russell Vought, the acting director of the Office of Management and Budget. He called it “a major step forward in the effort to drain the swamp. And to get our arms wrapped around the administrative state.”

Vought went on to explain that “[w]e can’t do that until we know all of the dark regulatory stealth regulation that is out there.” The order will require all executive agencies to make rules and guidance available on a searchable website so that any citizen can easily find applicable rules. After 120 days, whatever regulations are not available online will be counted as rescinded.

Vought ended his comments by saying, “we want to make sure that the American people… are no longer bullied by their federal government.” As a community, we can all sympathize with the three years of terror that the Johnsons endured under the arbitrary and awesome power of the EPA.

While we are sorry that they were subjected to such bullying, we are also grateful that their story helped shine a light on hidden injustices. We are thankful, too, for attentive, elected officials who noticed the problems and are working to do something to protect our neighbors and friends.

Andy Johnson took his opportunity at the podium to say, “I would just like to thank the president today for signing this executive order which will hold the EPA and other government agencies more responsible for their actions. Thank you.”



Andy Johnson's personal photo:
himself with President Trump

Andy, thank you for speaking so eloquently on our behalf. I apologize for not hearing you until you were 2,000 miles away. You have not only spotlighted a problem in Washington. You have also revealed a problem back home.

We would all do well to quit our fixation with Washington and to turn our eyes to the people down the block. An executive order can begin to fix Washington problems. But a friendly smile and a handshake across the fence has a far more immediate and lasting impact where it counts.

WTE: True Justice

A Caucasian police officer without a warrant barged into a black man’s apartment yelling for him to put up his hands. Before he knew what was happening, Botham Jean, a 26-year old immigrant, was shot in the chest and died at the scene.

It happened just over a year ago, on September 6, 2018. The officer, Amber Guyger, was tried and convicted of murder on the last week of September.

In Dallas, tensions between the Black Lives Matter movement and the law-enforcement community go back to July 2016. Police monitoring a protest of two officer-involved shootings were targeted by a sniper. Twelve officers were shot and five died. Guyger’s mistake ripped the scab from a recent wound.

She told investigators that she unwittingly got out of the elevator one floor below her own apartment. Arriving at the door of what she thought to be her apartment, she found a man inside and reacted as though he were an intruder. Only after the shooting did she realize her grave error.

Since the shooting, Guyger remained silent while the Jean family gave numerous public statements. They accused the officer and the city of Dallas of numerous improprieties. Suspicions of bias lingered even after the guilty verdict and a ten-year prison sentence had been handed down.

Raw emotions were exacerbated—and sometimes exploited—by special-interest groups--each eager to advance its own agenda. In this toxic stew, hope for a just and satisfying outcome is bleak. Justice, not only for Botham Jean but for any murder, assault or injustice is elusive.

A higher justice is needed. That begins with repentance. Guyger called 911 immediately. She is recorded frantically apologizing to Jean, “I didn’t mean to. I didn’t mean to. I didn’t mean to. I’m so sorry.” A year later, when she could pour out her heart, she fought uncontrollable tears to tell the court, “I ask God for forgiveness and I hate myself every single day.”

Still, all the repentance in the world cannot make up for the terrible wrong. Nor can it be a substitute for just punishment, a fact acknowledged in her attorney’s sentencing statement. There was no question that jail time was necessary. But an eternity in prison still would not match the crime.

The victim’s younger brother changed everything. When Brandt Jean took the stand he said,

“I wasn’t ever going to say this in front of my family, or anyone. But… I don’t even want you to go to jail. I want the best for you. Because I know that’s exactly what Botham would want you to do. And the best would be to give your life to Christ. I love you as a person. I don’t wish anything bad on you.”

Then, as if the courtroom was not stunned enough, he turned to the judge and said, “I don’t know if this is possible but, can I give her a hug?”

Physical contact between witnesses and the accused is a major breach of security. It is not supposed to happen. The bailiffs were baffled. All waited for the judge’s reaction to this unprecedented request. She seemed to recognize that something otherworldly was taking place and granted the request.

Brandt stepped out of the witness stand and walked toward Amber. Amber did not walk. She ran toward her victim’s brother. They clung to each other through heaving tears of grief mingled with joy. Months and years of pent up tensions were dissolved during that hug.

Reconciliation reverberated through the courtroom. Judge Tammy Kemp again did something extraordinary. Leaving the bench, she embraced and comforted the family. She then entered her chambers and emerged moments later carrying a well-worn Bible. This she brought to Amber.

Thumbing through the pages she opened to a specific page. Then she gave the Bible to Amber with instructions issued in the voice of judicial compassion and wisdom: “This is your job for the next month. Right here, John 3:16. “For God so loved the world, that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life” [NIV].

This is the answer for a world gridlocked in guilt, hopelessly and irreversibly sunk in inexcusable crimes. Worldly justice will always come up short. True justice only comes from the cross of Christ.

Predictably, atheist activists now want to punish Judge Kemp. For decades they have been on a crusade to drive human decency out of the public square. To the extent that they have succeeded, we all have been impoverished.

Last week from a Dallas courtroom America saw a ray of hope. Spontaneous love conquered the demons of anger, hate and despair. It reminded us of what was lost. That glimpse of joy beckons America to open the shades again and let that light chase away the darkness.

True Justice

 

Botham Jean, +2018

A Caucasian police officer without a warrant barged into a black man’s apartment and screamed for him to put up his hands. The officer, unsatisfied with the cooperation of the occupant, immediately shot him. Botham Jean, the 26-year old occupant, died at the scene.

These are the simple facts of a trial that ended in Dallas, Texas last week. The incident happened just over a year ago on September 6, 2018. The officer’s name was Amber Guyger. The trial that began on September 23 was supposed to last two weeks. On October 1, 2019 she was convicted of murder and sentenced to ten years in the Texas state penitentiary.

Dallas, TX July 7, 2016

In Dallas tensions run high between the Black Lives Matter movement and the law-enforcement community. In July 2016, at a protest against two officer-involved shootings, a sniper ambushed Dallas police. Twelve officers were shot and five died. That event still poisons the racial atmosphere in Dallas.

Guyger’s actions on that terrible Thursday ripped the scab from a recent wound. It has unleashed numerous accusations of a police cover-up. Even though she called 911 immediately and confessed to the crime, many questions have been raised.

According to Guyger, the only surviving eyewitness, she was exhausted and bleary-eyed from long hours. When she got into the elevator, she pushed the wrong button and was let out on the floor below her own apartment. Shuffling through an identical floor-plan she was alarmed to find someone in “her” apartment. Assuming him to be a burglar, she frantically unholstered her service weapon and shot the unarmed and innocent man.

The victim’s family and their supporters have openly questioned her version of events. They point out that her story is inconsistent on the question of whether the door was locked. They wonder why it took three days before she was taken into custody and how she was out on a $300,000 bond within hours. They question why the Dallas Police Department kept Guyger on administrative leave for 18 days before they fired her.

Botham Jean's family press conference

Jean’s family also cried foul when a toxicology report was released to the public noting a trace of marijuana in Jean’s apartment. The 911 recording was another bone of contention. In it the operator seemed not to ask about the medical status of the victim. Accusations were levelled that the operator was more concerned with the emotional state of the officer than with administering first aid to Jean.

These, and numerous other criticisms have continued to keep tensions simmering as the slow wheels of justice turned toward last week’s trial. Even the jury’s guilty verdict and a ten-year prison sentence were not enough to satisfy demands for justice. An angry crowd protested outside the courthouse demanding the longest sentence possible.

In addition to the raw emotions of Jean’s family, numerous activists and special interest groups are also using this tragedy to spotlight various causes. We have already mentioned Black Lives Matter. Libertarian activists also want police brutality punished. Gun-rights groups have used the killing as reason for law-abiding citizens, to defend themselves against aggressive cops. Criminal justice groups want to highlight sentencing disparities between law-enforcement officers and the common citizen.

In the middle of this toxic stew, it seems hopeless that we can ever find a just and satisfying outcome to the senseless murder of Botham Jean. On a larger scale, every murder, every assault, every injustice exposes the same conundrum. There will never, ever be a way to hand out justice in a way that satisfies all interested parties.

Nevertheless, what raw justice cannot accomplish God’s mercy can. It begins with repentance. Amber Guyger was horrified by her actions from the moment she pulled the trigger. On the 911 call, immediately after the shooting, she is heard talking to Jean saying, “I didn’t mean to. I didn’t mean to. I didn’t mean to. I’m so sorry… I’m so sorry. I’m so sorry.”

Amber Guyger testifies

During the months leading to the trial, she made no public statements. Then, on September 27 she finally had the opportunity to take the witness stand and speak. Through tears she fought to compose herself just enough to be heard. In words that squeaked out barely above a whisper, she told the court, “I ask God for forgiveness and I hate myself every single day.” Her body language testified to the sincerity of her words.

Still, all the sincere repentance in the world cannot bring Jean back to life or undo the terrible wrong. Nor can it substitute for a just punishment. Her attorney acknowledged this in his final statement before sentencing. There was no question that jail time was necessary. But an eternity in prison still would not match the crime.

It was the victim’s younger brother, Brandt, who provided the breakthrough. When he took the stand to give his victim impact statement he said, “I wasn’t ever going to say this in front of my family, or anyone. But… I don’t even want you to go to jail. I want the best for you. Because I know that’s exactly what Botham would want you to do. And the best would be to give your life to Christ. I love you as a person. I don’t wish anything bad on you.” Then, as if the courtroom was not stunned enough, he turned to the judge and said, “I don’t know if this is possible but, can I give her a hug?”

Physical contact between witnesses and the accused is a major breach of security. It just doesn’t happen. The bailiffs were baffled. All eyes turned to the judge and to her reaction to this unprecedented request. She recognized that something otherworldly was taking place and granted the request.

Brandt stepped out of the witness stand and walked toward Amber. Amber did not walk. She ran toward her victim’s brother. They clung to each other through tears and wailing of sorrow mingled with joy. It is impossible to watch without being caught up in the emotion of the moment. If you want a dose of hope in this hopeless world, I encourage you to find that video and view it for yourself.

The full and free forgiveness that Brandt offered to Amber affected everyone in the courtroom--most of all the judge herself. She was not finished with her surprises. Unceremoniously, she left the bench and went to hug and comfort Botham’s family. Then, she approached the convicted murderer herself and whispered something inaudible in her ear.

Turning, Judge Tammy Kemp left the courtroom and entered her chambers only to emerge moments later carrying a well-worn Bible. This she presented to Amber explaining that she uses it every day but now wants Amber to have it. She thumbed through the pages looking for a specific spot. Then she gave the open Bible to Amber with instructions issued in the voice of judicial compassion and wisdom: “This is your job for the next month. Right here, John 3:16.”

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” This is the answer for a world gridlocked in guilt, hopelessly and irreversibly sunk in inexcusable crimes. No worldly justice can help. True justice is served from the cross of Christ.

Post Script:

On the day following these extraordinary events, the Freedom from Religious Foundation (FFRF) filed a three-page ethics complaint against Judge Tammy Kemp. The alleged that "these proselytizing actions overstepped judicial authority, were in appropriate and were unconstitutional."

As can be clearly seen on the video of the event, Judge Kemp made it clear that she was not acting in her judicial authority. She left the bench and did not call for the court to rise either at her exit or at her reentrance. Regarding the second and third allegations, her actions were the most appropriate actions that anyone could take and they were certainly not unconstitutional.

The American people have been assaulted by the ACLU, Madelyn Murray O'Hare and the FFRF for decades. They have conspired to frighten the elected and appointed people in government office into leaving their humanity behind. Make no mistake, calls to excise one's religion from official thoughts, words and deeds is nothing less than the dehumanizing of our government. It is time that the American people stood up and said so.

On the positive side, the FFRF letter serves the good of further publicizing what Judge Kemp allegedly said to Ms. Guyger. If true, they are worth republishing here:

Handing her the Bible, she said,

"You can have [my Bible]. I have three or four more at home. This is the one I use every day. [inaudible] This is your job for the next month. You read right here: John 3:16. And this is where you start, ‘For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whosoever…’ You stop at ‘whosoever’ and say, ‘Amber, [inaudible] You start with the Gospels. Then [inaudible]. You read this whole book of John. [inaudible] [inaudible, but likely where judge said: This will strengthen you. You just need a tiny mustard seed of faith. You start with this.] This has been put in front of you for a reason. [inaudible] He has a purpose for you. There is no reason why [inaudible]."

Then Judge Kemp hugged her and said, “It’s not because I’m good. It’s because I believe in Christ. I’m not so good. You haven’t done as much as you think you have, and you can be forgiven. You did something bad in one moment in time. What you do now matters."

The growing unrest and seething anger in our society is the result of a decades-long attempt to drive such humanizing and reconciling words out of bounds. The reclaimation of our humanity not only permits, but requires the full and free forgiveness of sins spoken both from the Church and from every Christian in every place, time and circumstance.

WTE: United Nations, Religious Freedom, and Universal Healthcare

“The United States is founded on the principle that our rights do not come from government; they come from God. This immortal truth is proclaimed in our Declaration of Independence and enshrined in the First Amendment to our Constitution’s Bill of Rights. Our Founders understood that no right is more fundamental to a peaceful, prosperous, and virtuous society than the right to follow one’s religious convictions.”

With these words, President Trump began a remarkable speech a week ago Monday (September 23, 2019). It underscored that personal virtue, and legal force, is the foundation of all civilization. Unless citizens can be trusted to behave honorably without constant policing, civil society fails. Conscientious piety toward the Creator of all things is the foundation of peace and prosperity.

Trump‘s speech marked the first time that an American president led a meeting on religious freedom at the United Nations. This is remarkable. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights has a robust statement on religious freedom. Still, many member nations fine, harass, discriminate, imprison, torture and kill their own citizens for simply living out their faith. Even more scandalous, countries infamous for human rights violations--Azerbaijan, China, Cuba, Nicaragua, Pakistan and Venezuela--sit in privileged seats on the U.N. Human Rights Council!

Vice President Pence, opened the meeting by rebuking the regime in Iran for its brutal treatment of Christian, Sunni, Bahai, Yazidi and Jewish citizens. He called out the communist party in China for persecuting Christians, Uighurs and Muslims. In the western hemisphere, he condemned Daniel Ortego of Nicaragua for his war on Roman Catholics, and Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela for using “hate laws” to prosecute clergy.

Religious persecution is not limited to communists and jihadists. Canada, Australia and England have also arrested and jailed Christian pastors by applying “hate laws” to proscribe the expression of foundational teachings about life, family and human nature.

Even in America scattered states like Colorado and municipalities like Laramie and Jackson have enacted similar laws. The Equality Act would federalize these toxic laws.

Thankfully, the past year has seen numerous landmark rulings overturning such ordinances. Last summer, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned punishment that the Colorado Commission on Civil Rights put on Masterpiece Cakeshop. In August the 8th Circuit Court ruled against Minnesota’s attempt to compel the speech of Christian film makers. Most recently, September 26, a federal judge prevented Michigan’s attempt to shutter a Roman Catholic adoption agency for placing children with husband and wife couples.

A September opinion from the Arizona Supreme Court thundered, “rights of free speech and free exercise, so precious to this nation since its founding, are not limited to soft murmurings behind the doors of a person’s home or church, or private conversations with like–minded friends and family.” It reasserted the words of WV Board of Ed. v. Barnette, “freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much . . . [t]he test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order.” (Brush & Nib Studio v. Phoenix).

President Trump also called out multinational corporations like Amazon, Facebook, Twitter and Google. “Too often, people in positions of power preach diversity while silencing, shunning, or censoring the faithful.  True tolerance means respecting the right of all people to express their deeply held religious beliefs,” He announced “a coalition of U.S. businesses for the protection of religious freedom.”

On the same day that Trump, Pence and Pompeo were defending religious liberty, HHS Secretary, Alex Azar addressed the U.N. meeting on Universal Health Coverage. He announced that 19 nations holding a combined population of over 1.3 billion were issuing a joint statement calling on the U.N. to stop undermining the family and the sovereignty of member nations. Later two additional nations signed on.

The statement reads, in part, “We do not support references to ambiguous terms and expressions, such as ‘sexual and reproductive health and rights’ …because they can undermine the critical role of the family and promote practices, like abortion.” It goes on to say, “we only support sex education that appreciates the protective role of the family in this education and does not condone harmful sexual risks for young people.”

The sanctity of human life, sexuality and the rights of parents to teach these values to their children, like religious freedom itself, comes from God and not from government. Those undermining morality and parental rights—whether at the U.N. or in the local classroom--are attacking religious freedom.

Last week America led the world in defending religious freedom against the globalist leviathan. Parents, school boards, and legislators in Wyoming should be encouraged and do their part to defend these same principles at home.

United Nations, Religious Freedom, and Universal Healthcare

“The United States is founded on the principle that our rights do not come from government; they come from God. This immortal truth is proclaimed in our Declaration of Independence and enshrined in the First Amendment to our Constitution’s Bill of Rights. Our Founders understood that no right is more fundamental to a peaceful, prosperous, and virtuous society than the right to follow one’s religious convictions.”

With these words, President Trump began a remarkable speech delivered last Monday (September 23, 2019). He underscored that personal virtue, and not public law, is the foundation of all civilization. Unless citizens can be trusted to behave honorably without constant supervision and overbearing force, civil society is not possible. Moreover, the only force capable of creating such a society is the religious conviction that orients its citizens to worship the Creator of all things.

President Trump travelled to New York last week to deliver these remarks. It was the first time that any American president presided over a meeting on religious freedom at the United Nations.

This is a remarkable fact given that the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights holds that, “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”

How is it that many U.N. member nations still fine, harass, discriminate, imprison, torture and kill their own citizens who live out their faith by teaching their own children, evangelizing their friends and neighbors, and praying in public? Not only do many allow such atrocities within their borders, but countries like Azerbaijan, China, Cuba, Nicaragua, Pakistan and Venezuela sit in privileged seats on the U.N. Human Rights Council!

Vice President Pence, in his remarks, specifically rebuked the regime in Iran for its brutal persecution of Christians, Sunnis, Bahai’i, Yazidi’s and Jews. He called out the communist party in China for oppressing Christians, Uighurs and Muslims. In the western hemisphere, he condemned Daniel Ortego of Nicaragua for his war on the Roman Catholic Church, and Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela for using “hate laws” to prosecute clergy.

Religious persecution is not limited to communists and jihadists. Canada, Australia and England have also arrested and jailed Christian pastors by applying “hate laws” to proscribe the expression of foundational teachings about life, family and human nature. Even in America scattered states and municipalities have enacted ordinances designed to do the same.

Thankfully, the past year has seen several landmark rulings that have rolled back the religious discrimination inherent in such ordinances. Last summer the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the persecution of Jack Philips under a Lakewood, Colorado, ordinance similar to those passed in Laramie (2015) and Jackson (2018).

More recently the 8th Circuit Court ruled against a Minnesota law that required film makers to create art promoting a message against their religion. As recently as last Thursday, September 26, a federal judge rebuked the Attorney General of Michigan for trying to shut down a Roman Catholic adoption agency for placing children in the best possible family situations.

What the Arizona Supreme Court wrote in its judgement against the city of Phoenix was especially crisp and clear. “The rights of free speech and free exercise, so precious to this nation since its founding, are not limited to soft murmurings behind the doors of a person’s home or church, or private conversations with like–minded friends and family. These guarantees protect the right of every American to express their beliefs in public. This includes the right to create and sell words, paintings, and art that express a person’s sincere religious beliefs” (Brush & Nib Studio v. Phoenix).

Aside from state-sponsored persecution, there are also many places in the world where majority populations harass, unjustly prosecute and kill religious minorities with impunity. President Trump specifically called out the unchecked power of multinational corporations to persecute and silence people of faith.

“Too often, people in positions of power preach diversity while silencing, shunning, or censoring the faithful.  True tolerance means respecting the right of all people to express their deeply held religious beliefs,” Trump said, likely in reference to Facebook, Twitter and Google. He announced the formation of “a coalition of U.S. businesses for the protection of religious freedom” to address this.

One of the most fundamental of religious rights is the right of parents to raise their own children. While Trump did not address this issue, a joint initiative of the State Department and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) made this explicit.

HHS Sec. Alex Azar

Secretaries Pompeo and Azar jointly asserted that “to protect the unborn and defend the family as the foundational unit of society [is] vital to children thriving and leading healthy lives.” They decried attempts at the U.N. to “diminish the role of parents in the most sensitive and personal family-oriented issues.”

The same day that the president delivered his remarks, Secretary Azar of the HHS addressed the U.N. meeting on Universal Health Coverage. He stated, “the United States deplores that some countries politicized the negotiation over this declaration by including language that has been used to promote abortion as healthcare and promote sex education that diminishes the protective role of the family in improving health.”

In this speech he announced that 19 nations holding a combined population of over 1.3 billion were issuing a joint statement calling on the U.N. to stop undermining the family and the sovereignty of member nations. By the end of the week, two additional nations had signed the statement.

The statement reads, in part, “We do not support references to ambiguous terms and expressions, such as ‘sexual and reproductive health and rights’ …because they can undermine the critical role of the family and promote practices, like abortion.” It goes on to say, “we only support sex education that appreciates the protective role of the family in this education and does not condone harmful sexual risks for young people.”

For decades advocates of human life and the human family have watched with alarm as the U.N. undermined unalienable rights throughout the international community. Egregious violations of religious rights were tolerated while national sovereignty and parental rights were actively attacked.

Last Monday the United States led dozens of nations to take a stand against these encroachments. Word on the street is that many, many more international leaders are poised to join us. Only time will tell. But Monday, September 23, 2019, may go down in history as the day that reclaimed the United Nations as a force for religious freedom and family rights.