Tuesday, July 25, 2017

An Attack on Parental Rights




An Attack on Parental Rights
By
James Scott Trimm



In my most recent blog, The Unfair Attack on Judge Haddock, I wrote:

I fear that because a tragedy occurred, many now ask why the government did not prevent it.  But remember, it is not the government’s job to prevent any bad thing from ever happening.  And we do not want to exchange the sanctity of parental rights for more security, even for children.

The road being paved by these ostensibly “good intentions” ultimately leads to an erosion of a parent’s right to raise their children according to their own conscience.   

This is accented by one reader’s reaction to my blog as it was posted on the Tarrant Families Matter Facebook Page by Erinn Hall, a self-described “child welfare” worker.  She responded to my blog writing:

Kids have zero rights. A parent's liberty is not more important than a child's safety and welfare. It's not a "nanny state" that protects children. It's what we are all supposed to be called to do. These ideals are cute but only serve to allow people to turn a blind eye & leave kids in unhealthy, dysfunctional environments only to grow up and continue a cycle that drains our system and turns forgotten/ignored/abused kids into messed up adults. It's not right and it's not an invasive nanny state - it's morality.,,,



I work in child welfare. People rarely intervene when they should. Adult rights win over children's far more often than is appropriate. Any use of the "nanny state" scare is inappropriate where kids are concerned. Especially in a culture that uses religion for so many other issues & initiatives (teaching certain subjects in school, abortion, access to birth control, vaccinating your kids, etc.). These moral crusades should set out to save & protect kids rather than shield judges & parents who aren't doing their jobs.



Beware!  These people want the government to interfere in your religious upbringing of your own children.  They want the government to control what your children are taught.  They don’t want you to be allowed to homeschool.  They want  the government to decide whether or not to vaccinate your children.  They want government to guarantee your child’s right to get an abortion without your consent.  They want the government to provide your child birth control without your consent. 



These people think that parents who don’t send their kids to public school, who don’t vaccinate, who do not allow their children access to birth control and even abortions “aren’t doing their jobs” and that judges should be removing their children from their homes.



Don’t be fooled into following a path that leads to the destruction of the American Family as we know it. 




Friday, July 21, 2017

The Unfair Attack on Judge Haddock: A Liberty Perspective







The Unfair Attack on Judge Haddock:
A Liberty Perspective
By
James Scott Trimm


The tragic and senseless death of four-year-old Leiliana Wright has created unfair vitriol against two of our Tarrant County Family Court judges, with Judge Haddock being the target of particularly harsh attacks.  

I have taken time, over the last several months, to look at this case in depth.  I believe I have been very fair in my investigation and conclusions.  That said, there is much in this case that has been said based on unsubstantiated claims.  In my analysis I have tried to stick to the facts and stay away from the “he said” “she said” elements.

I want to also say that my views are very much colored by my underlying philosophy of more freedom and less government. 

I do not believe in the doctrine of a nanny state.  It is not the function of government to prevent any bad thing from ever happening.  Tragic things happen in the world, and this was among the most tragic.

However it has been rightly said “He who exchanges a little liberty for security will find that in the end, he no longer has either one.” 

We do not want to give the government more power and authority over our children, while subtracting from the rights of parents (and by extension, grandparents). 

Parental rights are among the most fundamental of our natural rights with which we were endowed by our Creator.  John Locke put it like this:

Adam was created a perfect man, his body and mind in full possession of their strength and reason, and so was capable, from the first instant of his being, to provide for his own support and preservation, and govern his action according to the dictates of the law of reason which God had implanted in him. From him the world is peopled with his descendants, who were all born infants, weak and helpless, without knowledge or understanding: but to supply the defects of this imperfect state, till the improvement of growth and age hath removed them, Adam and Eve, and after them all parents were, by the law of nature, under an obligation to preserve, nourish, and educate the children they had begotten; not as their own workmanship, but the workmanship of their own maker, the Almighty, to whom they were to be accountable for them….



This is that which puts the authority into the parents’ hands to govern the minority of their children. God hath made it their business to employ this care on their offspring, and hath placed in them suitable inclinations of tenderness and concern to temper this power, to apply it, as his wisdom designed it, to the children’s good, as long as they should need to be under it.

(John Locke’s Second Treatise of Civil Government, first published in 1690)


The United States Supreme Court has upheld the sanctity of parental rights.  In 1925 the US Supreme Court said:

The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the State to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only. The child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.

(Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925), at 535.)

in 1972 the US Supreme Court declared:

The history and culture of Western civilization reflect a strong tradition of parental concern for the nurture and upbringing of their children. This primary role of the parents in the upbringing of their children is now established beyond debate as an enduring American tradition.

(Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972), at 232.)

In 1979 the US Supreme Court also said:

The law’s concept of the family rests on a presumption that parents possess what a child lacks in maturity, experience, and capacity for judgment required for making life’s difficult decisions. More important, historically it has recognized that natural bonds of affection lead parents to act in the best interests of their children...



Most children, even in adolescence, simply are not able to make sound judgments concerning many decisions, including their need for medical care or treatment. Parents can and must make those judgments.

(Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979), at 602-3.)

And in 2000 the Court declared that “the liberty interest… of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by [the] Court.” (Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000), at 65.)

I fear that because a tragedy occurred, many now ask why the government did not prevent it.  But remember, it is not the government’s job to prevent any bad thing from ever happening.  And we do not want to exchange the sanctity of parental rights for more security, even for children.

This whole knee-jerk reaction has reminded me of reactions to mass shootings in which the media and Democrats immediately start using it as a talking point for gun control.  I am also reminded of how much liberty and rights are stripped from us with the excuse that it is “for the children.”  I can tell you that for personal reasons, no one is more defensive of abused children than I am.

The law in Texas rightly requires Family Court judges to defer to an agreement reached by the parties. This is the way we want it in Texas.  We do not want the government being proactive and overriding the rights of parents in regards to their own children.  And we do not want judges who override the law. 



This is what happened in this case.  The parties reached an agreement, and Judge Haddock followed the law in signing off on their agreement. 



Yes, tragedy struck.  But Judge Haddock is not at fault here.  The fact that tragedy occurs does not automatically mean that the government should have prevented it.  This is a dangerous world.  But in the end it is a far better world if we preserve liberty and the natural rights of parents. 






Monday, July 17, 2017

Yes Trasa Cobern Voted to Raise Taxes

Yes Trasa Voted to Raise Taxes


For those who do not know, Trasa Robertson Cobern is the RINO member of the Hurst City Council who Tim O'Hare, the Tarrant County Republican Party Chair, has recently appointed to chair the Tarrant County GOP Outreach Committee.

In an email sent out by Trasa to Tarrant County Precinct Chairs today, Trasa claimed:



This claim by Trasa is to say the least apocryphal, and to say the most, wildly inaccurate.

In 2016 Tarrant County Property values went up by about 12 percent.  On Sept 13 and 27, 2016, Trasa voted yes on both the first and second readings on a tax *rate* that was 2.2 cents lower per $100 than the previous year.  So property values increased by 12% but Trasa voted to lower the *rate* by a fraction of a percent, meaning that this was actually a tax increase. She also voted in favor of a 6.7 percent "increase in the tax rate."



-----------------

In the video below Trasa can be heard making the motion
 
The effective tax rate from the ordinance 
for which Trasa voted in favor
 was an increase of nearly 8% !




Wake up my fellow Executive Committee Members.  
We are being lied to!




Monday, July 10, 2017

Voting and Position Documentation for Trasa Robertson Cobern




I would like to apologize to the Republicans of Tarrant County. I failed you. At our recent Executive Committee meeting our County Chair Tim O'Hare appointed Trasa Roberts Cobern as a county vice chair to chair our Outreach Committee. This appointment required a ratifying vote from the entire Executive Committee. None of us knew ahead of time that this woman was being appointed.

I was one of a handful of committee members who knew who this woman is. (Now don't get me wrong, I have nothing personally against Trasa. I went to school with her husband Kyle back in the '80's and from my experience with her she is a very nice lady.) However I have also followed her voting record on the Hurst City Council, and am otherwise familiar with, and have documentation of, her political positions. Trasa is a public school teacher who regularly supports the teachers union talking points against our platform. She supports red light cameras. She voted to extend a juvenile curfew that would affect home schoolers. She voted in favor of a law against using hand held electronic devices while driving. She voted to regulate lenders. She voted for several ordinances to regulate how people can use their own property, including an ordinance against a person parking their own car in their own driveway unless the car has current license plate, registration and inspection. She voted to increase the tax rate and she has never voted 'no' to a single spending proposal. Moreover it has been widely rumored that this person was considering running against conservative hero Jonathan Stickland for State Representative of HD 92.

I should have taken action at the meeting but instead I was like a deer in the headlights, in disbelief about what Tim was doing. Most of the rest of the EC knew nothing about this woman except that Tim was presenting her as ideal for the job. With no debate or discussion the vote was taken, and I was one of a handful of persons to vote "no". (Again, Trasa is a nice person, but her publicly stated views and voting record do *not* reflect the core party values of our Party Platform. She is not well suited to chair a committee in our party.)

Tim either failed to effectively vet this appointee, or he knew her views and record and appointed her anyway. Neither of these is good. But for my failure I take responsibility. I must learn the rules and be more effective in the future.

As requested by many, here is my documentation:

Trasa on Red Light Cameras:

On Feb. 9th 2016 while Trasa was running for Hurst City Council, I asked her about her position on Red Light Cameras.  She responded "I believe in obeying current laws, so red light cameras are a non-event to me if they are the law."



Trasa excited to take her Students to Liberal events:

Trasa was very psyched to be able to take students to two events featuring Liberal jornalist Bob Woodward and Liberal Supreme Court Justice, Clinton Appointee Stephen Breyer.  She thanks the liberal Globalist World Affairs Council (George Soros group) for the tickets.  (Aug. 30 2016)



 Trasa on Radical Islamic Terrorism:

On June 4th 2017 Trasa reacted to the terrorist attack in London by buying a T-Shirt that presents a false sense of equivalency between Christianity, Islam and Judaism:


Trasa and Teachers Union

Trasa supports the Teachers Union ("Association") using the State to collect its dues On March 31st 2017 she  posted:



Trasa Opposed Tax Relief Bill (SB 2) in the 85th Session (A Priority Platform Item)




Trasa: Tax Borrow and Spend

When I asked Trasa her position on the growing city debt on Feb. 9th, 2016 when she was running for City Council, she said "[I am] Opposed to proliferate spending, the city needs to tighten up. Just because you have money doesn't mean you should wildly spend it."


But once in office, Trasa never voted against a single spending proposal, not even once.  
And on Sept. 13th 2016 Trasa voted to increase the property tax rate


More of Trasa's Hurst City Council Voting Record:
 
 June 28th 2016 Voted in favor of a juvenile curfew that would affect home schoolers.

July 12th 2016 Voted in favor of a ban on using a handheld device while driving.

Sept. 27th 2016 made motion to raise the effective property tax rate by 6.7 percent and then voted for this tax increase.

Oct. 11th 2016 Voted to regulate lenders.

Oct 25th 2016 Voted on an ordinance to penalize people for parking their own vehicles on their own property without current license plate, registration and state inspection

Oct. 25th 2016 Voted to regulate the height of tree branches.

Oct. 25th 2016 Voted to regulate "dead trees" on private property.

Oct. 25th 2016 voted yes on Local Control Resolution 

Her Voting Record is Online Here: