Trump’s administration moved quickly to help protect female athletes and keep biological males out of women’s sports. He has used all the power that he has to threaten federal funding to schools that continue to allow these nonsensical actions and earlier this month he sued California to force action on this issue. But biological men playing in girls’ sports is only one front on the multifaceted threat now facing our children. Bending biological reality to conform to the gender ideology is merely the tip of the iceberg that our innocent kids are facing, and the unfortunate reality is that their innocence is being forcefully stripped from them at ever decreasing ages. While sports are flashy and command headlines, the quiet indoctrination is happening in the classrooms, not just the locker rooms. We are facing moral erosion through the systems that were once erected to help our children and are now being used to proffer an ideology that will sacrifice our children’s innocence.

The recent disputes over curriculum have exposed the fact that schools are no longer passive educational institutions and thus are no longer neutral in their ideological stances. This is relatively unsurprising given the progressive leanings of our college system; those progressively educated college graduates are taking their ideas back to their schools and are passing along the ideology. What used to be reading, writing, and arithmetic has now been slowly transitioned into a complex framework of teaching on race, gender, and power. The progressive model necessarily subsumes the role of the parent to the educational “expert” whose curriculum is now guided by political goals and not developmental needs. Where we once curated curriculum to the student to meet them at their innocence, we now worry more about how to educate them in their “true” identity. Instead of asking if their soul is ready for weighty concepts, it is instead more important to make graphic sex books available to 5th graders. The unfortunate outcome for far too many children is confusion and by default the constant erosion of their innocence. The frightening aspect to this curriculum is that it is instead portrayed as neutral, hidden behind benign sounding words like health, inclusivity, or the latest fad of Social and Emotional Learning.

Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) has its origins in the 1960’s and its innocuous beginnings were filled with good intent. With DEI (Diversity Equity and Inclusion) becoming increasingly unpopular, in 2019 the concept of Transformative Social and Emotional Learning co-opted the original intent of SEL and instead used SEL as a trojan horse to bring in the racial and social ideologies promulgated by critical race theory. The focus of Transformative SEL is on critically examining root causes of inequity and identity politics which sounds remarkably just like DEI and critical race theory. SEL used to mean teaching empathy, self-regulation, and emotional vocabulary but now it is a vehicle to teach inequity, critique norms, and question institutional bias. Under the auspices of soft skills, children are becoming fluent in adult ideologies but strangers to their own innocence. SEL is not just asking kids to reflect, it is asking them to redefine.

It is not just the girls that are collateral in this gender warfare, boys are just as susceptible to the emotional and spiritual confusion brought about by these ideas. Boys are now asked, and taught, to question their masculinity and patriarchy before they even have a chance to understand it. They are taught that strength is oppressive and that their leadership is dangerous. This is not the formation of virtue but rather the systemic fragmentation of identity. Early exposure to sexualized content is damaging to both boys and girls. And our schools are demanding they be allowed to keep that content available, whether it is in the form of curriculum, books, after school activities, or special events. This is not just exposure, it is a spiritual and emotional violation that parents are told to either ignore or stay out of thus forcing their participation in this moral confusion.

This is far deeper than a culture war. This is not just political action or minor differences of opinion on how to teach children. We can no longer outsource the moral teaching of our children to the public school system in the ignorant hopes that the schools will remain neutral. As parents, we must demand accountability and transparency and not just wait for some other parent to do so. Parents must take control of the school boards, run for school board, organize parental audits, volunteer in the classroom, get to know the teachers and your children’s friends’ parents, and scrutinize reading lists and lesson plans. The time for passive actions and silent battles has long passed us by. This goes far deeper than political action and instead demands that each parent be accountable for the moral stewardship of their child’s future. Our children should never have been dragged into a culture war, but now that they are, it is the front line that parents from all sides of the political aisle should come together and circle around our wagons. Children are now being used as chess pieces in a progressive game where no one wins, and innocence is lost. A child’s innocence does not last forever, it is rare and pure, and it should be protected for as long as it can be, not sacrificed ruthlessly for an ideological gain.

Doctors and nurses fail to inform parents of vaccine risks by design because of a financial compensation system awarded by insurance networks only if the majority of the patients in the clinic are vaccinated. True informed consent would include potential benefits, known adverse reactions including disability and death, lack of liability for the doctor and manufacturer, options to test natural immunity in lieu of vaccination, and rights to vaccine exemptions.

From “Vaccine Sales Pitches: What Your Doctor Won’t Tell You:”

“Doctors are financially conflicted under this ‘performance recognition program’ [up to $400 per child] to coerce vaccine uptake. Any parent who communicates a choice to delay or refuse a vaccine can expect the doctor to label the parent as ‘difficult,’ and in some cases the doctor will dismiss the family from the practice. Parents are pushing back on the vaccine schedule with 76 doses of 18 vaccines by age 18, compared to 11 doses in 1986.

Doctors often provide a Vaccine Information Sheet (VIS) with each vaccine, which list pain and mild swelling at the injection site as the only possible adverse reaction. Lacking full transparency, parents are not informed of the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) which was designed to address vaccine disability and death in a quasi-judicial government process where records are commonly sealed from the public and compensations are rare. Doctors also do not inform patients that vaccines have been shielded from liability since 1986, and disability from adverse reaction is completely the risk of the patient to include medical expenses, loss of employment, and loss of quality of life. This risk should be part of the cost-benefit discussion for illnesses which are extremely rare and non-fatal in the first world in 2025.”

In recent years, schools and employers have attempted to ignore people’s religious exemption rights in the U.S. Constitution and instead imposed illegal religious scrutiny tests which are prohibited in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act

Regarding school exemption rights, from “Who Can You Trust? How Schools and Employers Violate Exemption Rights:”

“As of 2024, parents report that various schools and programs claim that they do not accept ‘non-medical exemptions.’ My advice to these parents is to know their exemption rights, and to not rely on administrators to inform them correctly. If a school is following state vaccine statute, then the school must also follow state exemption statute. Colorado Revised Statute 25-4-902 contains the immunization recommendations and Colorado Revised Statute 25-4-903 contains the vaccine exemption rights.”

Regarding college and employment exemption rights, from “Who Can You Trust? How Schools and Employers Violate Exemption Rights:”

“The pandemic expanded vaccine ‘mandates’ beyond students and healthcare workers to all employment sectors. It took years in the judicial process, but courts have ruled that denial of religious exemptions is discrimination as reported by KDVR in May 2024, ‘US appeals court rejects CU’s vaccine mandate, cites ‘religious animus:’

A U.S. Court of Appeals ruled on May 7 that the University of Colorado Anschutz School of Medicine‘s COVID-19 vaccination mandate and refusal to include a religious exemption were unconstitutional under the First Amendment, according to court documents. According to the opinion written by 10th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Allison Eid, ‘A government employer may not punish some employees, but not others, for the same activity, due only to differences in the employee’s religious beliefs.’

Invoking public health and safety, CU implemented a hostile religious scrutiny test, asked applicants about previous vaccines, and set a requirement that the religion must forbid all vaccines for all adherents in all circumstances, and then rejected exemptions which did not meet their religious scrutiny. CU also invented a revised discriminatory religious exemption process which denied all students and yet allowed some employees to work remotely. CDPHE was complicit because CDPHE failed to direct CU (and other employers) to the statutory process for religious exemptions.”

Additionally, schools with school-based health clinics are in a posture to violate parental rights. These school-based health centers work in private partnerships with Melinda Gates and Planned Parenthood to promote vaccines, abortions, transgender ideology. Schools are also operating parent portals which routinely share student medical records and vaccine records with the entire district staff and should limit access to student medical records to the school nursing office in accordance with privacy laws.

Hospitals and pharmacies have adopted predatory sales tactics for profit too. Every fall, the local pharmacy at your grocery store will offer customers eight vaccines: COVID, Pneumonia, Shingles, Diphtheria, Tetanus, Pertussis, RSV, and Influenza. In “Are We Protecting Grandma?,” I reported the low efficacy and serious adverse reactions associated with these vaccines. In “Are Vaccines Marketed to Senior Adults Safe and Effective?,” I reported how public health is incentivized to market these vaccines to seniors while the evidence indicates that the COVID vaccines do not prevent death or hospitalization, and the influenza vaccine actually increases risk of infection to other respiratory viruses by 65%. Why does public health refuse to promote Vitamin D for all ages during October through March which is the key susceptibility for respiratory virus infection? Vitamin D is not profitable like vaccines.

Hospitals include an intentionally vague word of “biologics” on their consent forms, and there have been documented cases of doctors vaccinating patients while under sedation because the patient unknowingly consented to “biologics.” When people request to cross out this word on consent forms, hospital staff often tell patients that they do not have a way to print out the form and coerce the patient to sign the electronic form as-is on a screen. Furthermore, hospitals offer every incoming person to the Emergency Room a DTaP or TDaP vaccine, regardless of situation, while only in extremely rare situations would a patient have a non-bleeding puncture wound with animal feces contaminated with infected bacteria. The screening is presented as “Are you up to date on your DTaP or TDaP vaccine?” without any explanation of what the risks for diphtheria and tetanus are and without explanation that the vaccine requires weeks to provide any potential benefit. Often this vaccine is offered as just a “tetanus” vaccine, without explanation that it is actually a Tetanus, Diphtheria, Pertussis combination vaccine.

In Colorado, numerous minor consent laws passed under Gov. Polis’ two terms allow children at the age of 12 to consent for contraceptives, abortion, STD testing and treatment, HIV and cervical cancer screening, substance abuse treatment, mental health services, and psychotherapy. In these areas of minor consent, providers are not required to notify parents of treatment or medications prescribed, and parents need the approval of the minor to access medical records. These laws assume that a 12-year-old child can manage his/her own healthcare. Doctors of 12-year-old children often tell parents that they cannot enter the exam room anymore. In actuality, the child can opt to have his/her parents in any medical appointment, just like any adult can choose to include a patient advocate.

In “The $1 Million Cost Per Person for Gender Transition,” I reported on the predatory profit over the lifespan for each experimental transgender operation, while imposing a burden of lifelong medical dependency to mitigate permanent adverse effects. I concluded:

“Minor consent for experimental and pharmaceutical medical treatment is irresponsible and unethical. It violates the principles of informed consent by giving treatment to a child who does not have the cognitive competence to understand risks, and it omits screening for the medical history that only a parent or guardian would be able to provide. Parents are advised to setup notifications with their health insurance companies for newly prescribed drugs for their children, and to discuss this issue with administrators at their schools who may not be aware of the recent changes to minor consent. Ultimately, families assume all of the risks and costs of these treatments.”

In “Medical Surveillance From Womb to Tomb: Colorado Immunization Information System (CIIS),” I explained my pharmaceutical industry capture concerns with CIIS: an opt-out system instead of an opt-in system; failures in security audits; inaccuracy costing taxpayers millions of dollars annually with no evidence of public health benefit;  shares personal health data for profit; never uses functions for highly reactive vaccine notifications for public safety; uses data for coercive reminder-recall-home visit operations; uses data to target populations for vaccine uptake including low income families and pregnant women; and operates with goals for a 2030 federal vaccine tracking database connected to RealID. I encourage parents to opt-out of this tracking system, as well as school mental health surveys.

In “School Mental Health Surveys Are A Tool for Expanding Pharmaceutical Drugs to Students,” I detailed the questions included in these surveys to measure alleged “symptoms.” I explained why parents should opt-out of all mental health surveys at schools, including IMatter and Health Kids Colorado Survey. These surveys are data-mining students for highly sensitive and self-incriminating information which could have life-long repercussions. This information is designed to be collected by third parties (people who are not mental health professionals) for referrals for counseling, SSRI drugs, and gender dysphoria counseling. These surveys and alleged school mental health assessments are not actually evidence-based instruments used to diagnose mental health disorders per the DSM. Instead, the BIMAS or Behavior Intervention Monitoring Assessment System is Social Emotional Learning (SEL) compliance monitoring tool.

Furthermore, the survey data collected for the state could result in restrictions in future gun ownership for the respondents. In “How the New Office of Gun Control Shall Infringe on the Second Amendment,” I explain how CDPHE collects the school survey data in the Office of Gun Violence Prevention:

“The office’s surveillance and survey data systems are already controversial: Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), Healthy Kids Colorado Survey, and Colorado Healthy Schools Smart Source. This is an indicator that gun ownership will become a public health priority (not a public safety priority) and will be tied to mental health. Any person indicating any level of mental health symptoms in a survey is potentially “at risk” of engaging in gun violence. These surveys are designed to data mine and profile minors, which could result in a lifelong label which later disqualifies a person from gun ownership. For example, I completed the IMatter school mental health assessment in the controversial HB23-1003, and my score of 1 from reporting using CBD oil once in the past year resulted in a “medium risk for substance abuse problems” and a recommendation for six sessions counseling without parental consent. I can only conclude that these non-evidence-based mental health surveys are not intended to ‘help’ students but to ‘flag’ students. Parents need to opt-out their students from these surveys administered by third party data collectors acting without transparency with parents and educate their children on their right to not self-incriminate on drug and alcohol use.”

Children’s Health Defense responded in opposition to HHS Secretary Kennedy’s broadly stated support for wearable health data trackers in “‘Every American Wearing a Wearable’ Is Not a Vision We Share.” There are both health risks and privacy risks.

“Wireless technologies, including wearables, have clear and well-documented harms. These devices continuously emit radiofrequency (RF) radiation in direct contact with the body for long periods of time. They also have multiple transmitters/receivers (Bluetooth, Wi-Fi and cellular), operating on several different radio bands. Cumulative and long-term exposures have known significant risks. RF radiation exposure is associated with a wide range of adverse health effects, including ‘increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being.’”

“Wireless technologies also have extensive and well-documented privacy impacts. They continuously collect biometric data, including heart rate, quality of sleep, blood pressure, cholesterol levels, oxygen levels, calorie burn, sweat gland emissions, hormone levels, body temperature, emotional responses, movement, and precise geolocation. This biometric data is transmitted over the internet and can be used to create an intimate profile of the user’s physical and psychological states. This intimate profile can be made available to employers, medical providers, private corporations, artificial intelligence systems, insurance companies, and government entities. This surveillance infrastructure may lay the groundwork for psychological targeting, predictive modeling, social control, and unprecedented intrusions into personal freedom.”

Parents in the process of a contentious divorce or with allegations of abuse are led to believe by the court that they must hire a “parent evaluator” to assess the health and safety of the children. There are no certification requirements for “parent evaluators” and there have been at least two cases of complete frauds in Colorado resulting in class action suits. As Colorado Politics reported, these evaluators are unqualified with fake credentials, unfit with abuse in their records, and often biased in favor of child abusers.  Responsible parents have lost custody based on the recommendations of these “parent evaluator” frauds who can charge up to $10,000.

In 2024, federal court decided that water fluoridation is neurotoxic and lowers IQ, with fluoride being especially harmful to pregnant women and young children. The American Dental Association and American Fluoridation Society continue to defend the use of fluoride. The EPA plans to spend six more years to review the issue, and recently decided to appeal the fluoride court decision.  The court decision as summarized by Fluoride Action Network:

“The issue before this Court is whether the Plaintiffs have established by a preponderance of the evidence that the fluoridation of drinking water at levels typical in the United States poses an unreasonable risk of injury to health of the public within the meaning of Amended TSCA. For the reasons set forth below, the Court so finds. Specifically, the Court finds that fluoridation of water at 0.7 milligrams per liter (‘mg/L’) – the level presently considered ‘optimal’ in the United States – poses an unreasonable risk of reduced IQ in children…the Court finds there is an unreasonable risk of such injury, a risk sufficient to require the EPA to engage with a regulatory response…One thing the EPA cannot do, however, in the face of this Court’s finding, is to ignore that risk.”

Organ transplants are highly profitable surgeries. If people are designated organ donors, could it influence the quality of life saving care that they receive at a hospital? What if a doctor decided that organs were more profitable than saving a life? “How organ donations broke records even during the pandemic” makes a person wonder how organ donors increased 18% in 2021 from 2020. During this time ventilators were widely used despite resulting high death rates, and in many cases the families of the deceased were not allowed to enter hospitals, see the body, or hold a funeral. Given these circumstances, it might be prudent for a family to designate organ donation only after a family member is deceased

A man would star gaze every evening, walking to the outskirts of the town where the lights were dimmer. One night he was so fascinated by the abundance of stars in the nighttime sky he fell into a pit. Unhurt and unshaken, yet unable to climb out, he began to yell for help. A passerby heard his cries and came upon the star gazer and listened to his story. “My good fellow,” the man said, “while you were trying to seek the mysteries of the heavens, you overlooked the common things under your feet.” The passerby helped the star gazer out of the pit and gave him a life altering bit of wisdom. We often look up when we should be looking ahead, causing us to miss opportunities and avoid pitfalls.

It is fascinating to dream and ponder the possibilities of far-off stars. I too ponder the mysteries of the universe by dreaming about what is beyond here and now. Yet, it is in day-to-day life that I find my full potential and the real opportunities of what is possible. Pondering a possible outcome is potent, yet it is in action that helps us achieve it.

I remember when I was a kid there was a cartoon with a character that had an angel on one shoulder and a demon on the other. They would fight for control over the main character’s attention. Life can be like this with dreams getting overcome by the practical things we need to do daily.

My observations and reason guide me toward opportunities that, with hard work and the use of my mind, benefit me. It takes self-mastery, moral courage, and the practice of virtues to stay grounded. There are many diversions that can divide our attention and get us off track. Vices can be like a magnet pulling on our being. It takes a strong will and tedious work to overcome those animal appetites that deviate our good intentions.

I find daily routines move me in a positive direction. I wake up early in the morning and recite positive phrases and have thoughts of success that prepare me for the day. I read a page or two of something that will inspire or inform me. I will often write down my own reactions to what I have read. It can be a paragraph or a page, but I challenge myself to write. I stretch and breathe deeply before I go to the gym to help strengthen my body as well as my mind. These are a few habits that I attempt to do daily.

By doing this routine I have found it helps me meet the challenges of my day. I am no superhuman being. I have realized over time that if I complete these daily tasks, I tend to have a more successful day. I try to make the most of every minute because I realize time is limited and I want to invest it wisely. I do a lot of self-talk and give myself a small reward for meeting my goals. It is not always easy, and sometimes I miss the mark. Yet, I know if I do my best that day, I can get closer to the destination I set for myself.

I also find being a member of a club or service organization and interacting with people helps build my skills and fulfills a need to listen, learn, and laugh with others. These groups I belong to align with my values and enhance life by rewarding me with immense satisfaction. I have observed that too many people have a void in their lives by not belonging to a meaningful group or organization. There are so many ways to get involved and find a charity or a cause that can provide countless opportunities for making a difference in your life and the lives of those you can impact.

I know there are struggles people face. I empathize with those who have challenges and struggle with many of these debilitating situations that life puts in one’s way. I am grateful I have found a way I can address overcoming obstacles by doing these few routines and being involved in group activities to help me be and do my best.

Dreaming and looking ahead is part of human experience. It needs to be encouraged and cultivated. However, I have found it is the luminous little daily activities that have helped me get to my own accomplishments. Yes, look up at the wonders of our universe, just be careful where you step.

On July 3, 2025, Congress passed the Big Beautiful Bill—one of the most impactful pieces of congressional firearms legislation in recent memory. At first glance, it looks like a solid victory for gun owners nationwide. After years of fighting, the federal government has finally eliminated the $200 NFA tax stamp for suppressors, short-barreled rifles (SBRs), short-barreled shotguns (SBSs), and AOWs.

On Independence Day, July 4 at 5:00 PM Eastern, President Donald J. Trump signed the bill into law. Symbolically, it is perfect timing. Constitutionally, it is long overdue.

But let’s be honest: while this bill is a win—it is not the win we needed. And it is time our elected representatives, especially those on the right, stop treating partial relief like full-blown victory.

Beginning January 1, 2026, the tax stamp fee required under the National Firearms Act will be reduced from $200 to $0. That applies to suppressors, SBRs, SBSs, and AOWs.

For many Americans—especially blue-collar families and newer gun owners—this change finally opens the door to lawful NFA ownership without being priced out of owning a firearm. It removes a financial barrier that’s existed since 1934.

It is a significant step. But it is not the finish line.

While the $200 tax is gone, the entire NFA process remains. Gun owners must still submit fingerprints, photos, background checks, detailed paperwork, and wait months for ATF approval—all for items that should never have been regulated in the first place.

You are still entered into a federal registry. You are still seeking permission to exercise a constitutional right. That’s not freedom—it’s a slightly cheaper version of the same infringement.

Meanwhile, states like California, New York,  and Colorado continue to layer their own restrictions on top of the federal rules. The bill did not address that either.

There was real momentum behind removing suppressors and SBRs from the NFA entirely. The votes were there. The language was drafted. The people were ready.

But the Senate Parliamentarian ruled that delisting NFA items was not a budget issue—and therefore could not be included in the reconciliation bill. That decision shut down the core of what needed to happen.

Democrats, when they face roadblocks, change the rules. They have eliminated the filibuster for judicial appointments, invoked the nuclear option for legislation, and rewritten precedent to move their agenda forward.

Republicans, in this case, respected the rules. They chose not to challenge the Parliamentarian. And while that may reflect principle, it also shows a reluctance to fight as hard as their opposition does.

You don’t go hog hunting with a pocketknife and a prayer. If the other side’s out there with dogs and rifles, you had better be bringing more than good intentions—because they are not out to play fair.

This was our moment to gut the NFA. We settled for trimming around the edges.

To those who helped push this bill through thank you. But to the rest—those who stood on the sidelines or played it safe—know this:

The Second Amendment is not a slogan or a fundraising tool. It is a line in the sand.

Our base does not want lip service. We want action. If the other side is willing to break norms to take away rights, then our side needs to be just as bold in defending them.

No more excuses. No more calculated hesitation.

At my shop, Spartan Defense, we work every day with customers navigating the NFA process—people who want to follow the law but are constantly met with red tape, wait times, and confusing rules. I have seen how these barriers discourage lawful ownership of firearms and complicate even the most basic purchases.

This change will help. But helping is not the same as fixing. The core issue—the registry, the approvals, the classification of suppressors and short barrels as “special” items—still remains.

Where We Go From Here

The momentum can’t stop now. We must:

Final Thoughts

This bill proves one thing clearly: pressure works. When the firearms community stands up and speaks with one voice, things move.

But it also proves that if we settle for small wins, that is all we will ever get.

We have cracked the surface of the NFA—but the core of it still stands. Until there is no tax, no registry, no permission slips for lawful ownership, the fight is not over.

This Fourth of July, I will be celebrating like everyone else—but I will also be watching the road ahead.

Because true liberty does not come from legislation. It comes from the people who refuse to stop demanding it.

Conservatives secured a critical win this past month and have firmly shifted the direction of gender policy in America after years of mounting debate. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld Tennessee’s Senate Bill 1, which prohibits providing minors with puberty blockers or hormone therapy to treat gender dysphoria, ruling that the law is constitutional. Chief Justice Roberts noted that the legislation “carries with it the weight of fierce scientific and policy debates about the safety, efficacy, and propriety of medical treatments in an evolving field.” He clarified that the Court’s role was not to resolve those debates, but simply to determine whether the law violates the Constitution. In doing so, the majority echoed the logic of the Dobbs ruling, emphasizing that policy decisions belong in the hands of the people and their elected representatives. In response, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene announced that she would reintroduce the “Protect Children’s Innocence Act” and pledged to continue pushing for federal legislation. With state sovereignty taking a front seat in many recent Supreme Court rulings, and with so much at stake culturally and politically, we now face a larger question: should this issue be addressed through national legislation, or is it best left to the states?

Our founders labored incessantly over the proper role of the federal government and in turn, what matters were best left to the states. The instinct to act swiftly on this issue is understandable because who else should be protected more than our children, especially when the consequences are so permanent? The emotional pull and moral urgency justifiably drive calls for national legislation. As freethinkers, we owe it to posterity to ask ourselves harder political questions such as, is this a wise course of action? If we pass this law now, what would prevent a future Congress from overturning it when the political pendulum swings? Progressives have long appealed to morality to justify federal overreach. Would they not use the same tools to push their agenda later? For decades, state authority has been eroded under the weight of federal bureaucracy and so-called expertise. With the current Court showing a willingness to restore power to the states, should we really rush to entrench federal authority further? Even the most well-intentioned legislation, especially on issues we care deeply about, may set a precedent that others will exploit in radically different ways. Which then begs the question: does federal law shape a state’s culture, or is that cultural fight best left to each state to work through on its own?

There is a common hope that if we pass the right legislation, culture will follow. But is that hope misplaced? Does it bypass the hard and necessary work of shaping culture through persuasive conversation, lived example, and local leadership? The appeal of federal action lies in its speed. It feels like a shortcut to victory but often shortcuts skip over the very ground that needs to be won. Kansas provides a recent and sobering example. After the Dobbs decision, Kansas was in a prime position for its pro-life laws to take effect and protect the unborn. Instead, the state’s voters passed a constitutional amendment locking abortion access permanently into law. That same reaction could easily take hold in blue states if Congress tries to outlaw gender transition procedures for minors nationwide. Places like Colorado may double down, passing state laws that entrench those very practices in response. National legislation regularly can harden opposition instead of softening hearts. When Obamacare passed, did it change conservative minds about government-run health care? Or did it deepen the divide? Cultural change does not happen at the stroke of a fancy pen. Rather it requires persuasion, not pressure. That leads to the next question: what are the electoral consequences of pushing policy ahead of persuasion?

Abortion has been the millstone that Democrats have hung around the neck of every Republican candidate for decades. Even those running for mayor or state representative (offices with little or no influence on abortion) have found themselves grilled on the issue. How many school board, city council, and state house races have been lost because a candidate fumbled the question? Democrats have mastered the tactic of painting opponents as either heartless or clueless, and Republican candidates have often played right into it. Then came Dobbs and for the first time in years, federal candidates were gifted an exit ramp. They could rightly say abortion was a state issue and redirect the conversation. So why would we now hand that advantage back? Republicans already struggle to communicate their compassion, often defaulting to logic over emotional connection. Many have yet to show the rhetorical skill to handle nuanced morality questions without stepping into a trap. Even with polling on our side when it comes to gender procedures for minors, why would we risk handing Democrats another line of attack? Federal legislation would put every congressional candidate back in the crosshairs, especially in blue states like Colorado where the margins are already razor thin. We should ask ourselves whether that fight is worth losing the winnable races that help us shape the broader culture in the first place.

The desire to act is noble and the instinct to protect children is right. But as with any major policy question, we must weigh principle, culture, and strategy together, especially in a time where the American people are so unengaged with the founding principles. Just because we can pass a national law does not mean we should. Cultural change is not imposed but rather cultivated. If we overreach too quickly, we risk sparking backlash, losing political ground, and hardening the very opposition we hope to persuade. The Supreme Court has opened the door for states to lead in a way that conservatives should celebrate. It is an invitation to do the harder work of shaping culture at the local level, where trust can be built and change can last. As Republicans, it is important to note that we also believe in change beginning locally. Protecting the future generations of our country is an important issue, perhaps the most important. It is so important that we must look at this through the eyes of a founder, analyzing where and how the government should play a role. If we want a future where children are protected and truth is honored, we must fight the right battles, in the right places, at the right time. That is not weakness or cowardice to act but rather it shows that we are capable of thinking beyond the present and are willing to fight for posterity.

Most people do some basic research on important consumer decisions, like buying a house or a car. Buyers do not completely trust what the seller says. They conduct inspections, read consumer reviews, and try to avoid safety issues. What would that consumer process look like for drugs and vaccines? Should we blindly trust the pharmaceutical provider who is financially incentivized to sell drugs and vaccines? Should we consider the testimonials of people who had adverse reactions? At a minimum, we should check the ingredients for allergens, read the clinical trial results for efficacy level, and consider adverse reports in FDA drug safety alerts and the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). All this information provides a much more comprehensive view beyond the marketing mantra of “safe and effective” or the bully tactics of “required for school” language.

The following vaccines are “recommended,” which means optional, and no exemption is required: COVID-19, Dengue, Hepatitis A, HPV, Influenza, MPox, Pneumococcal, RSV, Rota virus, and Meningococcal. The following vaccines are “required,” which means an immunization record, exemption certificate or exemption education module, or proof of immunity (titers blood test) is required for schools and daycares: Hepatitis B, Diphtheria/Tetanus/Pertussis (DTaP or TDaP), Haemophilus Influenzae (Hib),  Pneumococcal, Polio, Measles/Mumps/Rubella (MMR), and Varicella.

For exemptions, Colorado has a medical exemption certificate, and a “non-medical” exemption certificate, which in 2020 legislation replaced the religious and philosophical exemptions, established in 1978. Doctors refuse to sign either of these forms, because it puts their quotas for vaccine sales at risk. Doctors lose significant compensation for every patient who is not fully vaccinated with every “required” vaccine. Most parents who choose to exercise their exemption rights complete a vaccine education module option, which omits all serious adverse injury, disability, and death data.

In one Blue Cross Blue Shield example cited by Children’s Health Defense, pediatricians are incentivized with bonuses for vaccinating a high percentage of children:

“For vaccination, providers receive $400 for each eligible two-year-old who has received all 24-25 vaccines [per the CDC schedule], but only if the provider manages to administer each and every shot to at least 63% of his or her patients. Thus, there is a formidable incentive not to let any patients slip through the cracks.”

Doctors are financially conflicted under this “performance recognition program” to coerce vaccine uptake. Any parent who communicates a choice to delay or refuse a vaccine can expect the doctor to label the parent as “difficult,” and in some cases the doctor will dismiss the family from the practice. Parents are pushing back on the vaccine schedule with 76 doses of 18 vaccines by age 18, compared to 11 doses in 1986.

Doctors often provide a Vaccine Information Sheet (VIS) with each vaccine, which list pain and mild swelling at the injection site as the only possible adverse reaction. Lacking full transparency, parents are not informed of the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) which was designed to address vaccine disability and death in a quasi-judicial government process where records are commonly sealed from the public and compensations are rare. Doctors also do not inform patients that vaccines have been shielded from liability since 1986, and disability from adverse reaction is completely the risk of the patient to include medical expenses, loss of employment, and loss of quality of life. This risk should be part of the cost-benefit discussion for illnesses which are extremely rare and non-fatal in the first world in 2025.

CDPHE has set up vaccinated student population goals of 95% for each school, with school-shaming reporting requirements for schools which fall below this goal. CDPHE is also under financial incentives to promote this 95% vaccinated criteria. Historically, herd immunity was based on 60% of populations having naturally acquired immunity. Sixty percent natural immunity was the threshold which protected the elderly and infants. Ninety-five percent vaccinated is a criterion based on financial incentives for federal grants to CDPHE.

On June 9, 2025, Secretary Kennedy tweeted, “Our entire healthcare system runs on a bundle of perverse incentives.”

On June 9, 2025, HHS Secretary Kennedy removed all seventeen members of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). As reported by The Defender:

“The committee decides which vaccines should be recommended to the public, who should take them and how often — recommendations the CDC typically rubber stamps. However, most members have financial ties to pharmaceutical companies marketing vaccines or have worked with public health agencies to promote controversial vaccines, including the COVID-19, RSV and HPV shots. These problems have plagued the committee for decades. A 2000 investigation by the U.S. House of Representatives found that enforcement of conflict-of-interest rules was ‘weak-to-nonexistent.’ A 2009 HHS inspector-general report made similar findings, Kennedy wrote. Investigations by The Defender in 2021 and 2024 also found that most committee members had direct ties to pharmaceutical companies. Kennedy wrote that the committee has ‘never recommended against a vaccine — even those later withdrawn for safety reasons.’ He said the committee has failed to ‘adequately scrutinize’ vaccines for babies and pregnant women.”

Kennedy has replaced 8 of the 17 ACIP members, to include scientists, public health experts, and physicians. Kennedy has also been very vocal that none of the current required vaccines have been tested against a true saline placebo in the licensure approval process. The lack of saline placebo controls potentially hides adverse reactions and side effects in clinical trials. On June 10, 2025, Kennedy tweeted. “No one can scientifically ascertain whether these products are averting more problems than they are causing.” In an interview, Kennedy alluded to his concern that the unknown risk profiles of vaccines might be contributing to autoimmune diseases.

How did Colorado preemptively respond to Kennedy’s signaled removal of the heavily conflicted ACIP members? Colorado passed CO HB 25-1027 which included a change from following vaccine recommendations of ACIP to following recommendations of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), American College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists (ACOG), and American College of Physicians (ACP). These organizations also incentivize vaccine uptake for the providers under their accreditations, and they are under industry capture with board members who have conflicts of interests.

Conclusion

Consumers must use neutral sources to make vaccine decisions and not rely on vaccine salesmen. The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) provides fact-based information on each vaccine, and the risk prevalence of each disease. The current immunization program is operating under a system of coercion rather than voluntary informed consent, as well as health agency corruption rather than gold-standard, placebo-controlled science.

At first glance, the proposed federal legislation to deregulate firearm suppressors—coined the “Big Beautiful Bill”—looks like a long-awaited win for gun owners nationwide. The bill promises to remove suppressors from the burdensome National Firearms Act (NFA), eliminate the outdated $200 tax stamp, and treat suppressors like any other non-NFA firearm accessory.

But for law-abiding gun owners in Colorado and at least 17+ other states, that “win” could turn into a catastrophic loss of rights unless Congress adds a crucial piece of language: Section 3 of the Hearing Protection Act (HPA).

This is not a minor technicality. Without Section 3—and without federal preemption—millions of Americans will lose legal access to suppressors the second this bill becomes law.

The Legal Trap in Colorado

Under current Colorado law (CRS 18-12-102), suppressors are classified as “dangerous weapons.” Their possession is only legal when the individual has a “valid permit and license.” For decades, the federal NFA tax stamp has been interpreted as fulfilling that requirement, effectively serving as Colorado’s proxy for lawful suppressor ownership.

If the Big Beautiful Bill strips away the NFA registration and tax stamp process but does not replace it with a new legally recognized mechanism, then Colorado gun owners will suddenly find themselves without any legal path to buy or possess suppressors—despite federal deregulation.

That is not just ironic. It is devastating.

The result? What was intended as a pro-gun reform would instead criminalize the very people it was meant to protect in states like Colorado, Connecticut, Washington, Michigan, Georgia, and more.

The Solution: Section 3 of the Hearing Protection Act

Thankfully, there is a fix—but it must be included in the final bill.

Section 3 of the Hearing Protection Act ensures that any individual who purchases a suppressor using a standard background check through ATF Form 4473 will be considered in compliance with any state or local licensing or registration law that used to rely on the NFA.

In other words, it legally replaces the tax stamp with the same background check already used for standard firearms. This provision creates a bridge for suppressor ownership to remain legal in restrictive states like Colorado.

Let us be clear: The 2nd Syndicate does not endorse or favor the Form 4473 system. We have long held concerns about government overreach, centralized data collection, and the misuse of firearm transaction records. However, under current law in states like Colorado, the 4473 is the only available federal mechanism that can substitute for the NFA tax stamp and preserve lawful ownership.

It is a means to an end—not a permanent solution—but the only one available to ensure Coloradans are not disarmed by default.

Without it, the moment the NFA tax stamp disappears, so does the only recognized legal justification for ownership in these jurisdictions. That means no new purchases, no transfers, no possession—no rights.

Federal Preemption: Stopping the States from Rebuilding the NFA

Section 3 is the minimum necessary for suppressor deregulation to work in Colorado. But to truly safeguard against future abuse, federal preemption must also be included.

That is where Section 4 of the HPA comes in. This section prohibits states from imposing their own suppressor-specific taxes, registration schemes, or licensing requirements—ensuring that once the federal burden is lifted, states cannot just build their own version of the NFA in its place.

Colorado is already trending in that direction. Just this year, SB25-003 advanced sweeping state-level gun control that would require FFLs and instructors to obtain new licenses and undergo government-approved training. If suppressors are removed from federal oversight without preemption, anti-gun legislators will seize the opportunity to regulate them harder than ever at the state level.

Federal preemption would stop that cold.

The Truth About Suppressors

Suppressors are not sinister tools from spy movies—they are safety equipment.

Suppressors make firearms safer and more accessible—not more dangerous. Removing the regulatory burden is long overdue. But it must be done correctly, or the consequences will be worse than the status quo.

A Warning to Colorado Gun Owners: This Bill Could Backfire

If Congress passes the Big Beautiful Bill without Section 3 or preemption, it will strip Colorado gun owners of their ability to buy, own, or transfer suppressors—period.

This is not theoretical. This is current law.

This outcome is not just bad policy—it is a betrayal of the Second Amendment community that worked to make this bill a reality in the first place.

A Call to Action for Colorado Republicans and Gun Owners

We urge every citizen of Colorado who values the right to own suppressors to immediately contact the following leaders:

Tell them:

“Fix the bill before it breaks Colorado. Include Section 3 of the HPA and federal preemption. Do not legalize suppressors for some and criminalize them for others.”

This is not about compromise, it is about completing the mission.

In Closing

The 2nd Syndicate and the Colorado Federal Firearms Licensee Association (CFFLA) stand united in our support for full suppressor deregulation done right. The only path forward is through the inclusion of Section 3 and strong federal preemption language—provisions that ensure all Americans, including those in states like Colorado, are truly protected.

We encourage Congress to strengthen the Big Beautiful Bill by adopting the complete language of the Hearing Protection Act and the SHORT Act. These proven, well-crafted provisions will not only modernize federal firearms law but will also close dangerous state-level loopholes that would otherwise leave millions behind.

Let us get this right. Let us protect all gun owners. Let us finish the job.

Stay informed by visiting The2ndSyndicate.com and following us on X, YouTube, and Rumble. This article may be republished with credit to The 2nd Syndicate.

I enjoy listening to music whether it is live or recorded. I have collected music on records such as LP’s, 45’s, 78’s, CD’s, and cassettes. I even use the newest streaming technology which allows me to download music to my smart devices and take it with me anywhere I go. Streaming is convenient and inexpensive, yet I still prefer the rich sound of vinyl.

I have been to hundreds of concerts and seen, heard, and experienced my musical favorites live. I have worked as a roadie in a country band and was lucky to be backstage and have personally met many artists. They all have one thing in common no matter what the musical genre. Their music all started with an idea. It may have started with a chord or a hook, but there was an idea ready to catch fire.

A great song may get you to download a complete album. A great album may get you to buy a concert ticket to hear the music live. A great performance may make you a lifetime fan of the artist. It is the emotional connection of that idea that the fan is buying and how this makes them feel through the music.

This is true in sales, a purchase we make or an idea we embrace. All sales start at the heart which leads to the head. Emotional connection is a powerful driver of our habits and success. Music is thought of as being universal and, like an idea, it can spread from person to person. Think about a song you heard in high school that you liked. You shared it with a friend and may have said, “Hey you have to listen to this song, it’s great.” And they did. This friend tells their friend, who tells another, and now you have some momentum in launching that song into a hit for that artist.

Word of mouth exposure is the most effective way to get others to buy into your point of view. Think about a movie you like or a book you read or a restaurant where you enjoyed a meal and told friends and family. Your recommendation can have a huge impact on others if they trust you and you have credibility. Think what could happen if you were to treat the idea of freedom as you would when you have a cultural or culinary experience. The WOW factor could be infectious. What if you took some time to talk, write, and discuss how freedom, like music, makes your life better?

I have talked to many younger people who do not understand the idea of freedom. They do not see how people have had to fight for it to preserve it. They take it for granted. Freedom has not been the normal progression throughout history. The natural order of things, especially in a political sense, has been dominated by kings, chiefs, clans, tribes, religious theocracies, or central power brokers who rule through fear and force.

It has only been in this one exceptional place that people have been free to rule their own lives and property because of the rule of law. From Jerusalem to Athens to the Angolshpere, the manifestation of freedom, capitalism, free markets, property, and individual rights have been fused together and coalesced through the American experiment.

There is an adage which states that four strangers who fight a lion will die, but four friends who fight a lion will win. It is time to find or create groups capable of mutually supporting one another to plan together, write together, speak to others, and become activists for freedom by writing, telling, and sharing your story of freedom with family, friends, grandchildren, and acquaintances. This can be a catalyst for others to share their freedom story as something we should be talking about and how it allows for human flourishing.

When you sit around a campfire you often tell stories and sing songs with friends and family. A campfire must be stoked occasionally for the embers to flare and the heat to warm those around it. Music, like the idea of freedom, can strike a chord if properly nurtured. The great Duane Allman who formed the Allman Brother Band once said, “There’s a lot of different forms of communication, but music is absolutely the purest one.” Freedom makes it all possible.

As a kid, I was raised to address adults and those in authority with a high level of civility: using only their last name with either Mr. or Mrs. and always including “sir” or “ma’am” in my replies. By high school, I realized I was one of the few among my peers who still used this civil language. Many adults would ask me to call them by their first name or say they were too young to be called “sir” or “ma’am.” But despite their protestations, I was still allowed to say “No sir” out of habit or “Yes ma’am” when reflex took over. I was never sent to the principal’s office, but neither were my classmates when they addressed teachers with a dismissive “Yeah, sure, whatever man.” Sadly, our legislature and governor have decided to insert themselves into literal public discourse. With the passage of HB25-1312, they have ensured that personal expression is now subject to government oversight. What was once a habit of civility could now send me before the tribunal of anti-discrimination enforcement. Compelled speech does not have a record of producing genuine progress, in fact quite the opposite. That is precisely why the First Amendment was designed to safeguard against it.

The argument made in favor of the bill is that public accommodations require individuals to use others’ preferred pronouns. But how is this different from a performance that reinforces an ideological belief? This kind of policing of private speech is only a step away from the public recanting of “wrong thinking” and participation in “struggle sessions” required in Maoist China. However, compelled speech is not unique to communism or fascism, it is thousands of years old. Socrates was charged with corrupting the youth and was told to stop speaking or face death. He chose the latter and famously declared, “The unexamined life is not worth living.” Did our state legislature realize they are retracing the same missteps as the Athenians? Long before our Founders penned the First Amendment, history was filled with regimes, monarchs, and religious authorities who used speech control as a means to control the people.

Even beyond historical warnings, the question remains: does compelled language achieve what its proponents claim? Does forcing individuals to affirm pronouns they don’t agree with actually change their hearts and minds? Research suggests it does not. Social psychologists have noted that compelled speech teaches compliance, not inclusion or compassion. Compliance may silence disagreement, but it does not produce sincerity. As William Edmundson wrote: “Mandates can mimic virtue, but do not cultivate it.” Just ask any religious scholar what matters more: rote words or inner conviction. A 2019 study on psychological reactance found that peer pressure to express support for social causes not only failed to produce understanding but it instead reinforced opposing views. Far from building empathy, ideological coercion tends to backfire.

This leads to the natural objection: it is just a couple of pronouns so why make such a big deal? But once we accept forced speech in one area, where do we draw the line between protecting rights and policing thought? The authoritarian impulse behind compelled language is especially dangerous because it is never satisfied. The slope from pronouns to broader ideological enforcement is steep. And deeper than that, speech is not just a social function, it is the vessel for personal thought. When the right to express words is violated, it undermines the very foundation of a free society and more importantly an individual’s right to even think freely. It is cruel to strip away an individual’s conscience under the guise of kindness. It is dangerous to erode free thought in the name of civility. This is not just a mandate about manners but an attack on the right to think.

There is a certain irony in the final version of HB25-1312. In its original form, the bill required government agencies to adopt new gender identities and language on official forms. But in order to gain enough votes to pass, the sponsors removed that provision. Now, the government continues using legal names, while the public is compelled to participate in a redefinition that the government needs not adopt itself. That is not civility – it is coercion. This is not a ban on yelling “fire” in a crowded theater. It is a ban on speaking any truth not approved by the ideological proposed. Progressives should fear this precedent and ideological coercion with as much vigor as conservatives. Would they support forcing all Americans to recite the Pledge of Allegiance under a right-wing administration? Thankfully, the judicial branch has historically protected us from compelled speech as they did in West Virginia v. Barnette. We can only hope and pray that it will do so again with this deeply misguided law.

For me, 2025 is a year of 50th birthday parties, a wedding, and a reunion. This created the motivation I needed to start a weight loss regimen. In January, I coined the term “Bridesmaid Bootcamp” to counter the “COVID-19 pounds” and to fit attractively in a formal dress. The events were at my alma mater at West Point in May, so I had four months to lose weight. I knew my Army peers would look fit at any age, so I had some positive peer pressure. I had motivation, a goal date, and I needed a plan. I was determined to implement a home-based plan with a few lifestyle tweaks and not a gym membership. If you have a special occasion coming up and you want a low effort, low-cost plan to lose weight, then this approach might be for you.

There were four main components to this home exercise plan: walking, light weights, low carb diet, and intermittent fasting. However, I did not implement all of these at once. The concept of behavioral momentum suggests implementing small, successive changes tends to be more successful long-term than trying to implement numerous changes at one time. This was true for me.

I really enjoy walking and running, but the snow and ice during the first months of the year make outside exercise in winter unappealing. Fortunately, treadmills now have lighter versions that can be shipped to your house and for lower prices (starting at $150 on Amazon.) Walking desks have become very popular too. I walked on the treadmill for an hour three times a week. I positioned my treadmill near a large window frequented by wildlife, and I put my headphones on with music. I enjoyed this scheduled self-time, and I encourage people to find a form of cardio exercise (biking, swimming, skiing, etc.) that they enjoy. It also proved to be true that a person does not need excessive cardio to lose weight. To be honest, I was not exerting myself in this effort, but I did need to be consistent.

Walking is the easiest way to kickstart your metabolism and has many health benefits for the mind and body. Harvard claims that walking is the “next closest thing we have to a wonder drug,” and reports five surprising benefits of walking:

In May with the warmer spring weather upon us and more access to the beautiful outdoors of Colorado, I plan to incorporate 20 minutes of High Intensity Interval Training (HIIT), using bodyweight without any need for equipment or technology: sprints, squats, mountain climbers, burpees, and push-ups.

Healthline reports seven benefits of HIIT workouts:

I needed to build back some upper body muscle lost in middle age, so I added in some light hand weights of 6, 8, 10, and 12 pounds and focused on toning up my arms to wear a formal sleeveless dress at the wedding. Can a person tone-up with some small dumbbells and inexpensive resistant bands? Yes. A gym membership is not required, which is good news for those of us who live in small rural towns in Colorado which do not have a fitness center. I lifted weights twice a week, but three days a week is better for consistency. The additional motivation for weight training is that muscle burns more calories at rest. Again, I was not exerting myself with these weights. My take-away is that exercise does not need to be strenuous to get results, rather consistency on the calendar is far more important than intensity. If your plan is easy and enjoyable, then you are more likely to succeed. (Obviously, the diehard gym guys will disagree with me but remember this is a Bridesmaid Bootcamp for vanity not strength development.)

So how strong should we be? My 72-year-old mother is still farming acres which requires strength, but I could not find a practical task list for minimum strength standards to maintain. Tim Henriques Strength Standards specifies that men should be able to do 30 push-ups and 10 pullups to be in the “decent” strength category. Likewise, women should be able to do 5 push-ups and 1 pull up to be in “decent” strength category. The Tim Henriques tables provide additional weightlifting standards for Decent, Good, and Great categories.

I was already eating pretty “clean” and avoiding processed foods. However, I needed a more nutrient dense diet. Carnivore diets (high protein) and Ketogenic diets (high fat) are very successful for weight loss and overall health. Fermented foods (sauerkraut, kimchi) and probiotic rich foods (yogurt, kefir) also have many health benefits. GoodFood lists seven benefits of fermented foods:

Obesity has many factors, but in the U.S. the main factor is eating too many carbohydrates and refined grains. I adopted the “Keto” diet, and I can attest that you do not feel deprived or hungry. I also became mindful of excessive sugars when ordering at coffee shops. When I needed a “cheat meal,” I indulged about once a week. I usually prepare meals for the week on Sundays, and there are no complicated recipes when eating mostly protein and fat. Good fats include avocado, nuts and seeds, coconut oil, and quality (raw, organic) dairy products. Overall, I just became more mindful of what I was eating; drastic changes were not needed, and perfect adherence is not required.

Research has found that intermittent fasting is better than daily calorie restriction in losing weight. This can be achieved by a 1 to 3 day fast on a monthly basis, or by fasting daily after dinner until breakfast. Fasting triggers autophagy, detoxification, and regeneration. Autophagy is a self-eating process where the body breaks down cellular debris so that the body can function more efficiently. I was most successful with implementing a two-day fast with homemade bone broth, which helped overcome plateaus in weight loss. However, I have since learned that optimal fasting is a little more complicated for women and should be coordinated with their unique body rhythms, not just when it is convenient on your calendar.

I asked my fellow Bridesmaid and Fast Like A Girl certified coach, Susan Alden, (pictured above with me on the right), who is looking fabulously fit at age 50 about tips to weight management for women at age 50.  She recommended Fast Like a Girl: A Woman’s Guide to Using the Healing Power of Fasting to Burn Fat, Boost Energy, and Balance Hormones by Dr. Mindy Pelz.

In four months, I lost ten pounds, which is not impressive. However, I lost three inches in the bust, three inches in the waist, and three inches in the hips. This loss in inches is noticeable in a fitted formal dress, thus vanity goal was achieved! It also indicates that weight is not the only measure for weight loss goals.

The adage of “you manage what you measure” is true in weight loss. For those of us who can justify excess weight in a culture of obesity, the Body-Mass-Index (BMI) chart can give you an objective idea of what you should weigh. But the BMI scale is based on height and weight and does not consider muscle and fat composition. There are other objective measures for women which are helpful such as the waist to hip ratio (ideal at .80 or less) and the waist to height ratio (ideal at .50 or less). Likewise, men should have a waist size below 37 inches to avoid risks for heart disease, diabetes, and cancer.

Measurement is a strategy to maintain motivation and achieve goals. “To be healthy” is not a measurable goal. To reach a healthy weight on the BMI chart is a measurable goal. To reach that healthy weight by a date on the calendar increases motivation. When you are tracking basic weight and measurement data, you can adjust your food plan and exercise plan as needed when you are not making progress from week to week towards your goals.

A May 2025 MAHA report outlined four main drivers of chronic disease in the U.S. First, most food in American diets is ultra-processed which overrides satiety mechanisms and increases caloric intake. Second, environmental chemical exposures, such as weed killers and pesticides, are harming health. (Fat cells store toxins to protect the body, making it harder to shed fat with high amounts of chemicals from non-organic food.) Third, pervasive technology use has changed our active lifestyles to sedentary lifestyles, with declines in physical and mental health. Fourth, overmedication, with excessive prescription drugs and excessive vaccines, has become the norm to manage the physical declines (resulting from processed diets and sedentary lifestyles) and psychosocial stressors of loneliness, chronic stress, and sleep deprivation (resulting from technology overuse). Periodically, we all need to re-evaluate our diet, exercise, toxic exposures, and technology use.