Children of single-parent fathers have about the same percentage of problems as those in two-parent homes. However, children in homes where the father is not present have statistically much greater problems in their lives. This has been known since the 1965 Moynihan Report. A whole body of research has grown up in subsequent years to show that households lacking a father experience psychosocial problems more often than children with a father in the home. People just do not want to talk about it because it does not fit their preferred narrative.

A report by the Minnesota Psychological Association notes in some detail that children who grow up without their fathers are much more likely to experience ten very negative results.

One: They resent paternal figures (such as teachers and police) because they feel abandoned by their own fathers. Their resentment and anger can make it difficult for them to establish friendships and healthy relationships.

Two: Children from a father-absent home often have serious emotional issues because of inability to establish strong bonds. They often assume that neutral actions by others are actually hostile toward them. They have difficulty developing empathy, self-control, and healthy romantic relationships.

Three: Children who grow up in fatherless homes are twice as likely to suffer physical and/or emotional abuse. It also adds a psychological burden on the child as he or she tries to make sense of why his or her father is not there.

Four: Children from father-absent homes are more likely to be obese. The style of parenting used by fathers has much to do with how much more fit their children are, but the parenting style of the mother has little effect on obesity and fitness levels.

Five: The more a child can interact with his or her biological father, the less chance he or she will commit a crime or end up in the juvenile justice system. Children who never had a father living with them have the highest incarceration rates. Those children also are at greater risk of using illegal drugs at an earlier age.

Six: Children want to feel like they “belong.” Children are much more likely to turn to gangs to gain a sense of community and acceptance that they lack when their fathers are not in the home.

Seven: Children often have a sense that they are worth less than others because their fathers abandoned them. This increases the risk of suicide and self-injury. They are more likely to be depressed, develop anxiety, and withdraw socially.

Eight: Children from father-absent homes are more likely to drop out of school and less likely to pursue higher education than children from two-parent households. A.L. Bryant in the Journal of Adolescent Research (2003) notes that “African American boys who identify their father as their role model demonstrate significantly higher grade point averages and are less likely to be truant from school.”

Nine: Children from father-absent homes are four times more likely to live in poverty. They also have less opportunity for making connections that can lead to well-paying jobs.

Ten: Children from homes with absent fathers are at greater risk of abusing alcohol and other drugs. They lack the protection that a father can provide against such abuses.

We have lots of social problems in this country. The government and private organizations spend vast amounts of money on the symptoms of those problems. Their expenditures would be far more fruitful if they were applied to the causes rather than the symptoms. One of those causes is the lack of enough fathers who will stand up and raise the babies that they so easily make. Helping these “missing in action” biological fathers learn how to be real fathers is only one part of the solution, but it is a major part. We must quit ignoring the problem if we are ever to find a solution to it.

Cordially,
Steve “Doc” Troxel, Ph.D.

One would think that if socialism is so great, socialists would be able to convince capitalists of its merits. Likewise, capitalists should be able to convince socialists of the merits of the free enterprise system. I originally thought that socialists could not be swayed because they hate America. Maybe they do. But then comes the question of “why.”

Socialists will diffidently tell you that Americans have far more than our share of the world’s wealth. They fail to recognize how generous Americans are with their abundance to those in need around the world.

One socialist famously complained that when one Asian country had a great natural disaster, the U.S. sent an aircraft carrier to intimidate the people into submission. Our government representative corrected that biased socialist by informing him that the American carrier had FIVE cafeterias to feed the victims plus TWO hospitals along with helicopters to airlift people to the ship for food and medical attention. And America paid the entire cost of that relief effort.

But countering socialists’ arguments never seems to sway their opinions, and you wonder why.

Then last week as my son and I were traveling together, he was listening to a podcast by Ryan Daniel Moran (Capitalism.com). I was casually listening in, and almost as an aside, Moran explained why socialists won’t listen to anything capitalists have to say. There thinking is based on a fundamentally flawed premise that is totally opposite to the foundational premise of capitalist thinking.

Socialists believe that there are limited economic resources and if one person or group has more than another person or group, then they must have selfishly taken more than their share. They think that there is only one, never changing economic pie and that everyone should have a piece that is exactly the same size as everyone elses’.

Capitalists on the other hand believe that economic resources are expanding and that if you want more economically, you create it. That’s where the term “creating wealth” originated. Think about it: astronomers declare that the universe is expanding. Any competent rancher with a bull and a few cows can in a few years expand his herd to great size. Anyone with adequate motivation can create a new economic “pie.”

Everything about life and existence screams that we can create more of what we need and want. After all, the God Who created us is a creator God, so why would we not be creators in the image of the One who created us.

Socialists deny our ability to create. Former President Obama infamously told business owners they did not create their businesses. This comes from a man who never held a job other than community organizer or government official. He had never created anything economically, so of course he didn’t and doesn’t know how it is done.

But every small business owner in America does know how to create more economic “pie” because they are doing it. That is why Donald Trump is so popular with the middle class. Yes, he received a lot of money from his family, but he was able to use it to create even more wealth. More than that, because he had learned how to expand wealth, he set about as President to make conditions favorable for everyone else to create wealth, too. Everyone who put in the work necessary to create personal wealth, could and did.

Socialists hate Donald Trump because they believe he is just stealing more of the static economic pie from everyone else. This brings us back around to the underlying premise of Socialism. The economy out there is all there is, and no one is allowed to have more than anyone else. That is their idea of fair. That is the basis for their idea of “Equity.”

Capitalists believe in “Equality” not equity. Everyone has the right to pursue an expanding economic footprint for themselves and their families – to bake more economic pies, if you want to continue the analogy. If you make more pie, then it doesn’t matter how big your piece is. You aren’t taking pie away from someone else if the pie wouldn’t exist without your efforts. Each of us should be able to enjoy the pie we create – even if we just give it away.

Capitalism has been around for four millennia. It was the way of life from long before Moses. Socialism has only been around for about 150 years. I’ll go with the idea that has stood the test of time. After all, who doesn’t enjoy fresh baked “pie” – other than socialists, of course.

Cordially,
Steve “Doc” Troxel, Ph.D.

For years Virginia Republicans have held an annual “Advance” in December to inspire and educate Republican loyalists for the coming year. Unfortunately, the Advance has the undeserved reputation of being too “rich” for the average Republican.

We still want you to get the training that is so important to Republican victory at the polls, so congratulations grassroot conservative. Some grassroots conservative leaders have organized a “Grassroots Muster” for you. You don’t have to be rich – because the price is very reasonable. You just have to love your country deeply enough to invest a couple of days – August 6 and 7 to be specific – to learn what you can do to help defeat the Democratic madness and to get excellent training in how to be much more effective in the things that you do.

The official name is “Election Integrity Regional Rally,” and it will be held in DeMoss Hall on the campus of Liberty University in Lynchburg, VA.

The regular price is $80 per individual or $150 for a couple. However, if you order your tickets by August 1^st individual tickets are $60 and couples’ tickets are $110. The special price has been advertised for weeks, but time is about up, so you need to move quickly. You can buy your tickets by clicking here. Also note that you can get special rates at Spring Hill Suites if you reserve by July 30 (today) and at Comfort Inn & Suites (434-266-1111) if you reserve by July 31. Both are right on the edge of the LU campus on US 29.

What you get for your investment will really help you be effective in your work.

The Rally kicks off on Friday night at 6:00 with a banquet featuring speakers Congressman Ben Cline and Congressman Bob Good. Remember that opening banquets are more than just a meal and a speech. This is a time to get to meet and know other conservatives with the same dreams and goals for the country that you have. It’s a time to reassure yourself that you are not alone in the fight for freedom. It is also a time to get focused on the Saturday sessions that are the main reason for your attendance.

On Saturday you get the really good stuff. There are three breakout session time slots in the morning and two session slots in the afternoon. Each breakout period has either three or four options from which to choose. A number of them are repeated in different periods, so you don’t have to worry about missing out if two that you want to attend are scheduled at the same time.

One of the sessions is Voter Integrity #1 with Bedford County GOP Chair Tim Griffin and Phil Kline. These gentlemen have been deeply involved in the ballot integrity issues in states around the country. Another session is Voter Integrity #2 with Amber Haskew and other subject experts that Amber has gathered. She will talk about ballot integrity at the local level and what you and your unit can do to force a clean, honest election in your area. As a side note, I was asked to lead this session, but I have a long-standing family commitment that day that I cannot change (though I tried). I recommended Amber because she is one of the most involved, informed, and well-spoken individuals in the party on this topic. I strongly encourage you to stop in for either the morning or afternoon session.

Other topics include winning through local organization, winning through voter registration, fundraising, structure of the Republican Party, developing candidates, and issues that challenge local school boards. Presenters include a number of unit chairs and other subject experts as well as RPV Chairman Rich Anderson.

The Saturday evening banquet at 5:00 features all three of our statewide candidates: Jason Miyares for Attorney General, Winsome Sears for Lieutenant Governor, and Glenn Youngkin for Governor.

As you can see, this is a top-drawer event with top-drawer individuals providing you with the information you need to be both informed and effective for this fall’s election.

It is well worth the investment of your time and money.

Cordially,
Steve “Doc” Troxel, Ph.D.

Ultra-Liberal Democrats in their infinite stupidity, have introduced a bill flying under the false flag of “The Protecting the Right to Organize Act” (the PRO Act – H.R. 842). A more appropriate title for the bill would be “The Protecting the Ability of the Federal Government to Harm Employees, Independent Workers, and Job Creators While Giving Unions Unfair Advantages Act.”

This article is not a put down on unions. For the record, my father is doing well, thank you, living on his union pension over 30 years after he retired. Unions, when done right and with good leadership, can be of great benefit to their members. Unfortunately, while some unions are good; others are not so much.

This article is a protest against federal intrusion into the employment practices of each state, who know their economic situations better than the monolith on the Potomac ever could.

Speaking of infinite stupidity, the PRO Act is based on a law passed in California in 2019 that was drastically changed nine months later because the effects of the original law were so bad. Voters struck down major parts of the amended law in November 2020. The bill before Congress is based on the original, unmitigated law.

This bill if passed would do away with Right to Work in all 27 states that have it. That means if half the employees at a business joined a union then all employees would have to join. And, if someone decided they didn’t want to pay union dues, the union could require the employer to fire that worker. Under Right to Work, unions have to provide real benefit to their members or their members will opt out. The PRO Act removes the ability to opt out of a bad union.

This bill will harm independent workers by placing very strict interpretations on who can be considered an independent contractor. The bill would require independent workers to meet every criteria the bill says would be the determining factors. If the worker failed to meet any one of them, that worker would be considered an employee and would be subject to union control. And it certainly won’t benefit the independent contractors. A recent survey showed that 94 percent of independent contractors like their working situation and plan to continue their work arrangement for at least the next three years.

The bill requires employers to give unions their employees’ names, home addresses, phone numbers, and personal email addresses. This throws the doors open wide for intimidation and coercion during union organizing periods. It also provides no protection to prevent that information from being sold to advertisers and political parties.

The bill not only takes away the right of employees to vote for or against the union by secret ballot, but it opens up many of the same ballot integrity issues (ex. mail-in ballots) that are of concern in our elections of public officials.

It would demote supervisors to employee status for union purposes unless those supervisors spent more than half of their time doing management things.

The bill would make it much harder for employees to get rid of bad and unpopular unions. It would greatly limit the employer’s ability to withdraw recognition of a union when the employer has proof that a majority of their employees no longer support that union.

The bill would harm local, independent franchisees by tying them in with their corporate counterpart. If you own a food franchise, for example, the union could tie you into agreements with the corporate franchise provider even though the corporation does not own any part of your business other than the name on the sign.

The bill allows unions to picket companies that sell products or services to unionized companies with whom the union has disputes. The union could drive away customers from neutral businesses in an effort to get those neutral businesses to pressure the unionized companies to settle the dispute.

The list of egregious provisions goes on and on. The PRO Act is really an ANTI-economic growth act. The harm it would cause far outweighs the very little (if any) good it would do. Why does Congress keep doing this to us?

Cordially,
Steve “Doc” Troxel, Ph.D.

The uproar in Loudin County over the teaching of Critical Race Theory and the even bigger protest over the Rockingham School Superintendent following a state mandated transgender bathroom policy are both critical issues, that warrant our attention and opposition. But let’s not forget the most important factor: the children themselves.

About fifteen years ago, an Army veteran friend of mine sent me a few stories that explain “Why we love kids.” I found the stories again in some old files a couple of days ago. Hopefully, these short stories will stir our energy to continue to fight for the well-being of these precious humans. Here goes:

A police officer was taking a routing vandalism report at an elementary school. He was interrupted by a little girl about six years old. She looked up and down his uniform and asked, “Are you a cop?” “Yes,” he answered as he continued writing his report. Not to be put off, she said, “My mother said that if I ever needed help I should ask the police. Is that right?” Now that she had his attention, he told her, “Yes, that’s right.” “Well, then,” she said as she extended her foot toward him, “would you please tie my shoe?”

Another police officer parked his police van in front of the station at the end of a long day. As he gathered his equipment, his K-9 partner, Jake, began barking. When the officer turned to investigate, he saw a little boy staring in at him. The little boy asked, “Is that a dog you got back there?” The officer proudly replied, “It sure is.” Puzzled, the little boy looked at the officer and then toward the dog in the back. Finally, he looked back at the officer and asked, “What did he do?”

While police officers sometimes find themselves in interesting situations with children, parents are always getting their figurative trees shaken.

One mother was trying hard to get ketchup out of a jar. During her struggle, the phone rang, so she asked her 4-year-old daughter to answer the phone. Imagine the mother’s horror when her sweet, innocent daughter told the caller, “Mommy can’t come to the phone to talk to you right now. She’s hitting the bottle.”

Another mother tried to head off that type of situation by giving her child a note to hand to his first-grade teacher on the first day of school. It read, “The opinions expressed by this child are not necessarily those of his parents.”

Fathers don’t escape either. A little girl was watching her parents dress for a party. When she saw her dad putting on his tuxedo, she warned, “Daddy, you shouldn’t wear that suit.” When he asked her why not, she replied, “You know that it always gives you a headache the next morning.”

Nor are children respecters of age. One mother who was employed to deliver lunches to elderly shut-ins would frequently take her 4-year-old daughter on her afternoon rounds. The little girl was unfailingly intrigued by the various appliances of old age, such as canes, walkers, and wheelchairs. One day the mother found her daughter staring at a set of false teeth soaking in a glass. As the mother braced herself for an onslaught of questions about the teeth, the little girl merely turned and whispered, “The tooth fairy will never believe this!”

Many parents teach their children Bible stories from an early age (as they should), but the children’s theology doesn’t always follow at the same speed. One little boy opened the big family Bible. He was fascinated as he fingered through the old pages. Suddenly, something fell out of the Bible. The little boy picked up the object and looked at it. He had discovered an old leaf that had been pressed in between the pages. “Mommy, look what I found,” he called out. Came the reply, “What have you got there?” In an astonished voice, the young boy answered, “I think it’s Adam’s underwear.”

And speaking of innocence and what one wears outside of the Garden of Eden, one parent who was driving in the car with her three young children was astonished to see a woman passenger in a passing convertible stand up in the car and wave. The woman was stark naked. Shocked and concerned about what her children were seeing, she heard her five-year-old shout from the back seat, “MOM! That lady isn’t wearing a seat belt.”

Kids are wonderful. Don’t let the government mess them up.

Cordially,
Steve “Doc” Troxel, Ph.D.