Penna Dexter
Five years ago, in a one-hour radio interview, Jeff Younger told me the story of his battle to save his then-six-year-old son, James. When he was 3, his mother, Jeff’s ex-wife Anne Georgulas, began dressing and treating James as a girl. She began taking him to a transgender-affirming therapist. She obtained a court order enjoining Jeff from dressing James as a boy for school, from teaching him that he is a boy, and from providing religious teachings about sexuality and gender.
James’ mother instructed school authorities that he be treated as a girl. He goes to school, dressed as a girl and obediently answers to his girl name, “Luna.” But, with his dad and twin brother Jude, James is all boy. And, with family friends, he would always play with the boys, as a boy.
As James’s mom, a pediatrician, orchestrated his social transition, his father spent time and money fighting her in Texas courts. In 2019 Jeff lost custody of James and Jude. He did eventually manage to win a court order prohibiting Anne from subjecting James to gender mutilation surgery or hormone treatments.
In late 2022, Anne and the twins moved to California. Jeff maintains that, despite the Texas Supreme Court’s prohibition, Anne initiated the move to take advantage of California’s “trans refuge” laws.
These laws were strengthened in January 2023 when California Senate bill 107 took effect. One provision prohibits the state from enforcing court orders from other states that seek to remove custody from a parent who has moved to California to transition their child.
The question is: will Anne Georgulas now procure puberty blockers, cross sex hormones, and surgical castration for James?
Jeff Younger is convinced that California laws now allow her to do exactly that—and she will.
He’s still protesting, but will not even be allowed to testify at a May 30 court hearing in Los Angeles although several pro-trans “experts” will take the stand.
Stay tuned.

Kerby Anderson
Government gets bigger every year, but how government gets bigger isn’t so easy to understand. There seems to be about the same number of federal employees, but the size and scope of government continues to grow. John DiIulio writes about this in his book and scholarly paper at the Brookings Institution.
Government grows larger by using three types of “administrative proxies.” The first are state and local governments. The EPA, for example, has fewer than 20,000 employees. But 90 percent of EPA programs are completely administered by thousands of state government employees, largely funded by Washington.
Second, there are for-profit businesses and contractors that also mask the large size of the government. In the Defense Department, for example, the hundreds of thousands of civilian workers have been supplemented by hundreds of thousands of for-profit contract employees. Today, the government spends more on defense contracts than it does on all official federal bureaucrats.
Third, there are the various tax-exempt or independent sectors, which have more than doubled in the last thirty years. Many of them owe their jobs to federal or intergovernmental grant, contract, or fee funding.
These facts will be important to remember when Congress and the public debate the federal budget. Although the number of federal employees looks about the same as in previous decades, the federal budget is more than three times larger.
The federal workload has been dispersed and makes government look much smaller than it really is. We do have a big government and should not fall for this federal shell game that tries to hide from taxpayers the real size and scope of government.