ALL Social Media should be labeled as "disinformation!"

 The ongoing discussion about censorship in social media is a false flag.  Whether it is put out there by a coordinated group or person is immaterial.  The fact is that virtually everything in print today can be argued or accused by someone to be a lie, wrong, mistaken, or otherwise not to be believed or trusted.  And THAT is the purpose of the "disinformation."  It is designed to cause the thought or comment to be dismissed without consideration.  It is simply a "soft sell" censorship, aiming to cause all readers or listeners to dismiss the subject comment or thought without any serious (or, actually, ANY) consideration or allow it to affect thought, belief, and/or action by the reader or listener.

This is simply a cancellation of the Constitution's promise and premise of "Free Speech," which is predicated on no preempting of thought, comment or plea prior to the reading or hearing of that by the public.  The whole benefit of "free speech" is to allow differing points of view a public forum, in the belief that the clear light of day exposes falsehoods as discussion follows.  To prevent that is to invite indoctrination and dictatorial control.

Just who or what takes that control is immaterial to the individual.  It is the loss of the ability, much less the right, to judge what and why any action is being taken, denied, approved, or financed that destroys a society, a republic, a democracy, or any government.  And that removes civil existence as a norm.  It also removes any sense of individual freedom as being "protected" or enforced by governance.

It is wrong to accept any claim that allowing, codifying, or denying any statement (verbal, broadcast, printed, et. al.) is simply a desire to prevent lying or creative facts.  That, in any form, is a recipe for loss of the right to confront all assertions publicly and invites, if not guarantees, dictatorial rule by some entity.  That can be a "created" public attitude, government censorship, or anything in-between.  Only free discourse and argument in the public square ensures that any honest set of beliefs can be adopted by a people.  It does not ensure that the decision will be an "absolute right" decision... just that it will be one made by a majority that decides for at least that moment that the result is desirable and intended.

Why is there more Hatred and Violence in America today?

Some push back on the claim that hatred and violence are more prevalent in America today and in the past hundred years.  They suggest that it may seem that way but it is only because of faster and more thorough communication of violence than any statistical increase.  That is open to discussion.

There is no argument, however, that civility is at a low ebb...lower than that in the past half century at least.  Insults, disrespect, and harassment used to be not only objectionable, but cause for being ostracized from society at large and any consideration for holding authoritative office or employment.  If you wished to be respected and have your ideas and beliefs considered seriously, you did not act or speak impolitely or insultingly.  To do so was to invite violent reaction; most of us remember the term, "fighting words" as cause for violent reaction. Insulting your family would result in a violent fight and the courts saw the person uttering the disrespectful phrase or label as at fault.

Today, such a person is not ostracized, disrespected or shunned.  Instead, they are elected to public office.  If they are proven liars, they are re-elected to public office and not held to account; they are even granted immunity from legal action for libel and slander.  Apparently consequences no longer exist for such.

Consider it may very well be this lack of consequences that has given rise to increased violence and deaths.

Hatred, anger and disrespect have always existed.  It has been the combination of laws and societal norms that have served to cause those with those feelings to keep them to themselves in order to continue to earn a living and be generally accepted in society...these people felt the pressure of being unacceptable to all around them should they "act out" their antisocial feelings.

For many who disagreed with the ideology, beliefs and false statements of President Obama, these factors controlled.  Mutterings were heard, but the concept of honoring our elective system(s) over-rode the anger and dislike of some, if not many, of President Obama's administration.

The election results of 2016 was considered by many at the time as a case of "what goes around, comes around."  But the Left decided, whether individually or collectively, that such was not to be the case.  They have, so far, thrown a three year tantrum! Vocal calls for Impeachment were heard even before President Trump was inaugurated.  Disrespect and anger were the watchwords of the day.  Harassment and actual assault was deemed appropriate behavior.  Supporters and members of Mr. Trump's administration  were chased from public spaces, from restaurants and followed down public streets subject to vile insulting language.  They were not protected by the law or law enforcement; courts now discovered that such vile behavior was "free speech."  Never before had assault and harassment been considered by the law or American society as constituting "Free Speech."

Consider that the more acceptable emotional outbursts become, the closer those that have emotional feeling come to that line of behavior that involves actual violence.  An analogy would the that allowing everyone permission to stand closer to the edge of a cliff is not only likely, but certain, to result in more people falling off the edge.

That is what America is living with today.  If we truly desire to be a civilized nation...if we want once again to respect all around us even as we disagree on programs, ideas and personal lives...perhaps we need to consider reining in our passions...our emotions.  Maybe it is time to respect each other; not just our friends, but even those who are not our friends.

What continues to be aggravating is that the Left is currently blaming President Trump's administration for this hatred and the resulting violence, calling upon him to put a stop to it.  Considering that the hatred AND the violence began with the "resist" movement, assaults and harassment by Antifa, calls on the public to harass any and all Trump appointees and supporters by the Left's elected representatives (Representatives Barbara Lee, Ted Lieu, Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, Eric Swalwell, Maxine Waters,  Senators Kamala Harris, Charles Schumer, Governor Andrew Cuomo, among many others) one is tempted to laugh out loud at the hypocrisy. 

Almost half of the voters in  2016 (some suggest MORE than half) have abandoned civility and past societal norms, advocating the casting away of the United States Constitutions Freedoms and protections in favor of mob rule.

Their words and actions have brought the American Republic to the brink of disaster.  If they succeed we all...our children and grandchildren...will reap the consequences.

"Open Border" advocates are not "American"

I repeat..."open border" advocates are not "Americans."  Oh, they can be citizens. They can also be citizens of other countries.  But they are absolutely not Americans.

Why?

Because the concept of a country...every country... is that it has borders.  Those borders are definite.  They are defended.  They are enforced.  It is effective borders that make, for instance, Germany different than France, and Italy different from Austria.  If it weren't for borders, eventually the languages would merge, individual traditions would fade and the individual country identifications would fade into oblivion.

Those who advocate open borders for the United States of America ... and for the rest of the world if asked ... are those who believe in a World Order or World Government,

They see no value in the United States Constitution, or any other country's founding documents or beliefs, because it is their intention to create a world-wide unit that will be run by an entity populated by those they consider gifted, educated (by their definition) elites that will direct how the rest of the world's population will behave and live.

Should you doubt this, "google" Agenda 21, read all the basic documents and position papers, then check to see the progress that it has made in various countries of the world and get back to me.

Whether our President was Clinton (Bill or Hillary) or Trump matters little to them except as to the degree either of them would present road blocks to the New One World Order.  Think of it as the German Reich on steroids.

Consider that the United States of America is almost an ungovernable entity as it now exists, thanks to President Lincoln and the Civil War.  And that has nothing to do with slavery.  That is based on the fact that the founding fathers realized that a Republic was an effective and responsive form of government only for a limited area or limited population.  They full expected that as the colonists expanded into the continent and the population grew that new Republics would be formed to retain the responsive self-rule that they so valued.  They full expected those new Republics to create treaties and alliances with the original for the purpose of self-defense, but that each would have a government that would serve the citizens of each respective Republic.  Consider this: at the time of the formation of the Republic, each member of the House of Representatives represented  30.000 people.  Today, each member of the House represents 720,000 people.  To get the same level of responsiveness today, the House would have to consist of over 10,500 people.  Does any sane individual really think that your Elected Representative is influenced by what you...or even you and one thousand of your friends...thinks?  Does any sane person think that this ratio is even in the ball park of ensuring representative government?

But as bad as this is, consider what would happen with a World Government.  Jefferson accurately indicated that eventually government becomes the enemy of individual freedom.

That being so, the question now is whether a sufficient number of our citizens are Americans, and if they are prepared to fight to preserve at least the diluted representative government that we still have.

I don't know the answer...but I suspect that the next decade will reveal the answer.

Has the United States become "Balcanized?"

After much effort and planning, my father emigrated from Norway to the United States in the early 1920s.  He first had to arrange a sponsor, then get a written guarantee of a job, save money so that he would not be a burden on the government, show that he had a place to live when he arrived and finally, upon entry, go through a physical exam to show that he was not bringing with him any communicative disease(s).  He told me he never thought that these requirements were burdensome, wrong or illegal; they were good, common sense requirements to protect both the United States and him.

He spoke little English, but those he lived with and worked with immediately began teaching him English and he enrolled in Citizenship Classes to prepare him for the Citizenship Exam.  He...and all who attended those classes with him...came to America to become "Americans."  He honored his birth country, Norway, and taught me to do the same...but he emphasized that he hadn't come to America to make America into a "little Norway,"...he had come to become a true "American."  He wanted to, and believed in, assimilation.  He and all the other immigrants that he came to know were anxious to become a part of the the miracle that was the United States of America...a country where one found the freedom to try to succeed in ways not available to him in Europe...and understood that that freedom came with the possibility of consequences of failure, too.  That was the trade-off: freedom to strive came with no guarantees other than the right to "try."  And he found that if you failed, you had the opportunity to try again.  And he did.

Dad loved visiting Norway in later years, and being with old friends and acquaintances...but he never failed to exhibit a sigh of relief when he came home again to America and say, "it's so good to be home again"...he was an "American."  Not a "Norwegian-American."  And he was both proud and thankful for that.

As I was going through school I was surrounded by kids also born to immigrants...from many different countries.  We got to know and appreciate each other and each other's national backgrounds...but always there was the attitude that those backgrounds were nice, they were part of "us"...but they were incidental; we were Americans.  We appreciated and we abided by the rules and the laws of America...and expected everyone to do the same.  Those who broke the laws and the rules were outcasts...not by any command or written edict, but automatically by their disregard and disrespect for the essence of "America."

Sadly, my observations reveal that this "America" has largely disappeared and is well on its way to extinction.  First, I see multitudes (particularly in the Southwest) who have not come here "by the rules" or legally.  Second, I see many groups refusing to assimilate, keeping to groups from their country of origin continuing to speak the language of their country of origin and refusing to even make believe they are trying to learn English.  Third, a majority of today's immigrants still hold allegiance to their country of origin and not to the United States of America...and attempt to make America into a "mini" version of their country of origin, even to the point of disrespecting the American Flag and flying the flag of their birth country.

 Most importantly, I see the Federal Government of the United States of America actually supporting these activities, aiding and abetting this lack of assimilation.  And the result is that the United States of America has become increasingly "Balcanized."  As Europe originally did in areas of the Caribbean and South America, areas of the United States now seem less like America and more like small versions of other foreign countries...America has disappeared.

The Federal Government no longer truly protects our borders or control who comes to America...and then takes action against border states that attempt to fill the need for that protection and control, leaving the citizens of those states unprotected and at risk.  Add to that the actions of some major cities that put the welfare of those who surreptitiously and illegally cross into this country above that of lawful citizens.  Arguably, those elected officials in those cities are in abdication of their oaths of Office...but neither the citizens of those cities or the Federal Government seems to care...at least not enough to demand that that be stopped.

America is losing its identity...and amazingly a great number of our citizens do not seem to mind or care.  Thankfully, my father has passed away...otherwise these actions would insure his dying of embarrassment for the country he adopted as his own and loved more than where he was born.  And I am embarrassed for my country's abdication of its character.

Why the protest against Patriotism?

Our schools and many of our politicians today want to do away with patriotism.  Even the courts seem to agree.  Schools no longer start the day with the Pledge of Allegiance or singing the National Anthom, something that use to be the norm.  Why?

I know of no other country on earth that provides the combination of opportunity and the lack of a "class" attitude that prevents individuals from working to accomplish great things.  Many of our largest, most profitable, most generous, and most innovative companies were started by people who came from low or middle class backgrounds and who accomplished much without even completing a college degree.  It was their effort and accomplishment that was rewarded.

And it was rewarded by the United States of America and its economy.  No other nation state provides the opportunities for individual success that does America.

Yet there are apparently a sizable, if not a majority, of those who control education in America that deem America a "bad" entity; who take every opportunity to focus on her faults and ignore her strengths.  Not satisfied with that, they work to cease teaching our children to value the good that exists in America; they often extol the belief and economic systems in other countries, arguing that America is bad because it doesn't proved equality of accomplishment and pay to every person who resides (note that citizenship is not a factor) in the country...or even visits.

These individuals and groups ignore that no other country provides the opportunities that are available to every citizen of America.

More important, they ignore that many countries and ideologies in the world seek to destroy the entity that we know as America.

Why?

If they know of another governing entity that is better, why not extol it factually, providing the basis for all citizens to evaluate their point of view.  Why do they use subterfuge and flawed emotional arguments to eliminate competition in schools, rewards for excellence and diminution of accomplishment as a basis for grades...and even arguing that grades or performance is "hurtful."

These people seek only to destroy the United States as a shining example of individual achievement when given individual freedom.

Why do we allow them to hold office, positions of power, and honor them with acceptance?

Does Socialist Governing make for a resigned populace?

During my life I have had opportunities to visit many different countries.  Many of them were, at the time of my visit, ruled by governments that were Socialist in nature...some even coming close to Dictatorships.  And, over time, I have noticed a peculiar constancy of national attitude:  the level of "contentedness" is the inverse of the level of personal freedoms.  The higher the level of government control of personal and business life, the lower the level of happiness and the higher an attitude of "resignation."

There have been volumes written about the financial toll as well as the results of Socialist, Marxist and even Communist governing.  And one finds it hard to disagree with the fact that those types of governments have always ultimately failed...usually after having exhausted the earnings and savings of the "rich" to finance government benefits.  It is undeniable that during this period of governance there is a sense of "happiness" and contentment with this approach.

One difficulty with all of this is that during this period of euphoria over low cost or "free" benefits, the majority become accustomed to doing less work, lowering production as well as efforts to succeed; after all, the government is guaranteeing an acceptable existence without any consequences from failed performance...one need not "earn" anything.  It is, indeed, the good life...apparently.  And people adjust to that attitude.

But ultimately life demands the discovery and acknowledgement that there is no such thing as "free" anything...lunch, government benefits, guarantees, etc.  This is not a "happy" discovery, even to those who know in their depths of soul what the truth is...no one enjoys playing life's equivalent of Musical Chairs when the loser finds his family going hungry, without housing, and having lost the knowledge and conditioning to be independent.

Many of those nation states then turn to anarchy and slowly develop new government entities that for a time do not forget the lessons of the previous experience.

This commentary is NOT about those.

There are nations that even after the early blush of easy benefits continue to support a Socialist style governing...it usually has some democratic element, such as elections and the appearance or fact of some popular representation, yet applying the leveling elements of a Socialist environment.  Much of Europe is governed in this manner.

One of these nations is Norway.  My father immigrated to the United States almost a century ago; he waited for years and had to have a sponsor that guaranteed that he had a job ready for him, and had a place to live, and generally could show that he would not be a burden to the government or to anyone if he were allowed to come to the United States.  In due course he became a citizen...and held the United States in high esteem for the rest of his life; we were told that while our heritage was important, we were first and finally Americans and this was our country and to which we owed our total allegiance.  We were here to be a part of the American existence, not to complain or try to change it.

Why did he come to America?  Because he was from a family that had fallen on hard times, with the early and unexpected death of his father.  Norway guaranteed an existence.  He would never have gone hungry.  He would never not have had a job.

But...he could never have improved his existence.  He couldn't save enough to buy property and build a house...the taxes were too high.  Sure, that meant that he never had to pay for Doctors or hospital or elderly care services.  But he could not improve his personal existence.  The governmental system protected his status, but did not allow him the financial freedom to improve it.

America guaranteed nothing...BUT the chance, the opportunity, to risk all but allow him the reward as well as the consequences of his own efforts.  THAT is what America used to offer; it is the essence of a Capitalistic and Democratic governing status.

That opportunity to succeed on the basis of your individual efforts...as well as the risk of failure...is what makes democracies different from Socialist nations.  And that governing approach encourages an optimistic point of view as well as the total effort to succeed on a self-reliant basis.  For my father and for many of his friends, a government guarantee would have been an insult...an indication that someone thought they weren't good enough to succeed on their own, that they were "less-than" others.  Even during the Great Depression, my father did whatever work he could find and never once doubted that he would survive and ultimately succeed.  Even during that period, my father remained optimistic, knowing...believing...that the hard times would pass and he would then succeed.

His attitude was the same that our Founding Fathers must have had; they wanted independence, not patriarchal or matriarchal care and governance.

Americans always have complained...but they also found much to support their internal happiness.  For every element in their lives that were a challenge, there was one or more that provided a source of happiness, of opportunity, of joy.  No one problem was insurmountable.

In socialist nations the government is the single, overwhelming element in your life;  if you have a problem and the government cannot "fix" it, it will never be fixed.  You are locked into a level of existence and, while that might be insured, you will rarely be able to change it or improve your place in that society.  And that promotes a certain sense of resignation and even sadness that colors your existence.  Oh sure, there are celebrations and moments of joy...but they are temporary and often seem transparently unable to hide the underlying sense of having to be satisfied with what and where you are.

Lately, I have found myself looking around and growing sad as so many Americans seem to be coming to the conclusion that their only choice is to take what the government can provide, feeling uneasy but finally accepting the not-always-so-slow incursion of government into their lives, regulating how they can live, what they can say, what they can read or hear, who or what they may worship in public.  Like wild pigs, they are becoming comfortable with being fed, instead of foraging on their own, and ignore the erection of a fence on one side of the food, to be followed by the erection of a second side...and so on, until they will find that they have allowed themselves to be imprisoned and no longer have any freedom of choice at all.  And then they, too, will feel what my father felt so long ago in Norway; an imprisoned existence.  And there will be no "United States of America" to hold the promise of a different way of life.

Has America stopped respecting and being governed by the Constitution?

My generation revered the Constitution.  Beginning in grade school...and right through High School...all kinds of History classes were linked and compared to the Constitution, comparing and contrasting it's content against other governments in other times.  The Founding Fathers were also shown great respect for the thought and considerations they embodied in the Constitution, and than the Bill of Rights...and even the declarations and wording of the Declaration of Independence.

Not so anymore.

My grandchildren to to highly ranked schools, several now in Middle school, one in High School, one in College.  They had almost zero teaching centering on the Constitution.  Any time spent on the Founding Fathers seemed designed to find fault and to "bring them down" to a level that was disrespectful of their person's and, by extension, their work product.  Their teaching seems designed, through criticism as well as neglect, to create disrespect for the "idea" of America.

Today technology seems to rule.  Technology is a wonderful tool, although I often think that the young people of today have become too dependent on it; they don't know multiplication tables in their head, they often can't do simple math and need a calculator, a slide rule is an unworkable puzzle to them, and except for the math "nerds" Algebra and the solving of simultaneous equations might as well be Greek (and don't get me started on languages and vocabulary).  They can't write legibly...even printing is questionable, and they can't "problem solve" without "Google" or "Bing" and they are lost if the internet goes down for even a moment.  They "text" to each other even if in the same room, and walk down streets and malls blind to the actual world around them.  Most don't know their elected officials on any level, have no idea of how any government actually works, can't create a budget, read anything that takes more than 3 minutes, and can't be bothered to be civil to anyone.  Discuss the assumptions that the founding fathers had when they started to consider and create and write, and you get puzzled, confounded faces.

The concepts of "opportunity", "consequences", Pursuit", "earning", "civility", "responsibility", and "respect for others"...among others...is foreign to them.  They are familiar with the concepts of "being owed", "privileges", "my rights", "someone else's fault", and other narcissistic traits.  Their schooling (not sure if that term is appropriate any longer...perhaps indoctrination would be more truthful) and their experiences as they went through their school years have indicated that this is the way to look at life.

"Someone" has done these folks a disservice.  And that "someone" is us...all of us.  Oh, I could write for hours on the Progressive infiltration and present control of the entirety of our educational (Yeah...right!) systems, from Kindergarten (note the Germanic origin of the word...our school system is based on the Prussian Model that was intended as much for indoctrination and regimentation as it was for any real education.  Basic reading, writing and math was fine, but independent problem solving and thinking was not desired) through Doctorate Level Degrees and the application of Alinsky's Rules to turn out intellectually inadequate "graduates."  I could point out how many of the High School Graduates today cannot write a cogent sentence, cannot spell, cannot do simple math without a machine, and are unable to concentrate for more than 3 minutes on anything before wanted and...in some cases...needing to consult "Facebook" or the like.

But what is most disappointing is that it is our collective fault.  The not-so-slow disintegration of our society has not been done in secret.  It has happened out in the open and ... although couched in ways and terms that seemed legal, civil, and considerate at the time ... we all knew that we were allowing a diminution of our ideals and allowing avoidance of the concepts of "right" and "wrong."  Oh, we had excuses.  We had "reasons".  The end results was that we gave up the concept of standards and the expectation of "striving" in favor of the lowest common denominator; of not wanting anyone to "feel bad" about not being first.  And we gave up on the standards assumed in the Constitution to be a constant...that of "earning" one's way, of suffering consequences of bad decisions, of recognizing that there is such a thing as failure...and that one can actually learn from it and use failure as a sign-post to success.  This is the kind of thing that a study of the Greek Empire and the Roman Empire would have revealed to our children and grandchildren.  Such an understanding is essential to being a good citizen, whether having a College Education or not...but it no longer is taught in our Grade, Middle, and High Schools.  Oh, an occasional perceptive teacher who is dedicated to his or her students' well-being and success in life may include some portion in the course of a semester or year...but not many do, some because they themselves are not aware of its importance.

Is it too late to save the "idea" of America?  I want to believe that it is not, but...when close to 50% of us are living on the Government's tab rather than on what we have achieved and earned on our own, and that Government tab is creating what is approaching Nineteen Trillion ($19,000,000,000)Dollars in debt, it is hard to see any way to repay it without telling a lot of people, many of which will be determined voters if you take away their "free" stuff, "NO!"  Madison and Jefferson warned about the dangers once any democratic form of government served a populace who discovered they could vote themselves money that they didn't earn.  I fear that we are now there...

Do the American People even want real Freedom anymore?

Oh, I know everyone wants to do as they wish.  But that is not Freedom.  Freedom is not license and it is not lack of consequences; Freedom is the right and even the obligation to take charge of your own life, to make decisions for yourself, and then suffer or be rewarded for those decisions, learning from your experience and growing in the security that you did do that yourself.

What and how the government operates has little effect on thirty (30%) percent of the population; about 15% will never want or achieve independence or be much concerned with freedom; and about 15% will never be stopped from struggling for independence and freedom, despite any government or other attempts to make them dependent.  But the remaining seventy (70%) percent of our population can be and are influenced by both laws and by what seems acceptable in general society.

For years, biblical morality was the general norm.  People understood, even if the laws didn't say it outright, what was acceptable in society and in public action and discourse...and they abided by it for the most part.  Men didn't swear in a proper public forum or in the presence of women; women didn't use foul language when in public (what and how they spoke when with other women has always been a mystery).  Men held doors for women to enter first, parents disciplined their children as they saw fit, and children were expected to be seen and not heard.  Not always codified, nonetheless there was a certain level of behavior that was expected.

And one of those expectations was that every person would earnestly try to successfully earn a living for both himself and for his family; that being "on the dole" or receiving assistance from family, acquaintances, a "Community Chest" organization or the government was an embarrassment and to be avoided if at all possible...and, if not, to be repaid or to get off of any assistance as quickly as possible.  Such proof of lack of independence was a sign of both failure and or loss of Freedom of existence.

Again, this attitude was not necessarily codified...but it was enforced by public perception.

None of this appears to remain true today.  Oh, there are some who give lip service to the concepts.  But actions speak louder than words.  And legal decisions seem to encourage and buttress concepts that consequences are politically incorrect; that there is no bedrock of "right" and "wrong"; that an inability to support oneself is not embarrassing or to be corrected, as someone or something else owes you a subsistence.

When the government creates a support system that actually results in reducing your earned income if you take a job instead of remaining on government-sponsored and created programs, thus punishing you for wanting to actually earn a living, the vast majority of the public quickly adjusts to the new attitude that working or earning a living doesn't matter...that government will be your "big Daddy" and take care of you.  How utterly appalling, disrespectful, insulting as well as destructive to the individual and society at large.  And how absolutely it puts the country on the path to destruction, as that kind of support ultimately runs out of money even as the percentage of citizens growing up to expect such support grows toward 100%.

And yet young adults all around me seem blissfully unaware of the inherent dangers of dependence on others to survive.  They also have a narcissistic view of what is important in their world.  Certainly there are some who battle this view...but they ultimately abandon that instinct because 1) of the influence of their friends, or 2) come to see the injustice of their being required to support so many who could but don't work.

So a very good case can currently be made for the proposition that, other than in words, the American people care not one wit about their Freedom and are totally prepared to be dependent and be controlled by any entity (currently our government) that will provide an acceptable level of subsistence and not hold them accountable or enforce "consequences."  The failure to accept personal responsibility and hold to moral standards of conduct seem eerily reminiscent of the historical descriptions of the fall of both the Greek and the Roman Empires.  Perhaps our country will prove the exception.  I, at least, am not counting on it.

Is the concept of "Consequences" being eradicated around the world?

Sometimes I get so overwhelmed that writing seems as if it increases the pain and the disappointment in the world around us; that even commenting on it increases the clarity of the error(s) of our ways and makes it even more unlikely that there ever will be a Financial-like correction in our moral compass, bringing us back to something like a meaningful society.

But, eventually the words and thoughts build up and demand their freedom...a release, even if without effect, to flow into the universe looking for fertile soil in which the thoughts contained may take root and be discussed with other, compared, and considered.

So...today my thoughts center around what seems to be a general consensus of the majority that there should be no such things as Consequences.

Friends and acquaintances have said that I am over-reacting; that consequences are still the norm.  They point out that there are laws and, when broken, that they are enforced to settle consequences on the law breakers.  They suggest that generally, despite the exceptions, those who do evil and wrong things are held to account.

My response it that not only does it not happen often enough, but that the frequency of it happening is in decline.  Moreover, when people do the right thing, more often than not they are criticized for "getting involved."  Millions of people are cheating on their taxes; few are ever made to suffer any consequences, nor do they lose the approbation of their neighbors and associates...many of these miscreants are actually held in high esteem by those that know their actions.  Just yesterday a gang rape took place on a Florida Beach, surrounded by multitudes of young people drinking beer and partying, and not one person interfered with the attack.  Only because of the fact that someone actually filmed video of the event was any police action taken...if not accidental, then just sign of the fact that such behavior is acceptable.

There are some people who are psychopaths who will ignore laws in favor of their own wishes and desires.  There are others who need no laws to motivate them; they will do all they can to help others and make life better for their fellow man.  But the vast majority in the middle are remarkably responsive to the general behavior and general definition of acceptance in the ordering of their lives...they won't rock the boat.  And it seems clear to me that the boat may be deserving of some rocking...not that I have much hope that such action will happen anytime soon.

Some of my friends suggest that this is simply a natural phenomenon; such a fall occurred to the Greeks as well as the Roman Empire and therefore it is inevitable that it happens to the United States of America.  I used to agree in major part with this view.

But now I wonder if it is not far more extensive that just an American phenomenon.  It seems to be spreading to the International Stage...to the entire world.  My friends say I am nuts...which, of course, may or may not be true and a subject that may be worthy of a full discussion at a later point...but I am not convinced.

Consider the events in Foreign affairs in the last year or so.  Terrorists killed our Ambassador to Lybia and others.  One person was arrested.  Have any of them been punished, much less caught?  Russia has annexed through force a portion of the Ukraine.  Has there been any uproar of any significance from the world nation states, much less those countries immediately surrounding the area?  For years, Pirates have operated lucrative seizures of ships off the coast of Africa, making millions of dollars from the hijackings?  Any serious repercussions to those pirates?

And more recently we have the rise of ISIL (or ISIS, or whatever they are calling themselves these days, as if it matters) and the killing of all believers in Christianity that they catch, as well as many of Islamic sects with which they disagree.  Any serious repercussions?  And some in the world see their cause as acceptable.  Yes, there are words of condemnation but few indeed...and tiny if you look at the percentage of involvement...people involved in standing against it.

Consider the matter of Iran.  Here is a nation-state that has a track record of lying and failure to abide by promises.  A nation state that finances and supports with material and people terrorists around the world.  Any consequences?  Well, one of my friends argued that we do have economic sanctions in force which hurts them.  Oh? Really?  Who is hurt?  The leaders?  The ones who control the actions of Iran?  Or is the people of Iran who suffer despite have very little, if any, control over the political decisions of Iran's leaders?

But that is the past and is almost an after-thought now.  Now Iran is working toward developing a nuclear capability, which could include nuclear weaponry.  So...what does the world do?  It sits down with the powers in Iran and begins negotiating.  Not declaring that such a development is unacceptable, which each participating nation had assured their own citizens up until a short time ago was not ever going to be allowed, but a timetable by which ultimately Iran would have the capability it desires...and also a lifting of sanctions.  And all of this based on a written promise by Iran to limit their activity toward such an end.  Doesn't anyone else see anything wrong with this picture?  A country that has a consistent track record of breaking promises now is to get relief from sanctions on the basis of a written "promise" to play well with others?  Really?  Wonder what odds would be given by any professional Book-maker on Iran fulfilling that promise.  And yet, multiple nation-states are actually seriously considering entering into such an agreement.

This is not only a failure of Consequences, but could be argued appears to be reverse consequences...a reward for bad behavior.

And the most recent event involves the Communist nations of Cuba.  Cuba has been cut off from diplomatic ties to America ever since the Communists took control of that country.  It has a proven record of human rights violations, has no freedom of the press, precious little freedom of religion and is a Dictatorship.  No change at all.  So...what are the consequences?  America opens up talks to re-establish diplomatic relations with Cuba.  This amounts, also, to reverse consequences; a reward for continued bad behavior.

What I am raising for discussion is that fact that all around the world there seems to be a general acceptance that consequences for bad behavior can be done away with and there will be no adverse repercussions.

I think that is not possible.  The balance that the world has heretofore acknowledged is that all people and nations should have the freedom to make decisions and choices for themselves....but that those choices have consequences.  It is the consequences that check the unfettered expression of wants and desires.  Freedoms without consequences becomes license...and that never turns out well for anyone.