We shoot ourselves by giving up on the study and discussion of History

 When was the last time that you felt that your government was being responsive to you, your values, your needs?  When was the last time that you felt that the government was there, in the words of the old half-joke, to help you?  When was the last time that you trusted the government to do the right thing?

If you are like most of the people I know, on all sides of the political spectrum, the answer is, "never!"

For a long time I have searched for a true answer for why this seems to be true.  Some have blamed ideology.  Others point to the need for term limits.  But these answers seem hollow and superficial.  Would changing those things change our attitude about today's United States of America Federal Government?  I suspect not.  So, my search has been ongoing, fitfully, for some time, since it seems that if one cannot define and truly identify the source of and reason for a problem, there is no hope at all for "fixing" it...assuming that it can be fixed.  And suddenly a whole new area of study and possible answer to my ongoing questions came to my attention.

In November of 2013, one Professor Donald Livingston, Professor Emeritus at Emory University, gave a speech at the University of Virginia on Republicanism (the government form, not the political ideology), David Hume, Thomas Jefferson, and Abraham Lincoln.  That speech was broadcast on C-SPAN.  Now, most of us have had ideas come to us suddenly and the proverbial light bulb goes off in your brain.  But...this speech had flashbulbs of incredible brilliance going off continually for an hour of rapt listening...and nodding ascent.  Never before had I even considered the effect of our form of government on the current status of the country.

I had been taught that our government was not a pure democracy but a Republic.  But the difference between a pure democracy and a republic was never, at least in my case, a matter of intense or critical study.  Nor was there ever a study of the advantages and limitations of a republican form of government.

What an error in our educational content.  But, perfectly understandable.  Why?  To answer that question completely requires the reading and study of commentaries on the subject by David Hume and Thomas Jefferson.  Or...for the equivalent of a Cliff Notes summary you might want to watch Prof. Livingston's speech on C-SPAN (  http://www.c-span.org/video/?316075-1/ThomasJeffers   ) which would reduce what otherwise would take months of study to about an hour of video.  But I will share the substance of what stuck with me from watching and listening to Professor Livingston...and I am confident that substance will get your attention and initiate thought and debate.

The general view of republican governance was one where size mattered, if you were going to have representative rule.  If you get too big, you lose representative responsiveness.  Jefferson's vision was one of additional republics being formed as both population and area grew, maintaining the people's control of government.  The republics would then band together in a Commonwealth for cooperative defense and trade.  Up until the Civil War, succession was often discussed and seen as a legitimate evolving action for growth.  It wasn't until Abraham Lincoln reflecting the governmental philosophy of Thomas Hobbs, determined, by force, that the southern states could not secede, and the "indivisible" term became the norm when speaking about the republic. Jefferson's view of the various republics being the political unit, to one where people became the political unit and control was to be centralized.  The French Revolution resulted in the formation of the French Republic, the first modern large modern state republic, looking to the individual as the political unit.

No one comments on the mutually exclusive concepts of republican government as laid out by Jefferson and then by Lincoln (following the Hobbs model), and yet the significance and effects of this clash on our lives is long standing and enormous. The two approaches are incompatible, as Livingstone states.

All of this is interesting on its own, but you might ask how this translates to the perception that we have lost control of our government...and it is a good question.

At the time of the adoption of the Constitution, the House of Representatives elected one Representative for every 30,000 people.  But in 1911 the number of Representatives was capped at 435.  The result is that today there is one Representative for every 720,000 people.  If this ratio were applied to the original 13 states, the House would be composed of 5 members, and 8 states would have no representatives at all. On the other hand, to keep the same 30,000 to 1 ratio today, the House would have 10,500 members.  And the Supreme Court now is the decider of what the Constitution says.  This means that we have lost the republican view of governmental responsiveness as well as the rule of law.

Additionally, consider that the number of votes necessary to enact laws and authorize spending, all concentrated in Washington, D.C., is 268, and if you limit that to a quorum minimum, the number drops to 135.  This level of representation has resulted in a national debt of over 17 Trillion Dollars, and total unfunded liabilities variously estimated to be anywhere from $220 Trillion to $238 Trillion.  This is the burdon that our government has placed on our descendants.  To give you some prospective, in 2011 the Gross Domestic Product of all of the countries in the entire world amounted to $72 Trillion.

Now you start to see the source for the assertion that we no longer control our government.

David Hume wrote on how to solve the problem of size and save the responsiveness of government in a large republic.  Both he and Jefferson realized the greatest danger to the existence of a republic was corruption; the danger of a group of representatives to make decisions for their own purposes and aims. The answer was to divide America into 100 republics, not states, and move the House of Representatives out of Washington to each republic capitol, with each republic having 100 Representatives ( getting us back close to one representative for every 30,000 citizens).  The Senate would pass a bill, and then it would send that bill to each Republic for ratification.

This greatly reduces the likelihood of corruption, as the cost and logistics of lobbying 10,000 Representatives in 100 different locations would be at best, problematic and at worst, impossible.  There would also be the benefit of Representatives living and being constantly available to their constituents countering with "their" wishes at home, rather than reaching out electronically to "representatives" enjoying their comforting isolation and support from the "deep state" in our nation's Capitol.

With such a process, the Senate would be less inclined to introduce bills with "earmarks" and "pork" projects that were clearly not beneficial to all, as there would be greatly reduced chance of passage by the House of Representatives.  And those bills which have merit, but not on the gigantic scale of the Commonwealth, could and would be adopted by those republics individually as they saw the smaller scale need.

Of course, the best operation of the republican form of governance is still the small republic.  The analogy presented by Professor Livingston seemed most apt, even if not absolutely correct from a medical viewpoint: when a cell grows beyond a certain size, it divides...when it does not it is a cancer.

This is why our government no longer serves us; why it may still be "of the people", and "for the people", but is no longer "by the people."  Now I can begin to study and ponder on what the solution may be, including those as presented by the application of David Hume's "Large republic" concept.  But is seems clear that the status quo has nothing to offer.

Will there ever be any limits to defining "abortion?"

 There was a time in America when the killing of an unborn child was considered both a sin and a crime. Today, it is considered a simple "option" by any women who sees the results of her enjoyment of sex as "an imposition." That view was not acceptable then. But it is now. On that basis alone, may I suggest that what I now suggest may seem extreme and unacceptable now, but may very well be public policy in less than 20 years:

Since a child is not viable and able to live on its own even after birth and the mother is seen as responsible for it until it reaches its majority (with a few select exceptions), it would be consistent that, just as an unborn with a defect may now be terminated, why should not a child that develops an illness, has mental deficiencies, or is diagnosed as a dangerous psychopath be able to be killed by the mother,... at her sole discretion? After all, isn't that the power that women who currently become pregnant have right now in states that legalize abortion while the child is still in the womb... even if only the feet remain there? If there is to be equal protection under the law, that there should also be equal NONPROTECTION under those very same laws?

Make a note of this and be prepared to revisit it in the light of developments in the next two decades. Logic applies and, as separate but equal as a concept fell in the last century, so will the current protection wrongly granted to minors when denied to those in the womb.

A secondary challenge is that almost all who favor allowing the killing of children in the womb simultaneously oppose the killing (the "death" penalty) for those convicted of murdering others. That is clearly illogical. These are usually the same people who repeat the mantra, "follow the science," which recognizes the humanity and viability of children in the womb. That relegates the "non-personhood" argument and artificial and denigrating term "fetus" to the curb. Science says that the "fetus" IS a human being and shows that it senses and recoils from pain and danger.

An argument that says a child with no record of any action or choice may be legally killed by the "mother" but denies society the right to kill a person that has murdered and/or raped and or caused the death of another intentionally is just beyond defense. None has ever been presented... at least not to me. If there is one, I'd like to hear or read it so I can "understand" the argument.

Simply saying that one person's existence being a "complication" or "burden" to another has never been seen as a defense to a charge of the second murdering the first... and simply creating a definition that claims to state a difference is spurious at best.

No one has ever responded to these arguments with either logic or reason. All that comes forth are personal insults, gestures, and obscene language or simply walking away without offering any response. Understandable... but sad.

The Supreme Court has done all of us a favor. They put the question of killing babies in the hands of secular legislatures throughout the country, where it belongs. Why? Because although I see abortion as murder, it is the right of the majority in each state to decide on the character of aborting babies, and when. The will of the majority of the people should rule. I do not suggest that makes the act right, but if a citizenry decides to legalize abortion, it should clearly be the decision of that very group, state by state. And that decision, and its ultimate consequences, should be clearly on the heads of each voter and each state legislator. (And I understand and sympathize with their angst at having that burden cast upon them. It was easier when any blame or consequences rested on the Supreme Court rather than on them. But that was wrong, and now they have both the right and the obligation to rule.)

"Mob" Rule apparently now acceptable in America

Life in America today suddenly seems like a combination of a seriously illogical dream and being on the trip that Alice took to "Wonderland."  It appears as if someone set off a device that has deprived almost everyone of any common sense or logic.

Dealing with the relatively new phenomenon of "Terrorism" is bad enough; the senseless killing of innocent individuals by Muslim Extremists, Mentally Ill individuals and a couple of Far-Right Fanatics is an unfortunate fact of life today.  All violence or any sort, whether against persons or property, is to be condemned and punished no matter who the perpetrator.

But by what logic does this sudden desire to sanitize and/or revise History become a populist movement, seemingly endorsed by the Media, the Democrat Party (and its members) and the Republican Party (and its members)?  Has the entire country become so narcissistically enthralled by a desire to "attack" something that such action a denial of historical truth will erase anything or improve life in America in 2017 for anyone?  If this was the 1850's in our West, tomorrow the mob would wake up feeling guilty and avoiding looking each other in the eye out of embarrassment and guilt.

Our President condemns the violence in Virginia by all who took part in that violence, and goes on to condemn the attitudes of Racism as being "wrong" and "unacceptable" but the Media, the Democrat and Republican elected officials and anyone on the ideological Left insists on misinterpreting his comments as equating the beliefs of the Racists with the beliefs of those who declare that Racism is wrong.  Instead of seeing the statement(s) as the plea and demand for non-violence by both sides, promising punishment for those who act violently, as the call for sanity that it clearly is, they incorrectly label his comments in an attempt to profit politically.

Seems as if there is a strong logical basis for suggesting that all of America...or, at least the media and the political establishment (all sides)...should properly be undergoing treatment in a mental hospital.

The only speech allowed these days seems to be Leftist, Socialist, Progressive, Marxist, Liberal and Fascist.  All others are shouted down or prevented from speaking without being denigrated and insulted with the aid of the media.  What is going on today is the over-turning of the Constitutional guarantee of "Free Speech."

For those who respond that the "speech" being quashed is "bad" speech, they might consider that if a group that disagrees with that definition gains power, the reversal will make it impossible for them to speak at all.  The court held that the church that demonstrated at military funerals with a message that clearly was hurtful to the families involved had a Constitutional right to so demonstrate.  There was emotional hurt but no violence.

How much more effective would it have been if the legal march in Virginia (they had a permit, after all) had simply been allowed to take place...BUT NO ONE ATTENDED OR REPORTED ON IT?  After all, they were after publicity.  Any intelligent person or group would have won the day by simply ignoring the matter...it is a fringe group with no significant support and that would have been clear is all had simply stayed away.  But unfortunately today's attitude is that anyone with whom you disagree must be shouted down and "prevented" from saying anything.  Why?

Politicians say a lot of things that I don't like.  But they get to say them anyway.  News reports are very often wrong on facts or incomplete and slanted...but I don't get to shut them down.  But I don't want to shut them down.  If I feel strongly enough about a matter, I can write letters, make calls, ask questions and made suggestions.  But the actions of the last week suggest that my right to do so will not exist for long, because this feels like an attack on our very rights under the Constitution.

When History is being sanitized revised, and re-written...and mob rule replaces our Constitutional guarantees, we are in very big trouble.

Will Mueller turn out to be our modern day Torquemada?

The voters of the United States of America, under the impression that they had the right, elected Donald Trump to be President of the country.  He did not come from a long line of politicians.  He was not a politician.  He was not active in any political activities, other than as they affected his businesses, until disgust with politics motivated him to run for President, which led to his subsequent election.  Evidently a lot of people agreed with him.

The political establishment was neither amused or content; they were horrified..  For politicians, the "game" of politics takes on the aura of religion; it is a way of life and they believe that being "called" to be a politician establishes a common bond that transcends ideological differences.  They become "family."  So, while they can fight between themselves, when an outsider appears and disagrees with their family "habits" of behavior and activity, they stop fighting and combine to defeat the newcomer.

Ah...but how to accomplish this?

The "people" have spoken.  Clearly a multiple pronged attack is clearly in order.  First, mount a campaign of both falsehoods and half-truths that, if pursued constantly and loudly, will cause a diminution of President Trump's support. Secondly, do all that is possible to prevent any accomplishments reach the eyes and ears of the public, hoping that the public will conclude that no Presidential promises are being kept or being effective.  Third, work across ideological boundaries (but cautiously, so the public does not become aware) to defeat bills that would enable actions desired by President Trump.

However, there is a chance that these efforts will not be enough to defeat President Trump's support or prevent his accomplishing some of his declared goals.  What more can be done?

It is unclear who actually triggered the concept (one suspects that all would take credit if asked "off the record"), but the appointment of a "Special Prosecutor" took place.  Usually, this is in response to evidence that a crime has been committed and the goal is document it and determine the responsible party(ies) to be sent to prison...as in "Watergate."

Curiously, after more than 9 months there is no evidence of a crime.  With the porous nature our nation's capitol, if there were such evidence it is inconceivable that it would not by now have been leaked to press corp proven ravenously anxious to publicize any illegal act by President Trump or his supporters. Yet...we have a Special Prosecutor.  Not only do we have one, but he is one ideologically oriented to the Democrat party which is the lead ideological group seeking President Trump's removal from office.  Certainly a good number of Republican Congressmen and women would cheer the event also...but oh so quietly, while giving lip service to President Trump.

The power granted to a Special Prosecutor is immense.  It is reminiscent of the power granted to the Grand Inquisitor of the Spanish Inquisition in the late 15th century, Tomas de Torquemada.  And there are more similarities:  two prominent leaders, King Ferdinand II of Aragon, and Queen Isabella I of Castile (you may substitute "Sen. Schumer: and "Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi" if you wish) appointed Torquemada to "cleanse" Spain of "non-believers" ( you may substitute "non-politicians" if you wish) in 1483 and he remained in office for the next 15 years.  There is no "expiration date" for the office of Special Prosecutor.

Both the Special Prosecutor and Torquemada enjoyed virtually unlimited power authorized by the government with no over-ruling element (while the Special Prosecutor may in theory have some of his actions subject to challenge, the political price is so enormous that it rarely happens).

The various forms of Inquisition lasted in the Hispanic Americas until 1825, in Portugal until 1820,  and in Spain until 1846.  In Italy, it ceased in 1870.  But the office, renamed twice, remains to this day: Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.This particular enumeration of "Special Prosecutor" is the first that was clearly established as a "fishing expedition" and lacks a specific law-breaking event to investigate.  Much as was the Spanish Inquisition, the Special Prosecutor may do and investigate whatever he chooses with little if any legal, political or Sense of Justice; Justice will be what Mr. Mueller declares.

Not sure that any of us should be comfortable with that.

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.

Sports and Domestic Violence

It used to be that when one's transgressions reached the stage of being prosecuted by the authorities, the result of that process was deemed to be the extent of punishment.  Some went to jail, and when they got out, there were a variety of ways for that person to earn his or her way back into the work force and into society at large.

Should the transgression not reach the level of prosecution by authorities...or whatever the disposition by the courts...the matter was deemed over with and done.  For the most part, a transgression did not trigger a doomsday scenario.

Apparently those days are gone forever.  Mind you, I am in favor of the strictest possible punishment and treatment that will deter and prevent violence in any situation.  Domestic violence is abhorrent.  And I would think that random violence in society among and between those who do not know each other is equally abhorrent.  Although one would not know that by current standards.  A person who gets in a bar fight with a stranger, may be fined, or even get probation and go right back to work with little public notice.  The exceptions are Politicians and Athletes...providing they are men.  Women get a pass.  Not sure why...but they do.

In the NFL now, you lose you ability to earn a living in your chosen profession if you are accused of Domestic Violence.   If you are convicted of Domestic Violence, you lose that ability permanently...or for so long as to amount to permanent, given the short productive period for an athlete.  The Legal punishment now is simply a preliminary element.  Is that right?  Should there be a discussion about that.  If there are children and an ongoing family existence, is removing the earning power helpful to the family?  Does that make sense?  Does keeping a person from gainful employment teach anyone anything?  Progressives and Liberals for years have been preaching about the fallacy of revenge, arguing for rehabilitation and counseling...but in this case they now preach of revenge.   Should this switch and the motivation for it be open for discussion?  Because I have heard nothing along that line...and whatever the outcome it would seem appropriate to think and talk it through to understand the logic.  Because the current logic escapes me and I would like to hear it laid out fully.

And...I would suggest that if the logic is there to support this extended punishment and behavioral level for participation in sports, that it be extended to fans also.  It seems only fair...especially given the behavior of some fans at all sorts of sporting events.  Perhaps one should not be able to buy a ticket to a sporting event unless they can show that they are free from DWI or any alcohol related charges or conviction, of any arrests or convictions for any sort of violence (Domestic or otherwise).  And if they are buying multiple tickets, that the same information should be put forth for whoever is going to be sitting in those additional seats.

Fair is fair.  Equal is equal.  What is good for the Goose should certainly be good for the Gander.

Let us have this discussion...

Illegals, Law and Morals

We have many laws. Some have been around for a long time. Some change over time and still others still exist but are ignored, unenforced or have been forgotten. Perhaps our laws on immigration need examination.But a review of the concept of laws might first be in order.

There are two kinds of laws: those for convenience and those that represent the very essence of what is considered "right" (moral) behavior. Traffic laws are perfect examples of laws of convenience: driving on the left is not morally wrong, but by choosing a side and establishing a law, there is a sense of expectation of behavior that allows all of us to predict others' behavior and render us all a bit safer.

Then we have laws founded on our view of right and wrong. There is a moral foundation. Murder, rape, child molestation, robbery, burglary, trespass...these are all transgressions that have been considered "wrong" morally and our laws make them illegal.  Can the morals change...of course, at least on the basis of majority rule. Homosexuality used to be morally wrong.  While many religions still hold this, the majority of the population has apparently ruled that is no longer the case, so those laws are disappearing...or at least not being enforced.

What about illegal immigration?  Well, what is your opinion on the expectation of privacy, ... or trespass?  If you, as a citizen, believe no one has the right to enter your property uninvited )and, if they do, they must be arrested and punished), how can you interpret illegal immigration as other than a trespass?  Could we choose to make it OK(moral)? Of course, but then be prepared to give up your right to privacy.  Your call.

We CAN balance the budget and pay of the Deficit

It actually is easy to pay of the existing deficit and to balance our Federal budget.  What is hard is to find politicians who have the political will to do what is necessary.  If Congress wanted, they could do the whole thing in one bill with a page or less...so that everyone could both read and understand it..and it could read something like this:
     WHEREAS you are not allowed to spend money that you do not have; and
     WHEREAS you must pay back money that you have borrowed; and
     WHEREAS  you must pay the agreed upon interest on all borrowed funds;
                                              it is
THEREFORE RESOLVED that:

Prior to allocating any money in any fiscal year for any purpose, the interest due on money borrowed previous to the enactment of this law shall be put aside and credited to said interest;

Prior to allocating any money in any fiscal year for any purpose, Five Hundred Billion Dollars shall be put aside to pay down the balance of principal and said funds shall in fact be applied to said principal;

The balance remaining of anticipated Tax funds for the current year, after debt and interest payments as aforesaid shall be compared to the discretionary funds available in the year immediately prior to the current fiscal year and, should Congress not be able to agree on a balanced budget for the current year, the resulting % shall be utilized to reduce equally each and every department's budget and each and every expenditure by the government and its agencies, without exception, equally by said percentage.

It would be nice for government to live by the rules that govern our states, our families and ourselves.

No Morals

This administration continues to show that they have no moral compass.  Well, that may be slightly inaccurate...they have no compass at all.  But todays bit of evidence really is both moral and legal.

The 2008 Child Soldiers Protection Act specifically mandates that our government penalizes countries that use child soldiers.  And this is the first year that it has gone into effect.  Sound like a plan, doesn't it?  A good thing?  Shows our moral repugnance for any entity that would put children in the field to act as military personnel, right?  Yep.  The United States will show the world our true values and stand up for them, right?

Well, not so much, apparently.

In a Presidential memo, released today by the White House,  to Secretary of State Clinton, Mr. Obama indicated he had determined that "it is in the national interests of the United States" to waive application of the law to the countries of Chad, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sudan and Yemen.

There are provisions in the law that would have allowed the US to target military funds while still allowing funding for professionalization of army capability, but Mr. Obama chose to grant a blanket exemption.

It is interesting how consistently Mr. Obama ignores, makes excuses for, or supports egregious behavior on the part of other countries in the world, while attempts by member states of the union are attacked in court, penalized monetarily and roundly chastised publicly by this President for something as seemingly appropriate as enforcing our borders.

There is no logical, ideological or moral consistency to his actions...ever.  Perhaps he should go to church more often...even Reverend Wright's church.  Even a misguided consistency is better than swinging in the wind with no compass at all.

I read an interesting thought earlier today by Ronald R. Cherry :

"A natural equal right to the creative pursuit of happiness can only be secured by equal law which results in natural unequal outcome. Some individuals will attain superior achievement through greater creativity or greater labor, while others work less or with lesser creativity which naturally leads to unequal outcome."


 As a thoughtful observation made, perhaps, from a quiet study or in a University setting, I found it curiously calming and reassuring.  But a sense of disquiet followed that made me sit back and mull a bit on the comment, and then on the exact words used and finally on what was NOT said.

I concluded that there are a number of problems with the proposition.

First, there is no such thing as equal law.  By its very nature, it is always attempting to reach and equality, to be sure, but that definition is always changing in a dynamic society.    It is not a separate absolute knowable goal exactly because of that dynamic.

Secondly, the law in any event is not controlling, responding after the events where a perceived desirable outcome is not reached or reachable.The second sentence, while accurate, leads the trusting reader to assume definitions of terms where the definitions are not present, making it possible to adopt the premise of the thought...a mistake indeed.  For example, what some people will define as a "greater creativity" would be defined by others as a "con" or "twisting the rules."  As an example, how do you define the creation of default swaps in the midst of the run-up to the economic turmoil in which we find ourselves struggling today?  What about the definition of government decisions and collective bargaining agreements which results in protecting the incomes and fortunes of those clearly not earning and deserving of such benefits?

And finally (for now), it is not at all clear that there is any "natural" equal right to the pursuit of happiness.  Our Fore-fathers declared it so...and attempted to protect it in the Constitution.  But consider:  If it is a natural right, why does it need artificial protection in any government document and why hasn't it been evident in other ages and other countries down through history?

More logically it can be identified as a desirable privilege founded in moral thought and principle...but certainly not evident in history as having the standing of being "natural", much less a "right."  Humans with a sense of purpose, a competitive spirit, a moderate willingness to and understanding of  "taking a chance" and, most importantly, an understanding and belief in and willingness to accept consequences will always act and support a sytem that allows for the pursuit of happiness as a right, natural or otherwise.  But there are many of the human persuasion who prefer to be cared for, to not make hard decisions, to not take chances, and to accept a lower level of happiness (for now, at least) that is guaranteed and not the product of taking chances and of hard work.

The mutual existence of these groups is made problematic by the fact that the product of the first group must of necessity by taken, at least in part, to fund the existence of the second, but...details, details, details.

The quote is useless and irrelevant to any practical application to the human condition in America. The fact that it can be read by anyone and interpreted by them to support any particular vision of life is the very fault that would make it the centerpiece of virtually universal disagreement  in any attempt to apply it to real life.  It's sole benefit is as a centerpiece for discussion in a University or professorial setting...a good mental exercise indeed.

Why protecting our borders IS important

Why is it important?  Bear with me, and consider the following:

People are wrong when they say that the current problem amounts to Hispanic bashing. The anger is not at Mexicans or any other Hispanic group because they are Hispanic, it is because they are Illegal.

My father was an immigrant. My mother's parents were immigrants. They waited for years to be granted the opportunity to come here. They had to prove that a job awaited them. They had to have a sponsor who guaranteed that they would have a place to live and who also guaranteed that they would support them for one year if they lost the job that was promised.

In other words, they found out the rules, obeyed and lived by the rules, and were rewarded by the legal right to come to America. They felt honored by the opportunity, and they proved their own honor.

How does that have  any connection with illegal entry to the United States? Does Mexico care what the nationality is, of ethnic background, of those who attempt to enter Mexico illegally? If you do not know, the answer is, "No, they do not care and treat all the same...harshly.

Our government has forgotten or decided to abdicate its main responsibility...protecting its citizens. If illegals were coming over the border wearing uniforms and carrying guns, would you expect the government to send in troops or do whatever was necessary to protect our borders? I suspect that you would say yes, but if not then you certainly do not value the existence of the United States. So, what is the difference. We are still being invaded. And, while shooting invaders who do not carry guns may not be appropriate, stopping them is still very appropriate, and rewarding them for invading is absolute insanity.

Not stopping them is virtually inviting the overthrow of the government. This administration, and the one before that, is doing exactly that and, in my mind, is the very epitome of seditious behavior.

But...there is another major reason why we should protect and close our borders. We are telling the children of this country, as well as the American public generally, that our laws don't mean anything. Really. They are discretionary and can be ignored if they are inconvenient. No, you say? Prove it. Ask anyone you come across whether a law has to be obeyed if you do not like it. I will bet that the answer that you get the most time is “it depends.” Our government passes laws that they don't read, hold protecting our borders hostage to getting illegals in this country on a citizen track so they can vote the “right” way, allow one race to picket a voting place while preventing others from even questioning the citizenship of voters and allowing felons to vote. And we wonder why our youth has no moral standards? How can they...we don't have them ourselves.

In the 60's, when protests meant something, civil disobedience meant that you were going to be arrested and that you were going to be in jail.  You had decided that going to jail for breaking a law that you believed should be changed was a price...a consequence...that you were willing to meet in order to make a point.  There was no expectation of being let out or not serving the punishment...you had broken the law, and you expected to pay the price.  After all, if the law meant nothing, why change it?  We respected the law and wanted laws to be changed so that they were Just in addition to being the law...we believed in law.

Today?  No one expects to be arrested after breaking laws in protest.  Even the courts act disrespectful to the law...they do not enforce them.  The Government clearly does not respect the law or the Constitution...if does not honor the commitments the law or the Constitution puts on it.  You disagree?  How about the obligation to protect our borders?  How is that going?  When instead of protecting the borders, the government puts up signs warning citizens that travel in an area of the United States of America is prohibited because of illegal activities that come in over the non-protected border, that raises a question of how my government is acting in accordance with the constitution...at least in my mind.

Why doesn't someone write about that?  Why don't we as citizens impeach our "representatives" (that is a joke) for non- and malfeasance?  Why don't we explain that when Reagan gave amnesty, the deal was that the government was going to close and control the border and it hasn't been done...the government lied.  And we are not going to accept promises again...Close and Protect the border, prosecute employers who hire those in the country illegally, stop spending public money to aid those who did not respect us enough to get legal authorization to come to this country or to stay here.  Respect the Law...and stop selling us lies.

Sharia Law

What I find so dangerous and insidious about Muslim Sharia law and Islamic attitudes generally is the assumptive trust that western liberal-progressives have in Islam. Sharia law is accepted by devout Muslims. They accept its absolute nature and the penalties dictated. Islam also calls for the elimination of non-believers where Muslims are ruling. This can be by conversion, demotion to a slave-like position in society, or by death.

What liberal-progressives hang their hats on is that the Qur'an calls for treating non-Muslims equally...the same as believers. They point to this as being proof of non-discrimination by Muslims toward other religions and other groups. And, technically, they are correct in this observation. But their reasoning is flawed. What this proves is that if Islam becomes a majority, they will apply Sharia law to everyone...equally.

That means that adultery and homosexuality, among others, will result in death. Theft will result in amputation of a limb. Women will have to wear various forms of the hijab, or more. So...there will be equal treatment...but not the preservation of different life styles. If they become a majority, they will not allow the Supreme Court or the Congress or the President to frustrate what they see to be their solemn duty as called for in the Qur'an...to insure the Islam is followed by all.

It is a mystery to me how progressive-liberals can remain so sanguine in the face of these facts. Is it that they believe that the Constitution, which they have so successfully suborned, will somehow have more force when it serves their purposes in defending against the Islamic goal? Can they be that obtuse and/or stupid? And I am confounded by the failure of those who instinctively sense the threat to not clearly enunciate the threat in the manner I have described...I haven't heard one analyst comment along the lines that I see so clearly. Am I that wrong? If so, I would dearly like someone to disabuse me of my belief. I would dearly like to be wrong.