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.)

Chief Justice Roberts: is HE the smartest guy in the room?

Our Constitution contemplates three co-equal branches of government with competing interests being forced to co-exist in order to accomplish anything.  Considering the distrust our Founding Fathers had in government generally, it is not surprising that this arrangement did not, does not, and never will be terribly efficient.  But then, Jefferson was know to believe that eventually government becomes the enemy of individual freedom, so this attitude was certainly no surprise...and the truth of the underlying concept should be ignored at our peril.

Not surprisingly, there have been attempts by Congress ... and the President ... to make the Supreme Court join in a partnership against the third branch of government.  The President does this through the power to appoint new Justices as vacancies occur and assiduously attempt to divine the ideological bent of each and every person considered...with a remarkably low percentage of success when all are taken into consideration.

But until now each Justice once ensconced on the bench has evidenced a sharp mind and a distinct ideological vision of whether the Constitution was clear when written, remains clear today, is meant to cover all facets of life in America, contains commands or merely suggestions.  If in their legally restrictive view, they can see the Constitution agreeing with their view of what they would like it to say and mean, they will do...and have done...so.

Every Justice respects the others, even in the heat of intense disagreement.  They understand the confines of their considerations and as some would say, "they play by the rules."

However, now enter Chief Justice Roberts.  Either he disdains the "rules" or just doesn't understand that narcissism doesn't become any member of the Court.  Justice Kennedy is a swing vote.  But his decisions are always on very close call analysis of the law and what he sees as "justice" in accordance with the Court's purview.  He does not see himself as an Editor or Proof-reading aide to Congress or the President, with the obligation to save themselves from the consequences of foolish behavior or malfeasance..."mistakes" in laws have consequences, and those who make the mistakes are not to be saved from the consequences,..of either law or the electorate.

But Justice Roberts seems to believe that he is an adjunct of Congress...with the additional prescience to know what Congress means, even if they clearly write something into a law that is totally at odds with his vision.  For SCOTUScare, he knew that Congress meant tax, even though they wrote "fee."
And earlier this week he just knew that Congress did not (could not) mean that just because that they had written into the ACA a provision that subsidies would only be available to those who applied for coverage through STATE operated centers, that Congress didn't mean it.  How Godlike; how dictatorial: forget the words...the law says what I decide it says.

An inept Congress and President certainly appreciates this kind of assistance...this time.  But suppose Justice Roberts at some point decides that any clear wording an some law that comes up for review cannot be what Congress really wanted?  I wonder if the President and Congress will be so appreciative then?

Chief Justice Roberts needs to be taken out back by his colleagues for a "come to Jesus" moment before he destroys the Institution of the Supreme Court of the United States as a primarily legal institution and leads it to a subservient tool, albeit with a run-away, out of control Chief, of either Congress or the Presidency.

No longer Checks and Balances on Congress by SCOTUS

Laws no longer mean what they say.  Congress no longer need concern itself with careful and accurate writing and wording.  The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) will plug the breach, intuit the "real" intent of Congress while ignoring the actual wording of the duly passed statute, and save the day.  Of course, there is a consequence for this service: SCOTUS has now re-affirmed its move from co-equal branch of Congress to a second rate arm of Congress. We have ceased to be a nation governed by laws and now are dependent on a political class that continues to fund the courts as a sap to many who wish to continue to delude themselves that there is a check and balance against Congress. Anyone with a brain recalls how Congress "crowed" about the condition of creating a State Healthcare program as a prerequisite to getting Federal Funding. They tried to blackmail the States and it didn't work, so now they went to their underlings, the Supreme Court, to absolutely legislate from the bench and eliminate holding Congress responsible for its actions. "Umpires" indeed...if so this is the Black Sox Scandal with the Umpires bought off instead of the Players.  Does anyone question whether SCOTUS' budget request will now be granted in full?

There is a serious question of the legitimacy of any government structure when the laws mean nothing and can be interpreted as a politician wishes, instead of obeying the clear reading of words written and voted upon.  This is the result of the political class coming to adopt the Bill Clinton plea of "It depends on what the meaning of is is."  So many laughed as the absurdity of that comment, even as it turned out to be legally effective...and so we began to slide down the slippery slope of making honesty and truth and consequences immaterial in the American political world...and have also just made them immaterial in American life generally:  now it is apparently acceptable to narcissistically focus on getting "free" stuff even as we all know that someone is paying for it...as long as that someone isn't "us."  How delusional...and how clearly designed to ultimately destroy our country.  Khrushchev will turn out to have been right when he claimed we would destroy ourselves from within...he is chuckling in his grave right now.  Deservedly so.

Today's America leaves me exhausted

I had to stop writing blogs for awhile.  Focusing on the idiocy of the political and the educational world in particular left me depressed and drained.  There are real problems.  None of them are incapable of being solved.  But no one wants to eliminate them unless they can garner some personal or ideological gain...and under no circumstances do they want to "fix" anything if it involves diminishing in any combination their power or wealth.

Today I read that the SAT scores hit a new low this past year.  And the first comment by the testers was that no one should worry because it was due to more "students" (whatever that means these days) were taking the test than ever before and to the increased "diversity" of the pool taking the test.  Huh?  Right...and it don't rain in Indianapolis in the summertime.

Our Government is to blame for this idiocy.  The entire Federal Government, including Congress, every President, and the Supreme Court.  Because it all goes back to an unwillingness (or inability) to accurately evaluate and then design a way to correct the results of racial prejudice.

Rather than recognize that the in-equality of the past needed to be corrected substantively, the Government forces determined instead to institute the appearance of equality, rather than make it a fact.

For the most part, life has consequences...at least it used to.  It was results that counted, not excuses.  If you failed a test, you flunked.  If you did that enough, you got "left back a grade" and some actually left school at the earliest permissible age because they just didn't want to study...or couldn't.  Schools were for learning.  So were Colleges and Universities.  Your performance got you entrance and progress and a degree.  The degree meant something...it vouched for your achievement.

But, instead of focusing on the opportunity for all to learn and thus achieve according to that achievement, the Government dictated that minorities were now to be granted entrance, and degrees because of their minority status rather than their competitive achievement.  The decision was to make the world look as if all was well and, in fact, guarantee that minorities would have the appearance of success whether it was earned...or not.

This has had enormous consequences to our nation...well, actually, no longer a nation but a country.  Because the damage is multifaceted.  First, minorities have not been helped by the program.  Everyone, including the minorities, knows that the "achievements" are bogus...or at the very least, are suspect...regardless of the piece of paper.  The same goes for hiring, due to Federal requirements that once again throw out achievement in favor of appearances.  If people want all to strive for knowledge and achievement, you must make the opportunity equal...but you must require the equal achievement of learning and ability on an equal basis as well.  To act as the Government has done is to subtly (well, maybe not so much) suggest that minorities actually cannot compete...at least not on an equal basis.  How totally insulting, demeaning...and stupid.

But that is only the start of the damage.  All who have grown up in this atmosphere of selective granting of artificial status see that it ISN'T achievement that is rewarded...and hard work and study is not the key to a better life.  They have watched as consequences of non-performance or under-performance have been either eliminated or lowered.  So...they demand the same.  And, in the prevailing sense of "equality" they have been granted the same "pass" to avoid being left back in school, or denied admission to college, or denied their diploma just because they didn't do the work.

Students today will, it appears, not have to learn how to write cursive because, I am told, they all use computers or "text" or some such.  I have no idea what they will do if the power fails, or someone sets of a neutron bomb that takes out all the cell towers and crashes the power grid.  I suppose it will inspire a whole new set of cave paintings.  And I refuse to even consider how they will sign their names to any legal documents...I suppose there wont be any need for them, as no one will be held to whatever "thought" was a binding agreement.

Young people coming out of school at any level today already can't add or subtract without a calculator or some sort.  If a scanner breakes in a store, the clerks cannot tell you what to pay if you are buying more than two items...and if the scanner malfunctions, have no concept from the illogic of the inaccurate total that it is, in fact, inaccurate.  No wonder people find it hard to get jobs...they think their piece of paper means something while they are functionally both illiterate and untrainable except for the most mundane of tasks.  Yet they insist on benefits, pay, and treatment as "entitled."

So of course the SAT scores are down.  Why bother to work to learn all those things that get you higher scores; they don't matter.  These poor disillusioned souls have been led, trained and indoctrinated to expect that achievement not only doesn't matter...it isn't even to be considered.

The Government, the Educational (so-called) community, and all forms of authority have determined that thou shall not say "no" to anyone...even parents are prevented from requiring and enforcing their own children's upbringing.

No wonder the United States is populated in this century by narcissists.  It is how they have been raised.

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.