For the third Presidential election cycle we are experiencing an abandonment of reason by American citizenry. That this can happen in a world where data is virtually unlimited and effective research no further than your laptop is astounding and does not speak well for homo sapiens.
Mr. Obama was elected twice on emotion, with virtually no vetting or inquiry as to his experience or training to handle the rigors of the job. "Hope and Change" was the motto. Never did Mr. Obama define those terms, so quite naturally every voter inclined to wish him well interpreted those terms to mean what the voter expected it to mean. Salesmen for years have used that tack and one expects some success with it...but not total success. The old adage was that you can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but never all of the people all of the time. So...how did Mr. Obama not only win, but be re-elected four years later when it had become clear that he had his own definitions that were not influenced by the electorate and further that he was disposed to dis-ingenuousness (that means, lying),
The press almost universally failed to inquire of Mr. Obama specifics, nor did they suggest to readers, listeners or viewers that they might want to make such inquiries. Whether this was failure on their part, or conspiracy with Mr. Obama's supporters I will leave for others to consider.
But one thing is crystal clear: Mr. Obama's election and re-election was based on emotion, not logic or knowledge.
One might be excused for believing that, having seen the result of emotional indulgence, the public might be a bit more oriented toward logic, inquiry and thorough vetting the third time around.
Apparently, not so much!
There was once a time in America when the voting public acted much as a jury; they listened to the promises, they looked at the past record of behavior, they evaluated whether the promises were ones that could be kept, they even evaluated the moral behavior and reputation of the candidate for public office. One candidate withdrew when it was discovered that he had a girlfriend in addition to his wife...and without any proof of physical infidelity. Such a person was not fit for public office...then!
Since then we've had a President who seduced and intern, another who has been proven to have lied to the American people multiple times, and failed to even try to keep promises made multiple times. And in this third election cycle we have the leading candidate on the ideological right (well, he says that he is on the right!), who until less than a year ago was demonstrably a political liberal and until days ago denied that he was involved in any bankruptcies, only to know admit that companies that he controlled did, on four occasions, declare Chapter 11 Bankruptcy and...seriously...now claims that having done so will help him solve the country's challenge of reducing and eliminating a National Debt that exceeds Nineteen Trillion Dollars. No joke!
And on the other side of the ideological aisle, we have two candidates: one has a track record of enabling a womanizer while claiming to be the perfect person to defend women against a claimed "war on women" by her opponents, has a proven record of lying about events in which she was involved while holding high appointed office, and is under investigation for potential violation of the United States Espionage act by failing to keep Top Secret documents and information safe. And her opponent on the same side is earnestly is promising to redistribute income, taking from those who have earned it legally to redistribute it to those who have not, on the basis of claiming that such earnings were and are immoral; who is promising that college education for all should be "free"...to those receiving it, but with no realistic suggestion of who or how the cost will be paid; and who is an avowed Socialist.
What provides the most consternation is that these three people are serious candidates for President of the United States of America!
We are about to see the third Presidential election in a row determined, not by the American Voting Public sitting as a Jury but by an emotional mob.
Mr. Obama's first election was by a Happy, Enthusiastic, Optimistic mob, looking for high standards and statesmanship on the part of a supremely educated member of a minority race.
His second was less Happy and Optimistic, but was still a Mob that had "Faith."
Now the Mob (on both sides of the political aisle) is angry and turning on the "usual suspects" to a remarkable degree. They are identifying on an emotional level with those who are confirming their own unhappiness with the government. That unhappiness has nothing to do with Truth, or Logic, or a thorough vetting to statements and promises being made. No, it is still emotional and reason has been thrown away.
Mr. Trump is the Republican's Obama, and he is being seen and treated with the same emotional mind-set with which the Left treated Mr. Obama; merging of their anger with his statements of anger, independent of and absent any evaluation of his past positions. Ms. Clinton is a continuation of the policies of Mr. Obama, but without the "blackness" which benefited him. Sen. Sanders is all emotional promises of "free stuff" to young voters who already are emotional by the dearth of opportunity in a stagnant economy and are prime for any promises of a better life, regardless of whether those promises are practically possible.
The Mob Rules...still.
We have nine months to see if any logic or sense will return to the political arena. There is no apparent reason to be optimistic. And if all continues, there will be an emotional hangover and we all will suffer the longest headache of our lives.
Showing posts with label morals. Show all posts
Showing posts with label morals. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 17, 2016
Sunday, July 5, 2015
America has left me behind...and I miss her!
I am glad that I am in my twilight years and won't have to suffer the emotional pain for long. It hurts me and I feel sad when events force me to think about what has happened to and in the America that I have loved my whole life.
My parents were immigrants. My father came to this country poor, but with a work ethic and a friend who guaranteed the government that there would be a job and a place for him to stay...a requirement for legal immigration in those days. That may still be so...I don't know. But...my Dad just wanted a chance to see what hard work on his part might accomplish. No guarantees, no promises...just a chance. He didn't speak English, so he took whatever job was available. He learned the language...not perfectly, but well enough, and to read and write it...he wanted to; he saw America as the embodiment of what he wanted to become. He wanted the freedom to put himself on the line and see if he could succeed.
It took him some time to achieve what he saw as success. He and, later, my mother worked long hours. First it was for others then for themselves. They went through the Great Depression and were intent on being prepared should another ever occur. They saved. The borrowed only to purchase a house...and that with misgivings. We never spent money we did not have...that was anathema to them.They taught me to read and to do simple math early in life and explained that those skills would enable me to educate myself and not be dependent on others. And there was no such thing as an excuse for not taking advantage of schooling: I was required to have perfect attention, to do all homework (and show it to my parents daily), and to achieve good grades as they explained that education was the key to getting a chance to succeed in life.
My father never took a Social Security payment...ever...despite living to almost 70. He had saved and he saw taking anything from the government as a hand-out. He had left his native land at a time when his mother had no money and the family had significant debts. Over the years, with increasing means he paid every one of those debts off in full, with interest (even if interest was not demanded).
He gave to those who came on hard times through no fault of their own...but refused even the time of day to those who did not try; those who were slackers, liars, cheaters and what in those days were called naer-do-wells were to be looked upon as unworthy and disreputable and not to ever even be around.
I grew up in an America where to be respected, your word had to be good...it was your bond. And work was honored, and doing your utmost was the standard. Dependence on the good will of others was seen as embarrassing and a failure and you would all you could to get out of that situation, pay back what had been given and again regain your place as a contributing member of the community, not a taker.
Civil discourse was the norm. People could argue on many things: religion, politics, raising children and more. But those arguments were conducted with personal respect of each other...for the right of every person to his or her opinion. And we used good language: whole sentences, with decent construction. In those days, "Sailor's" language was not used in mixed company and only occasionally even when men got together. And even then there was a certain embarrassment after some of the utterances...it just wasn't polite and generally was seen as a sign of an inadequate vocabulary. How much more effective, we felt, to use a word of criticism that required the other person to run to a dictionary, rather than revert to clearly inapplicable scatological utterances.
Classmates of mine in High School got jobs upon graduation: good jobs that paid well. Some of them used the pay from those jobs save up enough to later get a College Education to pursue and dream to which they were dedicated. And some took an occasional course to extend their knowledge but were content to live in the practical world of having a loving family and supporting it and themselves. Those of us who went to college, went with a dream. We wanted to achieve something in particular. Of course in the midst of the striving, the dream often changed a bit...but there was never the thought of spending on a College Education because of any right or entitlement: it was a gift of opportunity and not a way of avoiding the real world or military service. That would have been dishonorable and a waste of our money...or, in some cases, our parents' money...in in even more cases, both our and our parents' money.
That America no longer exists. I liked my country. I respected my country. I respected the morals and the ten commandments of that country. And I respected the immigrants who come to this country according to its laws and with the intent to become Americans...not to bring their previous country's practices and attitudes and languages and make America more like them. They wanted to become Americans. And, except for the grandmothers and grandfathers...they did just that.
Now, everyone seems to believe that consequences of one's actions are a thing of the past. That no one should be either expected or required to earn a living, but should be given any job they want and not held to standards. People "working" for the government don't do their jobs, lie about it and are never held accountable. Our government spends money it doesn't have and claims that it doesn't matter. Our politicians lie to us with increasing frequency and are not only not embarrassed by it...they don't even admit it. And the Press which for decades was a watchdog over all facets of government activity, protecting the public by shining the light of truth, now joins with those in power to protect them from any revelation to the public. Meanwhile the "public" apparently has come to believe that there is such a thing as a "Free" lunch...or free anything. Make that everything.
I miss the America that called out to my parents. I miss the America that I grew up in and both enjoyed and revered for much of my life. I don't recognize the country I now live in...it is still called America, but it no longer has the soul of the country into which I was born and raised. And it makes me feel sad.
My parents were immigrants. My father came to this country poor, but with a work ethic and a friend who guaranteed the government that there would be a job and a place for him to stay...a requirement for legal immigration in those days. That may still be so...I don't know. But...my Dad just wanted a chance to see what hard work on his part might accomplish. No guarantees, no promises...just a chance. He didn't speak English, so he took whatever job was available. He learned the language...not perfectly, but well enough, and to read and write it...he wanted to; he saw America as the embodiment of what he wanted to become. He wanted the freedom to put himself on the line and see if he could succeed.
It took him some time to achieve what he saw as success. He and, later, my mother worked long hours. First it was for others then for themselves. They went through the Great Depression and were intent on being prepared should another ever occur. They saved. The borrowed only to purchase a house...and that with misgivings. We never spent money we did not have...that was anathema to them.They taught me to read and to do simple math early in life and explained that those skills would enable me to educate myself and not be dependent on others. And there was no such thing as an excuse for not taking advantage of schooling: I was required to have perfect attention, to do all homework (and show it to my parents daily), and to achieve good grades as they explained that education was the key to getting a chance to succeed in life.
My father never took a Social Security payment...ever...despite living to almost 70. He had saved and he saw taking anything from the government as a hand-out. He had left his native land at a time when his mother had no money and the family had significant debts. Over the years, with increasing means he paid every one of those debts off in full, with interest (even if interest was not demanded).
He gave to those who came on hard times through no fault of their own...but refused even the time of day to those who did not try; those who were slackers, liars, cheaters and what in those days were called naer-do-wells were to be looked upon as unworthy and disreputable and not to ever even be around.
I grew up in an America where to be respected, your word had to be good...it was your bond. And work was honored, and doing your utmost was the standard. Dependence on the good will of others was seen as embarrassing and a failure and you would all you could to get out of that situation, pay back what had been given and again regain your place as a contributing member of the community, not a taker.
Civil discourse was the norm. People could argue on many things: religion, politics, raising children and more. But those arguments were conducted with personal respect of each other...for the right of every person to his or her opinion. And we used good language: whole sentences, with decent construction. In those days, "Sailor's" language was not used in mixed company and only occasionally even when men got together. And even then there was a certain embarrassment after some of the utterances...it just wasn't polite and generally was seen as a sign of an inadequate vocabulary. How much more effective, we felt, to use a word of criticism that required the other person to run to a dictionary, rather than revert to clearly inapplicable scatological utterances.
Classmates of mine in High School got jobs upon graduation: good jobs that paid well. Some of them used the pay from those jobs save up enough to later get a College Education to pursue and dream to which they were dedicated. And some took an occasional course to extend their knowledge but were content to live in the practical world of having a loving family and supporting it and themselves. Those of us who went to college, went with a dream. We wanted to achieve something in particular. Of course in the midst of the striving, the dream often changed a bit...but there was never the thought of spending on a College Education because of any right or entitlement: it was a gift of opportunity and not a way of avoiding the real world or military service. That would have been dishonorable and a waste of our money...or, in some cases, our parents' money...in in even more cases, both our and our parents' money.
That America no longer exists. I liked my country. I respected my country. I respected the morals and the ten commandments of that country. And I respected the immigrants who come to this country according to its laws and with the intent to become Americans...not to bring their previous country's practices and attitudes and languages and make America more like them. They wanted to become Americans. And, except for the grandmothers and grandfathers...they did just that.
Now, everyone seems to believe that consequences of one's actions are a thing of the past. That no one should be either expected or required to earn a living, but should be given any job they want and not held to standards. People "working" for the government don't do their jobs, lie about it and are never held accountable. Our government spends money it doesn't have and claims that it doesn't matter. Our politicians lie to us with increasing frequency and are not only not embarrassed by it...they don't even admit it. And the Press which for decades was a watchdog over all facets of government activity, protecting the public by shining the light of truth, now joins with those in power to protect them from any revelation to the public. Meanwhile the "public" apparently has come to believe that there is such a thing as a "Free" lunch...or free anything. Make that everything.
I miss the America that called out to my parents. I miss the America that I grew up in and both enjoyed and revered for much of my life. I don't recognize the country I now live in...it is still called America, but it no longer has the soul of the country into which I was born and raised. And it makes me feel sad.
Sunday, May 24, 2015
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.
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.
Monday, September 15, 2014
When did we become Killers?
Some of you will respond that we are carnivores...we've always been killers. Well, that is outside my area of expertise, so I won't respond. Besides, that isn't what I am talking about. I am talking about the casualness with which we destroy those around us, both friends and enemies, with no guilt, no thought, no emotion and often with no thought or active decision to do so.
I grew up before social media. You could get bullied in school. And you could be whispered about in school. But it was limited to your class or your building and if adults heard any of it, they dismissed it as immature "stuff"...and it was. It was discarded when you moved on.
A kid getting caught doing something wrong was punished. Often the police turned him or her over to the parents, 'cause they did a more intense job than the police did...and it didn't leave a permanent record. Besides...the parents took the responsibility seriously.
And that, too, was left behind even as the lessons learned stayed with us as we moved toward adulthood. Almost all went on to productive lives, applying for and getting jobs that allowed us to finance and fulfill our families and our lives.
Even in adulthood, if you broke the law in some way, we all knew that was what the Justice system was for and we didn't take punishment into our own hands. And the few times that that happened, those that gave into "mob" rule, were in turn punished...that was not justice, that was mob rule, feeding a blood-lust that didn't fit our view of what a civilized society should be about.
Law breakers had to word harder at it, but they could rejoin society if the proved that their transgression was a one time thing. Yes, suspicion remained if something untoward happened, but that was the price...the consequences, if you will...of having broken the law in the first place.
That is not today's world.
Today, children and adults destroy others' lives without even a thought. No guilt! No shame! Often not even a thought for either emotion! And there is a lack of inherent self-control on the part of all that often invites destruction. When I was growing up, it was drummed into me not to do anything that we were not prepared to have appear as a headline, with pictures, in the local paper. Where and when did that admonition go...'cause it sure doesn't seem to be either known or acknowledged today by children or adults. And the concept of consequences for both stupidity and purposeful wrongdoing has also disappeared...unless it captures the attention of the media or special interest groups. No longer can any transgression be left to the courts; there must now be attendant consequences: loss of job, public ridicule, public denigration...often before a legal verdict is rendered.
There are those that will claim that all this is either appropriate or that it is life as it exists today and no thought need be given to it. Well, time will tell whether that is or is not so. But I leave you with this thought: If you did something that was either wrong, or might be wrong, and it was taken up by the legal system, would you accept non-legal punishment dealt out by nameless individuals or groups that destroyed your ability to make a living or walk the streets in safety...all before a Justice system had ruled on you actions and, if appropriate, declared you legal punishment?
Have we reverted so far back to the days of each man for himself that we endorse mob rule based often on rumor as much as fact and taking upon ourselves the right to rule on life, death and pursuit of happiness of others without formal assignment of that task? I find that a fearful thing from any standpoint: accused, accuser, observer, or judge.
Of course, I also find it abhorrent that so many around me are so uncertain in their place in life that they would make it legally required that I approve of them, their actions, or their beliefs. I would not want to interfere with what others lives are, provided they do not actively interfere with mine; I see no reason why I should be required to take any notice whatever of their lives...I do not require their acquiescence to my beliefs, actions or way of living. I neither need nor want their involvement; why would they required...and that by act of law...mine? But that is for another discussion.
I grew up before social media. You could get bullied in school. And you could be whispered about in school. But it was limited to your class or your building and if adults heard any of it, they dismissed it as immature "stuff"...and it was. It was discarded when you moved on.
A kid getting caught doing something wrong was punished. Often the police turned him or her over to the parents, 'cause they did a more intense job than the police did...and it didn't leave a permanent record. Besides...the parents took the responsibility seriously.
And that, too, was left behind even as the lessons learned stayed with us as we moved toward adulthood. Almost all went on to productive lives, applying for and getting jobs that allowed us to finance and fulfill our families and our lives.
Even in adulthood, if you broke the law in some way, we all knew that was what the Justice system was for and we didn't take punishment into our own hands. And the few times that that happened, those that gave into "mob" rule, were in turn punished...that was not justice, that was mob rule, feeding a blood-lust that didn't fit our view of what a civilized society should be about.
Law breakers had to word harder at it, but they could rejoin society if the proved that their transgression was a one time thing. Yes, suspicion remained if something untoward happened, but that was the price...the consequences, if you will...of having broken the law in the first place.
That is not today's world.
Today, children and adults destroy others' lives without even a thought. No guilt! No shame! Often not even a thought for either emotion! And there is a lack of inherent self-control on the part of all that often invites destruction. When I was growing up, it was drummed into me not to do anything that we were not prepared to have appear as a headline, with pictures, in the local paper. Where and when did that admonition go...'cause it sure doesn't seem to be either known or acknowledged today by children or adults. And the concept of consequences for both stupidity and purposeful wrongdoing has also disappeared...unless it captures the attention of the media or special interest groups. No longer can any transgression be left to the courts; there must now be attendant consequences: loss of job, public ridicule, public denigration...often before a legal verdict is rendered.
There are those that will claim that all this is either appropriate or that it is life as it exists today and no thought need be given to it. Well, time will tell whether that is or is not so. But I leave you with this thought: If you did something that was either wrong, or might be wrong, and it was taken up by the legal system, would you accept non-legal punishment dealt out by nameless individuals or groups that destroyed your ability to make a living or walk the streets in safety...all before a Justice system had ruled on you actions and, if appropriate, declared you legal punishment?
Have we reverted so far back to the days of each man for himself that we endorse mob rule based often on rumor as much as fact and taking upon ourselves the right to rule on life, death and pursuit of happiness of others without formal assignment of that task? I find that a fearful thing from any standpoint: accused, accuser, observer, or judge.
Of course, I also find it abhorrent that so many around me are so uncertain in their place in life that they would make it legally required that I approve of them, their actions, or their beliefs. I would not want to interfere with what others lives are, provided they do not actively interfere with mine; I see no reason why I should be required to take any notice whatever of their lives...I do not require their acquiescence to my beliefs, actions or way of living. I neither need nor want their involvement; why would they required...and that by act of law...mine? But that is for another discussion.
Thursday, November 25, 2010
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.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)