We are abandoning what made America great

 My father was an immigrant.  He did it legally; he got citizens to guarantee a job, filled out all the necessary paperwork and waited for approval.  He came to this country with hopes, a job to earn his keep, and a desire to make a life for himself and to help his mother (a widow) and his sister.

He also came with a vision of America.  He often told me that he knew people here were different... from many parts of the world.  But he also said they (and He) came here to become a part of what America was... a blending of many nationalities that came with a common desire to become "better" than they could in their "home" country.

Dad respected his birth country, Norway, and honored the people there.  BUT he always pointed to his citizenship papers and was proud to say he was an American... not a Norwegian-American, but just... American.  He came here not to reproduce Norway, but to become a part of what America is all about.  And he saw people joining in pride to be part of that whole.  

Sure, many nationalities upon arrival banded together to make their adjustment easier, even as their children went to school and became proficient in English, history, and learned how to succeed in America... and to be proud of belonging.  

My father loved music and he often made the analogy comparing America to an orchestra.  All classes of instruments are different, and the players have different abilities as well as individual attributes.  But they come together knowing the purpose is to advance the performance of the orchestra.  They are segregated by instrumentation, they play different parts, they interpret music in varying ways.  But all that individuality is voluntarily subjugated to the conductor's direction and interpretation to create a whole... a whole musical offering that sees the beauty of the unified effort and vision.

THAT was the America that welcomed (well, mostly.  Even "square heads" were joked about and not always welcome in the beginning) his presence and his willingness to "take a chance" and depend on his own self-worth and the quality of that effort.

Today, many in America want each instrument to not only "be in charge" of their music, but to declare that to not get their own way was an insult and a lack of respect.  That seems true within the instrument category and withing all of the instruments in what used to be an orchestra.  That "orchestra" has turned into a group of anarchists producing chaos instead of music and not even being in the same room without throwing words (or worse) at each other.  The Conductor has been "cancelled" and two attitudes have taken over:

• victimhood, and
• tribal narcissism

Add to that a foolish and false belief that there are no such things as consequences, and the result is disintegration of all that enabled America to become the great nation it once was, as President Reagan once described it, "a shining city on a hill" for the rest of the world.  It (or at least the politicians and self-described leaders) has destroyed itself.

Just as chaos of individualism absolutely destroys the purpose and existence of an orchestra, so the current narcissistic victimhood tribalism ideology will destroy the United States of America.

Sadly, Reagon's city on a hill is being destroyed from within.  I miss it, and my father would feel even more disappointed were he still alive.

Isn't the United States too big, and its governing too far away from its Citizens?

 A 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.

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 that the southern states could not secede and the "indivisible" term became the norm when speaking about the republic. Jefferson's view of multiple aligned republics being the future political unit disappeared.  The formation of the French Republic, the first modern large modern state republic, looking to the individual as the political unit set the example.

No one comments on the mutually exclusive concepts of republican government as laid out by Jefferson and the one 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.

How does this lead to a loss of control of our government?

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.  Now, 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.

Until 1914 the Legislature of each state selected and voted on the Senators to serve in the Washington, D. C. national Senate. Subsequently, our "elected" Senators are selected by direct voting, which no longer is guaranteed to reflect the political stance of their subject state, but by their ability to be attractive to the voters, which is directly affected by the amount of money they can negotiate for from very rich and opinionated "donors."  Those are who your Senators see as deserving of allegiance, not the voters' political and personal wants and desires., regardless of what the political ads or speeches say!

 The republican view of governmental responsiveness to citizens as well as to the rule of law has been lost.

Is it any surprise that our "elected" officials and bureaucrats that have never met more voters than they have bureaucrats do not have any instinct... any conscience...

to suggest that they owe any "allegiance," "care," or "oath of office" obligation to those citizens in the rest of the country?  Is it any surprise that many of them see "us" as the enemy?

Distance does NOT make the heart or the allegiance grow fonder, and almost inevitably leads to disrespect and betrayal!

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.)

ALL Social Media should be labeled as "disinformation!"

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

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

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

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

Why our Federal Government ignores what the Voters want!

 In 1790, The United States of America first census declared a population of Three Million, Nine Hundred Twenty-Nine Thousand, Two Hundred Fourteen people (3,929,214).  The 1791 House of Representatives had a membership of Sixty-nine (69).

Each Member of the 1791 House of Representatives represented (and was elected by) approximately Fifty-six Thousand, Four hundred Ninety-five (56,495) people. 

In 2020, The United States of America census declared a population of approximately Three Hundred Twenty-five Million, Seven Hundred Nineteen Thousand, One Hundred Seventy-eight (325,719,178) people.  The 2020 House of Representative numbered Four Hundred Sixty-five (465) members.

Each Member of the 2020 House of Representatives represented (really?) (and was elected by) approximately Seven Hundred Thousand, Four Hundred Seventy-one (700,471) people.

Does any sane, logical, thinking individual seriously consider that any one of us presents a significant impact on "our" House of Representative official with an impact of 1/700,471th on his or her holding office?  Does any one of you believe that they really care?

Perspective:

• To reach the same level of representation that existed in 1791, the House of Representatives would have to grow to 5,720 members.  That is NOT workable in Washington, BUT it would work if:
• Each state's delegation remained in their State's Capitol 

•  Total voting was transmitted and tabulated in Washington electronically, with each state's result counting as a weighted total (just as is done with the Presidential election tabulation).
• As a comparison, if today's level of representation were to have applied to the United States of 1791, the House of Representatives would have consisted of Six (6) members, and four (4) states would have had NO representation. 

The responsibility for our current government's failure to represent the "people" can be broadly cast in many directions, but a major degree is directly attributable to President Lincoln and his Congress.  Why?

His refusal to accept the separation of the southern States of the Republic into a new one started us on the road to being badly governed! 

Many of the Founding Fathers discussed and recognized that the responsiveness of a Democratic Republic was dependent on limiting the size of government; as government grew in size, it became less representative and responsive while becoming more and more dictatorial and controlling.  Many of them expressed a vision of the "United" states giving birth to additional, limited sized, Republics as the area and the population to be governed grew, each becoming allied with the originals for the purpose of common defense, but each maintaining a responsiveness to and for the segment of population they governed in a manner that maintained control in the people, not the government.

If that vision had survived the emotional, moral and financial challenge that brought on our "civil" war, we would today likely be an amalgam of five (5) Republics, each with its own Capitol, its own Supreme Court, it's own Congress, and each contributing to the cost and maintenance of a common Military governed by  5 member panel representing each of the Republics, and overseeing the necessary financial support of that defense.

Alas, that did not happen.  So today we (the individual "people") are ignored by an elected and bureaucratic cadre of what is (not inappropriately) often labeled the "Deep State," they members of which are dedicated to preserving and growing their own power, security and financial well-being.

I have no solution (other than to imagine that we are in the throughs of the same decline and obliteration suffered by the Greeks...and the Romans...and all the other once successful efforts to "do it better" than the last).  But if we are self-destructing, at least our last thoughts can include the knowledge of where we erred.

Statistics have corrupted America

 Statistics, of and by themselves, are inconsequential.  To properly understand and use them, one needs to know who compiled them AND their (or their organization's) agenda...and there is always one.

America today is slowly but inexorably crumbling under what is euphemistically called "social" justice and "racism."  It is supported by those who use the concepts to attain and retain power over others...NOT to be either "social" or "just."  Funding anything or anyone because of so inconsequential a thing as "skin color" is not only silly...it is demeaning.  How dare anyone argue that skin color correlates to ability or value?  That is moronic. One might as well argue that hair color, foot size, or height is such an indicator.  

Those who disagree with me point to statistics to prove that discrimination exists with regard to skin color.  NEWS FLASH: we all, of all backgrounds and origin, discriminate every day.  We associate primarily with those who make us feel most comfortable and with whom we agree on most things.  Many of us have deep feelings and arguments ( I think of them as discussions) about the matters about which we disagree...but when that is done, we  USED TO REMAIN FRIENDS.  I still have acquaintances who feel the same way.  But many have faded away.

Why?  Because Social Media (a false term, as it is primarily an attack vehicle and NOT to better society or make people more sociable) has lured us into judging the value of a person by their position on just one thing.  We have forgotten how to appreciate and value the whole person as separate from his or her position on any one topic. How shallow and obtuse can you be to make such an error...or is it purposeful?  If you can shut down any but the opinions and beliefs you hold dear, and chose to do so...as the Political and Social Left is currently successfully (to a large extent) doing in America, how soundly based can those beliefs be?  If not tested, how can you be prepared what challenges may arise in the future.  Imagine if the concept of a flat world had been supported by refusing even the utterance of the idea of a world that was round?  What if the concept of using anything but horses for transportation had been suppressed?

The very power of the Left today would never have developed if the efforts now being made by them to control communication and people had been applied to THIER ideas and concepts.  Yet they feel no shame in working to eliminate discussion of challenges to their policies and beliefs.

If America had stayed true to the concept of America as "The Great Melting Pot" all would be well today.  Immegrents used to learn language, social skills, and behavior so they could become a part of America...not create a mini-version of the country they left. If America had remained focused(and would again focus) on PERFORMANCE and EXCELLENCE as well as HONESTY, all would still be well.  But we did not.

Why did so many immigrants come to America when they knew they would initially be looked at askance by citizens who distrusted their "difference," their allegiance,  their appearance and their language?  After all, THEY weren't brought here as slaves, were they?  Why did they come?

Arguably it was because they saw greater opportunity to EARN a better live in America than where they originated and wanted to BECOME AMERICANS.    They WANTED to ASSIMILATE, and become a part of America.  They wanted to value themselves the way Americans valued people.  That attitude has apparently vanished in today's America.  No wonder the Republic is under attack.

Statistics (were you wondering when the title of this piece was going to make sense) have been used to eliminate the concept of "The Melting Pot" and "assimilation" from becoming "an American."

Keeping statistics about employment, wealth, crime and anything else creates the assumption of causality between the categories used. That presumption is and should be considered false unless proven...and that has not been proven.  Why not proven?  Because they are tracking two SYMPTOMS, not causes.  Race doesn't cause crime.  Color of skin doesn't cause crime, or stupidity.  Neither does hair color or style, foot size, or nose shape...but if we started to track those with statistical precision, someone would argue causality so that they could get support for increased control, power or financial benefit.

Instead, most young people in America today have become hyphenated Americans instead of assimilating: they are AFRICAN Americans, IRISH Americans, HISPANIC Americans...  What nonsense.  My father came to America so that he could TAKE A CHANCE for success; no guarantees, no certainty.  He left the country of his birth because he wanted to have a better life.  We all have that opportunity.  If an American feels that he or she cannot succeed and achieve in America, they have the right to research and find such a country and move there to TRY to achieve their dream. Those who are descendants of African slaves could chose to emigrate to a country in Africa, become part of a visible majority and have no reason to suggest that skin color somehow inflicts a disadvantage...but few do that.  That suggests that they do have opportunity in America that is greater than anywhere else and can be achieved through effort and accomplishment.  And despite the race-baiter who claim to be "leaders," they have proven very capable of such success...in business, in law, in our Supreme Court and in political positions of power.  Any suggestion of lack of opportunity to TRY is demonstrably nonsense.

As for America, if we stopped keeping statistics on Race, skin color, age and country of origin, like the Irish, Germans and those from the far East and worked at "assimilation" we would in a remarkably short time again become a nation of Americans who respected and valued each other as individuals in total, not just one belief or skin color or political ideology.

Stop allowing profiteers in ALL walks of life from using statistics to lie to us about our motives and beliefs. Stop schools from indoctrinating and get back educating and being able to be challenged and respond intelligently, not dismissing and censoring.

Start once again promoting excellence (in ALL things) and achievement as the basis for gaining education, wealth, acceptance.  Equality of OPPORTUNITY, NOT RESULTS is the goal.  Consequences of failure cannot and will never be avoided...only occasionally delayed.  

If we all wake up to these truths (not "woke"...whatever that dog whistle term really means), the Republic can not only survive, but thrive and move forward.  I pray that will happen.