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. 

The Revenge of the World on the Ugly American (with help from within)

 

The Revenge of the World on the Ugly American

(with help from within)

 

In the late 1950’s Lederer and Burdick wrote “The Ugly American,” which pointed out the arrogance and nerve of American’s attitude toward the rest of the world and their way of live.  As transportation and communications improved exponentially, Americans and their businesses expanded into the world and carried with them the concept that all American ideas and practices were the solution to everything and the pre-existing attitudes and values of everyone else were not just worse, but wrong.

 

In America today, the rest of the world, with help from the Baizuo Democrat Leftists, is getting its revenge.  In most of the last century and before, the immigrants from around the world came to America to become Americans.  They gave up most of the practices from their home country to assimilate into American society and adopt our ways, language, moral precepts, and became within a generation just like all those before them.  Those who have watched Americans emigrate to other countries have seen the same thing happen in reverse.

 

But Twenty-first Century America is being overrun by people who have come to America, many of them illegally, who want to change America into a better version of their country of origin.  Of course, many of them define that as meaning that THEY are in control in the form of a Dictatorship.  The rest have ideological beliefs that are anathema to any form of democracy.  And they are aided and abetted by Americans who came to America from countries that abused them in search of freedom, which they now are using to destroy the very country that saved them.  Not to be undone, there are power hungry Americans who see the resulting chaos as a way of grabbing more power.

 

The questions is…why do the majority of current Americans accept this degradation?  Are they evaluating and throwing away individual freedom, or have they been indoctrinated by an educational system now in the control of those who believe democracy is a bad way to govern?

"Citizens" vs "Government": Which serves the "will" of the "people?"

 Violence recently visited our nation's Capitol.  Elected Officials responded with fear and outrage.  Some died.  Generally, the Media condemned the people who demonstrated anger with the Federal Government.

Does anyone else note the similarity and parallels of this event with the Boston Tea Party and other violent events in our country that proceeded the Revolution? 

For years, we have been surrounded by the attitude and claim that government exists to serve the people.  We even used to call our elected officials and other who get a paycheck from the Government as "Public Servants."  Not sure if that term survives in today's America, however. But is is curious how that concept was jettisoned universally in the wake of the demonstration of anger against what many today refer to as "the Washington Swamp."  Across the political spectrum, few deny that our elected officials no longer act and vote in a way that demonstrates that they represent those who live in the districts and states from which the were elected...ostensibly to represent the whole of those states and districts rather than serve their personal goals, wants, and desires.

No objective person believes that if Ms. Hillary had been elected anyone not "in the know" in Washington would ever have known about the weaponization of our security agencies, about the lying to the FISA court, and other self-serving motivations of those at the head of these Federal Agencies.  The hatred of a person coming to office that wasn't looking for or flattered by being offered a ":seat in the Washington 'club' " was not only natural but essential to the "swamp's" survival.  And survive they did,.

Perhaps, however, those who are members of and who value "the Swamp" might be wise to know that those who showed their anger can very well be described as a "small faction" of the electorate, but for each person who was protesting in anger there are 100 who could not attend and who are just as convinced that our government no longer serves or cares about us but instead exists to create power and financial security for themselves.  They act and speak as if none of us notice how our elected officials come into office with average self-worth, are paid salaries that barely cover the cost of living in D.C., yet retire with vast fortunes...the source of which is never explained or questioned.

For now, "the Swamp" abides.  But I wouldn't bet the farm on just how much longer its control will survive.  And the Media is seen as just as corrupt.  Tomorrow is another day.  As investment firms advertising always says (quickly, in small print or too fast to actually hear) "past performance is no guarantee of future performance."  I would add to that "or of survival." 

Spending money you don't have isn't "Ideology,"...it is FRAUD

 Life in general, and government in particular, exists with multiple beliefs and ideologies held by many.  Arguments and discussions are (or, at least used to be) commonplace throughout the world.  Where a practical democratic element exists, different ideologies come to power and then lose it on a fairly regular basis.

But some practices go beyond the pale...and for some reason no significant part of America's population wants to acknowledge this. Consider the following:

• As of January 23, 2021, at 8:05 am, the United States National Debt Budget deficit was above Twenty-Seven Trillion Eight Hundred Million ($27,800,000,000,000) Dollars;
• As of the same time, the United States National Debt deficit total was above Eighty-two Trillion Two Hundred Billion ($82,200,000,000,000) Dollars;
• United States Gross Annual Domestic Product output is just over Twenty-one Trillion, Two Hundred Billion ($21,200,000,000.000) Dollars.

We owe more than the value of what we produce in a year.  And the total unfunded liabilities are almost four times what we produce in a year.

Any organization other than our government would already be in bankruptcy.

This kind of Ponzi scheme is why Bernard Madoff is in jail right now.

If the Federal Congress had not exempted themselves from application of the RICO statutes when they were written and  passed into law, a majority of Congressmen and women would now have jail cells adjoining Madoff...which may explain why they did, in fact, exempt themselves.

Why do you all ignore this corruption?  Is it because, like many of Madoff's customers, YOUR check cleared?  ...because YOU are getting "stuff" that you don't have to pay for?

Perhaps it is time to start drafting a (apologies to the Catholics out there) "mea culpa" letter to your great grandchildren and beyond.  Perhaps you need to come up with a defense for your stealing their financial well-being.  And I wouldn't waste time with the "I didn't know" or the "I only did what I was told was ok" defenses...they didn't serve those tried in Nuremberg and they won't save your reputation here.  Want to make it right?  Each family just send a payment of Twenty-eight Thousand, fourteen ($28,014) to the Federal government right now (the amount will grow by tomorrow)

Oh...and you folks in New York, California and other states where the State is spending money they don't have had better check how much more you need to sent your Governor to balance their budget(s).

I have failed them too...but at least I spoke up, and voted based on candidates' recognition and willingness to stop this generational theft.

What will you say?