Sunday, January 22, 2012
Killing? Of fetuses, you mean, you may ask. Aren't they just useless blobs of tissue without any viability?
And what about women's right to choose? Surely, their bodies are theirs to choose what should happen with it.
And what about abortions because of rape or incest?
Or, the health of the mother, or a deformed, mentally dysfunctional embryo?
Yes, I mean genocide, killing millions of babies every year. Let's first look at the statistics before we tackle all those 'concerns' that the pro-killing folks raise.
These statistics have been provided by The Alan Guttmacher Institute and Planned Parenthood's Family Planning Perspectives. But, if you doubt any of it, research into these numbers and facts are easily accomplished. It might do some good to delve into this piece of dark history of the world yourself.
Worldwide about 115,000 babies are killed every day, which amounts to 42 million every year.
In the United States the numbers are 3,700 babies per day amounting to about 1.37 million per year. That's almost one baby every 20 seconds.
The most alarming statistic is that women claiming to be Roman Catholic account for 31.3% of all abortions. Those claiming to be of Protestant religious conviction account for 28.7% of all abortions. One would have thought that those who claim to revere God would show more respect when God has gifted them with a new life, convenient for them or not.
The vast majority of abortions (52%) are performed on babies less than 9 weeks old; 25% between 9 and 10 weeks and then the incidence of abortion drops off to about 1% (16,450 per year) while the babies are older than 20 weeks in the womb.
Let's check in with the viability argument. The argument is that should one deliver a fetus at an abortable stage, it would not be a viable human being and would die quickly outside the womb. That is a dishonest argument because a fetus has a support system surrounding it, keeping it alive in the womb, such as an umbilical chord, water in which to float (there is no air in the womb) for protection among other things, heat, nutrition, and so on.
As soon as the baby is born, it is transferred to a supporting system outside the womb: air, heat, nutrition, comfort, and protection. That doesn't change as long as the baby is alive even at old age, or perhaps more so at old age.
Ask any adult who promotes abortion, to walk without food or water into the Sahara desert and stay there for two weeks without any reference to a support system that has sustained him up to that point, and see how viable he has become. It will be less than a week before that completely viable human being is transformed into a worthless blob of decaying tissue. The point is that all human beings, from conception till death, are viable only while connected to a sufficient supporting system. Like an umbilical chord through which one acquires nutrition, like an amniotic sack providing protection, and so on.
So, the viability argument is false and insulting, to say the least.
Let's check in with the woman's right to choose argument. Abortions are medical procedures and are considered very dangerous procedures in many instances. Even the drugs that women are willing to take can be killers or maim the woman's reproductive organs. Read up about RU-486 and Methotrexate & Misoprostol, if you have the time.
Why would any rational woman choose to participate in activities that result in the conception of a baby, and then claim a right to choose when the danger of her choices radically threatens her health? Wouldn't one want to prevent the activities that lead to such dangers in the first place, if choice is the core of the argument?
So, the choice argument is also bogus and false.
Let's check in with the rape and incest argument, and lump in with it the deformity and mental dysfunction arguments. Almost 1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest while only 6% occur because of potential health concerns. A full 93% of all abortions are for social, convenient reasons.
So that argument is moot, too, because if we get rid of the 93%, we can start a discussion on the remaining 7%.
I challenge anyone to point to a miraculous event in the life of a fetus that's equal to that of conception, which changes a blob of useless tissue into a person, except natural growth, which is the standard manner of progression of any human being regardless of age.
In the United States alone, more than 53 million babies have been killed since abortion was legalized in 1973 of which almost 50 million were killed for the sake of convenience.
What a terrible crime is being inflicted upon the people the world over, who have lost millions and millions of potential artists, scientists, authors, poets, teachers, and economically productive people. Just because they considered it convenient to do so.
Those who believe in God read Psalm 139 and realize that there is a relationship with God established at conception and aborting the baby is murder.
Those who do not believe in God realize that there is a relationship with the future established at conception and aborting the baby is murder.
It is impossible to sustain rational thought around the useless blob of tissue argument.
Monday, January 16, 2012
The latter should never have been an issue, if one considers the Constitution. It starts with the words "We the people…" after all.
However, history and tradition are what they are, and Dr. King resisted passionately but passively. It is perhaps only his death, and the manner in which it came about, that cast his beliefs in stone, never to be erased or moved again. It is debatable whether that would have been the case to this intensity had he not been assassinated in Memphis, Tennessee on April 4, 1968.
It is usually the death of someone that casts the unimportant into the arena of the profound, the common into the extraordinary, and the mundane into the exceptional.
Dr. King's goal was not unimportant, common or mundane, so his death was destined to catapult the entire agenda of civil rights and passive resistance into the stratosphere, causing permanent changes in this country.
If we stand in 2012, and take Dr. King's most famous of his utterances, "I have a dream…" and the color of one's skin statement following that, and we hold that as a template over history since that fateful day in April 1968, it is inescapable to conclude that many black leaders today wish he didn't make that statement. That statement appears to be a thorn in their side when it comes to the color of people's skin as opposed to the content of their character.
Perhaps if Dr. King had said that as long as there are white people in society, black folks would never be freed from discrimination. Or, the greatest enemy of the black population is white people. That is what their actions suggest and what some loudly profess.
Many black parents teach their children about slavery and discrimination, and rightly so, but also ingrain into them their own personal responsibility to pursue their goals. In a post-King era there are no laws prohibiting anyone in this country from achieving all that one can desire.
There will always be bigots, racists, and homophobes. As long as the law does not prohibit one from achieving one's goals and desires, bigots, racists and homophobes that one encounters are like obstacles found in any course, hills and valleys in any journey. It's up to individuals to intelligently navigate the course that leads to their goals. All people are subject to these obstacles. No one escapes them.
Unfortunately, many black parents not only teach their children about slavery and discrimination, but teach them that the white man owes them his wealth because he stole it from their ancestors. That is tantamount to child abuse in addition to it being inaccurate. Child abuse because children become unable to navigate these obstacle courses, setting them on a path to utter destruction and poverty. Or slavery, if you will.
Dr. King's crusade against the abuses of the civil rights of people was against the laws that prohibited Claudette Colvin and Rosa Parks from sitting in a bus where they wanted to. No, not only prohibited, but made it illegal, punishable by the state.
Most people, white or black, would not have batted an eyelid where anyone sat in a bus if the law didn't spark their political combustion.
This is not the time to consider who enacted those unjust laws although it would make for a piece of interesting history, perhaps standing some contemporary beliefs on their head. It would be more productive to identify the modern day robbers of liberty from the people and, like Dr. King, dream that there would come a day when people would be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin.
The so-called black leadership destroys black people who dare to rise to the levels of their expectations and desires and lynch them if they dare to wander off the plantation of victimhood.
In the process several generations of black families have been decimated. More black youths are in jail than any other group; more are unemployed than any other group; more are in poverty than any other group; more are totally illiterate while possessing high school diplomas, than any other group.
Since the laws have been made color-neutral, there is no excuse for this sorry state of affairs in which the black family has been dumped by their fellow blacks.
Instead of shepherding their children onto the path of liberty and prosperity, they rather hoodwinked them, dragged them off onto their plantations to do their bidding and let them fall into squalor and misery, while banking the profits of these poor people's labor. Doesn't that sound like slavery?
They dare not propose that black people should be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin, for at that moment, they would be exposed as the architects of the greatest tragedy that ever befell the black people of this country, since slavery was abolished.
Who will be the Dr. King of these lost generations?
Sunday, January 15, 2012
On Saturday I attended a Patriots meeting because I am deeply concerned about the decline of individual liberty of the people and, trusting no one in politics or any political party, as they appear to be the conveyors of deceit in our time, I went to listen to a grass-roots initiative of ordinary folks like me.
It was very refreshing to hear the work that is being done, grass-roots wise.
The leader gave a rundown of the group's activities for the past month and in her address made the following comment: "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. A republic is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
Cute, I thought, but something sounded off-key. It didn't sound like a true analogy, not of a republic, at least. The two wolves, because of their majority, could have been voted into congress, denied the lamb his Second Amendment rights, and have it for lunch anyway. She attributed the quote to Benjamin Franklin.
The more I thought about the quote, the more I realized that Benjamin Franklin was either misquoted or mistaken. I would have thought that individual liberty would be the instrument by which the lamb would have obtained protection against the wolves, not the fact that they were in a republic. After all, a republic is the effect of the democratic process and thus contaminated by its defects. The antidote to this contamination is that democracy is applied by individually free people from which the republic is spawned. The republic, of itself, is no cause at all. At best it is an instrument through which the wishes of the people are executed. The law is in the same position, and that, too, has been bastardized and employed as a cause. No, the people are the cause, period.
I started writing this blog by correcting Benjamin Franklin. It harped on my sense of accuracy that Benjamin Franklin was no fool and I had better verify what exactly he said about this. So, I started looking for Franklin's quotes on the Internet. He penned so many quotes that I became despondent when after more than an hour of reading supposed Franklin quotes, I couldn't find the democracy vs. republic quote. Then, finally, I stumbled onto a site and there it was: the first on a page of very poignant quotes.
It reads, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
Now, that sounded right. Franklin's analogy was spot-on; the analogy at the meeting was incorrectly quoting Franklin.
What a small and innocent inaccuracy, I thought, and yet, it is indicative of the exact reason why we are in trouble today. People, even those in power and those teaching conservatism and capitalism, do not recognize the first cause of our republic. It is the people's individual liberty that is the first cause of this nation's existence and success. Everything else hangs on this truth and this truth alone.
Individual liberty brings those of like mind together from where they appoint and employ their leaders. They have the right to dismiss those who violate or threaten their individual liberty, regardless how well-intended the diversions may appear. Unfortunately, our sense of a ruler over us, which has bogged nations since the time of the ancient Israelites, causes us to bestow upon our employees, the president included, monarchical majesty.
Individual liberty, by definition, excludes those who oppose it and dissidents should either conform and accept their right to be individually free, or seek residence elsewhere where they can live in bondage at their leisure.
Group forming or group identification is the road that leads to tyranny and our republic is worthless if we, the ordinary folks on the ground, and our leaders whom we employed do not understand the mechanics of our government and how they have been bastardized.
I am convinced that our nation is utterly defenseless against liberalism and communism, because we have allowed our enemies to redefine who we are. As of today, nobody has yet been able to recognize this redefinition and correctly defined who we are.
We are in an abyss from which we might only rise when our streets are drenched in the blood of our children and at the sound of desperate cries from our people in chains and poverty, unless we get this right.
Do you think this is an overly dramatic end to my blog? Then, consider what the majority of the people in this country would do when they have been deprived of their right to engage the ballot box and the courts rule against their liberty.
We had better take note and act before the enemies of the people have usurped the instruments by which we express our individual liberty.
Time has run out.
There the leader of the Patriots group was spot-on.
Sunday, January 8, 2012
I refuse to believe that all those who immediately attach credibility to actions, statements, and promises of government do so without any inner sense that something is wrong, irrational and perhaps dangerous. The question is why don't they speak up? Why don't they protest and at the very least demand an explanation of those thoughts that cry out against the conflicts that government causes.
We see this oppression of individual thought occurring in the military and where dictators and monarchs rule with the sword. The military's subversion of individual thought is understandable. You cannot convene a committee or ask for a second opinion when the battle field commander yells "charge." You charge whether you agree, understand or feel like charging or not. Your training makes your superior's orders your knee-jerk reaction. You first obey and if able or necessary, ask for an explanation later.
When confronted with a dictator's orders, or decrees from your monarch, the knee-jerk reaction is to be silent, agreement is not optional. Discretion is dangerous. If the order involves your action, you comply and remain silent, even defending the order if necessary, just in case you might appear to be in disagreement with the one who gave the order.
Why, in a free society with guarantees of individual liberty for all, would we willingly subject ourselves to such abuse and then not from an identifiable ONE, but an illusive, non-descript "government," filled with people like you and me. They appear to willingly, even gleefully, transform from Dr. Jekyll into Mr. Hyde depending whether they enter the daylight of citizenship or the darkness of government.
I am confident that everybody in this country would be able to recount horror stories of encounters with the government's Mr. Hydes. The one that particularly is a thorn in my side is the concept of government's role as a real person. That is, it is not just people who make up government and nothing else, but that it is a real entity and that it has a personality.
We gave government its personality and installed it with power over us. Why are we still defending these masochistic actions. Or, is it Stockholm Syndrome?
Government's constitution caused not-so-benevolent people to take control of our acceptance that government is a real person that can sometimes do good and sometimes bad things. By cunningly feeding on our acceptance of government as a real entity with a personality, we are willingly following and obeying whomever is in charge.
The truth is counter intuitive to most of us, unfortunately, keeping this mythical entity alive and very dangerous. The truth is that the one in charge is our servant, not our king, dictator or battle field commander.
In a monarchy speech such as this would be blatant treason. In a free society it is absolutely necessary and required behavior. It is recognition of the truth, giving birth to action to rectify the wrongs in our society, which is a free people's response to oppression.
Government is not capable of any actions unless we grant it, not to government, because it doesn't exist, but to those neighbors of ours whom we appointed to take care of those tasks that we have neither the time nor the inclination of doing.
That identity we created and bestowed upon "government" is a myth; a beast that threatens to consume us unless we obey. When this beast growls for more of our harvest, we willingly, in fear, feed him lest he comes down from his mountain and smite us.
Those of us who do not work in government, can be compared to ranchers who till their land, tend their crops and bring their harvest to market every year. All human beings have a piece of land, which is their talents, hard work and general ability to plant, tend and grow a harvest. I am such a rancher.
Those of us who work in government, are utterly and wholly funded by other, special government workers who have the right, and the weight of the law behind them, to confiscate as much of my harvest as they deem necessary.
Let's not at this time consider that part of my confiscated harvest that is given to my neighbor because he neglected to till his land and plant a crop last year, ensuring he won't till his land this year either. Let's just consider the legitimate payment of my other neighbor who also doesn't till his land but receives part of my confiscated harvest as wages for his efforts to confiscate my harvest next year, ensuring that he will continue to receive part of my harvest.
It stands to reason, then, if more people like me are taken off the land and enticed to rather share in the confiscated harvests of others than producing a harvest themselves, that the harvest would of necessity become smaller and smaller every year. If the harvest becomes smaller, more would have to be confiscated from those who still till the land and break their backs to bring in a harvest every year, right?
As I said earlier, for those neighbors, who do not till land for an existence, as I do, but work for us to do those tasks we do not want to do, we gladly and willingly surrender a portion of our harvest to ensure that they remain willing to do those unwanted tasks. We hold those neighbors in high esteem creating for us greater liberty and opportunity to become more productive ensuring that they remain well paid and cared for.
It is when those who consider us as their subjects, who believe our harvests and land belong to them to benevolently distribute as they see fit, that are the beasts on the mountain. The dragon that needs slaying.
Let's look at the picture in a practical manner. In 2009 the federal government confiscated $2.1 trillion from our harvests. The federal payroll was $181 billion that year. That is, for every $1,000 a government employee received, roughly $11,000 had to be confiscated. Granted, not every dollar confiscated went to pay a government employee, but the overhead of getting a dollar to a government employee required that $11 be confiscated from my harvest.
The key to understanding this is that government doesn't produce anything, it just has people managing, controlling, supervising, tracking, collecting, enforcing and reporting on our actions and our harvests -- all its revenues consist of confiscated harvests. Nothing else.
So, if we speak of stimulating the economy by subsidizing or bailing out things, we speak of confiscating larger portions of my harvest to give to others who haven't produced a harvest or haven't produced enough. Or, worse, who have stolen others' harvests.
If we speak of creating jobs by hiring more people in government, we speak of confiscating larger portions of my harvest to pay those newly employed people who will now be unable to produce any harvest of their own, further reducing the harvest.
Why are we just blindly accepting that unemployment is somehow countered by hiring more government employees?