Abortion

Predominately liberal main-stream media types continue to make every attempt to badger conservative political candidates into the fray of the abortion issue. Whether you are for or against Roe v. Wade, the issue of a woman’s right to an abortion is extremely personal. In lieu the liberal-championed Affordable Care Act and the Federal Government’s Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), personal information vis-à-vis health care, i.e. abortion, is indeed privileged information for which unauthorized release of information is punishable by Federal statute.

The very personal nature of abortion would seem to soundly reside in that personal and social aspect of a woman’s right encompassed in the individual theology of the sovereign woman. As such, the 1st Amendment’s protection of personal theology against the intrusion of Federal Government statutes or regulations is protected. Why then, must Chris Mathews and other liberal media idiots make this an irrelevant grand-standing issue? Liberals just cannot resist an opportunity to exert governmental influence where it is neither legal, warranted, nor Constitutional.

Donald Trump’s loss is that he apparently does not understand or comprehend the
U. S. Constitution’s protection of individual rights versus those encompassed by the individual sovereign states. These very personal rights of the woman lie within a government mechanism closer to the event, i.e. the individual and sovereign state. The 1st Amendment is the original and primary declaration establishing state-sovereignty.

In the issue of abortion, the Federal Government has no authority, nor does it possess the responsibility to fund via tax-dollars, a mechanism to induce or prevent the pregnancy of an individual sovereign woman. Let the woman deal, financially and morally, with the situation by her own desire, hopefully with some input from a responsible biological father; but that is a morale issue of its own! Caveat Emptor!

Change as a Constant

Management gurus offer the adage, “If you don’t manage change, change will manage you”. However, change for the meek is frightening while change for those satisfied with the status quo is threatening; but, change for the motivated is opportunity. Change is the only constant in life, yet how we deal with change may determine or influence multiple aspects of our being. Stature and comfort in one’s own shoes may reflect the philosophy of an individual and how he/she perceives and manages change which occurs in the process of normal life-spans. Change in management is inevitable, both in government and in professional association affairs.

Governance models are numerous and usually in an educated civilized world reflect the desires of those being governed. Theologically, the Holy Bible provides a rule and guide by which many model their lives. Similarly, the Constitution of the United States of America provides a framework for the governance of our Nation. Social and civil societies do not remain constant; however, how does one maintain consistency without these rudders and steering frameworks to maintain direction through inherent changes of a lifetime? History is the best reflection on the trials of successful and failed governance models. How can one know where they are going if they don’t know where they have been?

In recognizing history, a group of men once penned, “When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate but equal station, for which the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God entitle them. A decent respect for the opinions of mankind requires that they declare the causes which impel the separation”. This introduction to the Declaration of Independence pronounces a point where certain ideologies are consistent within a combined populace. However, changes occurring within the process of daily living often reflect a divergence of ideologies within the same populace. Hence, the Founders, through the expertise of Jefferson and Madison, created a governing document which by law erected a wall separating theologically-based personal and social aspects of life from those civil aspects of life required with human cohabitation. Any intermingling of personal and social ideologies with those required in civil affairs necessarily undermines the continuity of the whole Nation.

A liberal mindset is one which removes responsibility from the individual and relinquishes social, personal, and civil responsibilities to a central being. Conservatism reflects an attitude where individual liberty and personal sovereignty maintain an individual’s personal responsibility for all affairs which affect their lives. The progression of free-society often reveals over time a widening continuum of ideologies within a given population. Longevity of a governance model in these free societies reflects the success of delineating personal and social affairs from those of a civil nature. Historically, the two cannot co-exist! Enter the dilemmas in our national society today.

Professional associations often experience identical situations where once a homogeneous membership becomes more diverse over time. A growing diversity of practice scenarios requiring different knowledge and skill sets may evolve to a point where basic licensure cannot extend a particular scope of practice. Specialty and sub-specialties may require unique and individualized abilities which reflect diverse education and training. As the continuum of sub-specialties grows, the basic level of licensure becomes remote. Example: plastic surgeons are board certified in general surgery; however, after five years of plastic surgery, would you want to have a colon resection performed by a plastic surgeon? Regulatory requirements for a one size fits all basic level of practice may suffice for initial licensure; however, should such requirements be required for sub-specialties after initial certification?

The extent to which a professional association’s governance model reflects the will of the basic membership can be defined by by-laws, etc. However, when the governing body extends its influence beyond the basic level of practice which is the common denominator of the association, a certain amount of push-back should be expected. A liberal or progressive governance model may very well infringe upon the individual and personal practice rights of members in the profession who do not desire nor request a specific opinion from their professional association.

“When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another………….that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it…”.

History, my friend; it’s all about History!

Playing The Trump Card

Politicians make strange bed-fellows with just about anyone. By the sheer nature of their inclusive constitution, these elected officials often experience a makeover when arriving in Washington D.C. Elected as representatives of the people from their home states, politicians quickly become a self-propagating elitist group. The most egregious result is these servants of the people quickly forget those they are supposed to serve. Our federal politicians are in desperate need of remedial education focused on the root causes of our founding documents.

“When in the course of human events” is the introduction for the Declaration of Independence of 1776. Given the general dissatisfaction with government today, it could just as well be 2015. “It becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another….”could very well describe the separation “We the People” now feel toward these elected elitists. The self-evident truths have not changed although there have been bloody wars demonstrating their moral stature. “That all men are created equal with certain unalienable rights,” does not mean a government has the right to take from one and give to another. “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” actually is intended to pronounce an unfettered freedom for living, not existing in a Regulation Nation. “That to secure these rights Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”. This government was created by the people and empowered by their consent to facilitate, not regulate, their safety and happiness. Above all, “Whenever any form of Government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it,” reinforces the Peoples Power to control their individual destiny.

The Declaration is the Why We the People felt it necessary to revolt; the Constitution is the How to create a more perfect union. Three separate but equal branches with Limited powers were designed to serve as a model government. Checks and balances incorporated within were meant to insure specific enumerated powers granted to each within the Constitution would prevent a tyrannical and oppressive government. For over two centuries, and as many world wars, this grand design has produced more wealth and power than any nation in the history of the world. Yet, We the People now find ourselves with a governing entity we did not create nor can control. Through Jefferson’s outline and Madison’s research on governments, a Constitution and a Bill of Rights were created separating civil affairs under the auspices of the government from theologically influenced personal and social issues. Our government today is so far removed from the design of our duly adopted Constitution that any similarities between the two are faint at best. The Executive Branch makes law by fiat; the Judicial Branch legislates from the bench without regard to the adopted rule of law; and Congress is infected with special interest where The People pay the bill, yet receive only crumbs.

So the People are angry; the government is not trustworthy; and the two political parties appear to be in bed with each other shifting pseudo-control of government every few years. This quid- pro-quo no longer works for the People and some wonder why Donald Trump has become popular as a presidential candidate. A candidate who realizes the travesty this government has become and its negligence in fulfilling its given Constitutional duties is extremely threatening for current political insiders. Politicians will say anything to protect their status-quo!

Our elected representatives and extended judiciary have bastardized our form of government such that inherent Constitutional checks and balances are no longer relevant. A government which no longer operates within the law established for that purpose, such as the Constitution, cannot exercise its duties accordingly. In that scenario, an unorthodox leader may become the only manner by which to return true constitutional rule. Those politicians with the most to lose would necessarily complain the loudest. Tocqueville stated, “A democratic government is the only one in which those who vote for a tax can escape the obligation to pay it”.

Author of the Declaration of Independence and outliner of the Constitution, Thomas Jefferson, said it best when he stated, “My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government”. As the size and scope of government increases beyond Constitutional intent, the personal sovereignty and independent liberty of the people declines. In the Federalists Papers, Constitutional author James Madison stated, “In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to control itself”.  Obviously, the United States Government cannot control itself. The Founders understood this principle very well as Madison further explains, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.  If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary”. There are few, if any, angels in representative republic government; however, internal and external controls provided by the Constitution have been repeatedly ignored. Therefore, how can someone with an understanding of our government hope to revive its constitutionally based rule of law? Perhaps, this is the Trump card!

This Is Not What The Governed Meant

Philosophies of government purported by Locke and Montesquieu served as the framework for the Constitution of the United States of America. Studying ancient governments, Locke describes in his two Treatises on Civil Government an evolution of governance from the basic family unit as the original body politic to that essential when numbers of the community-family expand exponentially. Protection of private property and the common good of the community required a special model protecting man’s natural rights from tyranny and oppression often seen in previous ruling models including monarchies, theocracies, and dictatorships.

A common denominator in the attrition of previous experiments in government revolves around imperfections in human nature. An old adage, “absolute power corrupts absolutely”, expresses a trait of humanity difficult for leaders to overcome. The most effective form of government is a dictatorship; however, a Devine and benevolent dictator would be required to avoid stigmas associated with human nature in a leadership role. American Founders studied Montesquieu’s ideas of three co-equal branches of government, each with limited and specific enumerated powers. Montesquieu’s model would serve as a template for the governance model spelled out in the Constitution of the United States of America.

Checks and balances designed within the Constitution served to prevent dominance by one branch of government over the others. It was believed this mechanism would protect the liberty and sovereignty of American citizens from the tyranny and oppression historically experienced in most governments.  The model performed well in a nation limited in its size and population; however, as the nation grew in population and states, inconsistencies in its founding principles exposed vulnerability in differences of regional geography and economics which altered the perceived scope of government influence and control.

The Founders stated eloquently in the Declaration of Independence a self-evident truth that all men are created equal. Tearing at the heart of a new nation conceived in liberty was the existence of slavery. The abomination of slavery has existed since biblical times. It was introduced to the Americas by the English via ships from Africa selling captured persons as workers essential to the agricultural southern plantations. Slaves had little or no education, no recognized common language and were of little perceived value except for menial labor. A dichotomy existed for many. Were slaves really men with natural rights so enumerated in the Declaration, or were they the private property of their owners?  Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness included accumulation and protection of private property. So, the conscious of America created the dilemma which resulted in an American Civil War.

The Constitution was penned in 1787; however, to gain the favor of southern colonists for adoption, slavery was allowed until 1808 at which time it became a contested argument when applications were made for annexation of new states.  The provision for amending the Constitution, Article V states,” Provided that no Amendment be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article:”. Article I, Section 1 dealt with the importation of slaves and forbid anti-slavery amendments to the Constitution until 1808. However, after adoption of the Constitution northern states were confronted with disproportional representation of so many freed slaves in the south. Northern states mandated that freed slaves counted as only three/fifths of a citizen for proportional representation purposes. After the Louisiana Purchase and fearing a new southern advantage in Congress, divisive policies continued to admit southern slave states; but, only if a free-state was admitted simultaneously. The Missouri Compromise and the Kansas-Nebraska Act were examples of these policies. The dichotomy between liberty and slavery ripped the nation’s soul.

After the adoption of the thirteenth amendment abolishing slavery and the conclusion of the civil war preserving a more perfect Union, questions still loomed. First, per Alexander Hamilton in the 1st Federalist Paper, “…it seems to have been reserved for the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force”. Second, could newly-freed slaves, formerly African tribal people with no written language and virtually no intellectual achievements with little education, be integrated into a majority white population where they were perceived as inferior? And third, what role, if any, should a constitutional republic government play in effecting the integration of cultures into a free-society?

Experiences of freed-slaves in the latter half of the nineteenth and first half of the twentieth centuries more than demonstrate the necessity of education for the success of any democracy. Racial discord would result from the struggles of former slaves and their descendants who were frustrated with inequities between whites and blacks. Yet, a “talented tenth” according to black activist W.E.B. DuBois, would serve as a demonstration that blacks could indeed excel in a free society and become entrepreneurs, doctors, and lawyers. A liberal progressive government introduced a Freedman’s Bureau, passed civil rights laws, proposed an egalitarian Great Society, declared War on Poverty, ordered race preferences, built housing projects, and even introduced midnight basketball. Unfortunately, a critical mass never followed the talented tenth. Immigration from the Pacific Rim and India has seen those cultures progress to repeated winners of spelling bees and receiving high scores on the SAT. It is not about white culture, or white privilege, or white racism. It is about a culture of dependency created by delusional, though possibly well meaning, progressives who believe that government, not the people, should affect political policies soliciting cultural change.

Detroit is bankrupt, the south side of Chicago is a war zone, and the vast majority of black cities all over America are beset by degeneracy and violence. Instead of taking responsibility for their failures, blacks often lash out in anger and resentment. Across the generations and across the country, as we have seen in Detroit, Watts, Newark, Los Angeles, Cincinnati, and now Ferguson, rioting and looting are just one racial incident away. Progressive liberal Government’s attempt to alter the dynamics of human nature in a free society has failed repeatedly. Additional tax dollars for more programs benefiting the socially incompatible or new immigrants cannot surpass those essential elements evident within true Liberty in a free market. As the U.S. Government debt reaches near twenty trillion dollars, the insurmountable question remains; when will the Democrat and Republican politicians grasp the message so eloquently expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution? “This Is Not What the Governed Meant”!

Discrimination

A definition of discriminate is, “verb, meaning to recognize a distinction; differentiate”. The ability to excel at critical decision-making requires at least a passing necessity to discriminate or differentiate good from bad choices. Both discrimination and differentiation are used daily by most humans in determining activities of normal living. We discriminate between cuts of meat at the butcher, which fruit to buy at the market, or the model of automobile to suit our family’s need. If discrimination is so much of our daily life, how did it become such a negative term in today’s English language?

A Sal Alinsky-like liberal modus operandi of the late 20th and early 21st century is and continues to be marginalize, demonize, and criticize. Any word or common occurrence can be marginalized by raising public awareness accentuating the word or occurrence. Examples of marginalization can be seen in the manner in which Rev. Al Sharpton or Rev. Jesse Jackson call attention to the plight of black Americans utilizing “Uncle Tom” or “Jim Crow” character assignments. They emphasize the perceived differentiation in treatment between blacks and whites.

Demoniztion begins with inflicting a sense of guilt to those who differ; those who represent the successes possible through education and hard work regardless of color. A nice house and a new car become analogous with someone who doesn’t care about those with less. A mere perception of prosperity is deemed counter to acceptable status in the liberal world. Those who experience success through education and/or hard work are then criticized for having sacrificed and excelled toward improving their socio-economic existence. Rather than hold these up to demonstrate the way out of poverty, liberals are hypocritical by criticizing achievements and newly obtained wealth.

Discrimination doesn’t have to be a negative term; unless of course it serves your purpose; Que Sera, Sera!