By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted Tuesday, November 20, 2007 4:20 PM PT
Campaign Trail: Lamenting the healthy U.S. economy, a certain senator from New York says "it takes a Clinton to clean up after a Bush." But the Clintons' brand of soap always seems to be a mix of sleaze and socialism.
Campaigning in Iowa on Monday, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., spread doom and gloom about an economy that has produced more than 8 million new jobs over the past 50 months amid a powerful economic expansion.
Hillary has been pushing the theme that being first lady for eight years gave her the experience that will make her a good president.
"Every day spent learning the ropes is another day of rising costs, mounting deficits and growing anxiety for our families," she said in an obvious negative reference to her opponent, Sen. Barrack Obama, D-Ill. "And they cannot afford to keep waiting."
But what exactly is it they are waiting for? Certain expiration of the Bush across-the-board income tax cuts, and his reduction in taxes on investment, policies that caused the economy's current sustained boom?
Is the "experience" our families are waiting to reap the benefits of actually a new version of Hillary's 1993-94 attempt to impose socialized health care on America?
The cleaning up that Hillary claims her husband undertook is a myth. The record shows Bill Clinton inherited from President George H.W. Bush an economy already in recovery.
It also shows that two terms of Clinton Masculinus left George W. Bush in 2001 with an economy already in a downturn.
It wasn't his income tax rate increases or sage words from Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin that produced Intel's Pentium chip and the Internet or the rest of the technological revolution behind the 1990s boom. The seed capital for it all came largely from the low-tax policies of Ronald Reagan years earlier. (Note from Norm: Why does it take the media so long to catch up with me? I’ve been saying this all along. And if you care to go back and check the Wall Street Journal’s economic writers, they all proclaimed that the recession that began in March right after president Bush took office, was a direct result of President Clinton’s tax increase just prior to him (Clinton) leaving office (that was in November after the elections). Further, if you want to check the record, that was the largest tax increase in the nation’s history (at that time). Pelosi and Company have plans for yet a larger increase. Don’t kill the messenger for delivering you the facts.)
Bill Clinton, in fact, never succeeded in getting passed into law what he touted as his vital "jobs bill," a pork-laden $30 billion fiscal stimulus package; only a fraction of it, $220 million, was ever enacted.
Yet government spending is clearly what Hillary's White House job experience would translate into. Her energy policy, for instance, consists of a $50 billion alternative fuels fund and $20 billion worth of new "green vehicle bonds" funding intensified gas mileage regulations. (Note from Norm: Even the un-informed know that you cannot legislate technology…this is just a money scheme to generate fines for not complying with the law. Don’t believe me? Just ask BMW, et al and ask them why they had to pay $26 million dollars in fines for not producing better gas mileage. BMW, et al could care less about the insane laws, they just pass the cost onto you the consumer. Again, don’t kill the messenger for delivering the facts.)
But businesses won't have to worry — if they can grease the lady's palm. Corning, Inc., Western New York state's stalwart Republican Party corporate donor, found that out in 2004 when China threatened a 16% tariff on Corning's fiber optics products.
By having the Red Chinese ambassador to her Capitol Hill office, Hillary apparently got the Communist government to drop the duty. But it seems to have cost Corning executives $46,000 in campaign contributions.
Sleazy deals and big spending are well-remembered from the days of Hillary Clinton's other half. That kind of experience is no recipe for continued economic health.
© Copyright 2007 Investor's Business Daily. All Rights Reserved.
Former CBS News president Richard Salant (1961 - 64 and 1966 - 79) explained the major media's role: "Our job is to give people not what they want, but what we decide they ought to have." ...and to this very day most Americans haven't noticed they're being brained washed! ~ N. Hooben
Saturday, December 1, 2007
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Are we are at war with all Islam?
‘We are at war with all Islam’
Mary Wakefield
Wednesday, 28th November 2007
An interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Last Tuesday at nightfall, as the servants of democracy fled SW1, a young Somali woman stood spotlit on a stage in Westminster. Behind her was the illuminated logo for the Centre for Social Cohesion: a white hand reaching down across England to help a brown one up; in front, an audience of some of Britain’s biggest brains — politicians, editors, academics. She drew her shawl a little closer round her shoulders, looked up and said: ‘We are not at war with “terror”, that would make no sense.’
‘Hear, hear,’ said a voice at the back. ‘Terror is just a tactic used by Islam,’ she continued. ‘We are actually at war, not just with Islamism, but with Islam itself.’
Out in the dark began a great wobbling of heads. Neocons nodded, Muslims shook their heads; others, uncertain, waggled theirs anxiously from side to side: at war with all Islam, even here in the UK? What does that mean?
It would be easier in some ways to ignore Ayaan Hirsi Ali, to label her as bonkers — but it would also be irresponsible. She’s not just another hawkish hack, anxious to occupy the top tough-guy media slot — she has the authority of experience, the authenticity of suffering. In the spring of 2004 she wrote a film called Submission (an artsy 11-minute protest against Islamic cruelty to women) which was shown on Dutch TV. In November 2004 the film’s director, Theo van Gogh, was assassinated and the killer left a long letter to Hirsi Ali knifed into his corpse which said, in short: you’re next. But Hirsi Ali couldn’t be silenced. She has since written an autobiography (Infidel) about growing up a Muslim (in Somalia, then Saudi Arabia and Ethiopia), describing her circumcision, the beatings she received, her arranged marriage, her flight to Holland. She risks her life daily, speaking out against what she calls the ‘fairytale’ that Islam is in essence a religion of peace.
The other reason to take her seriously is that Hirsi Ali’s ideas about Islam (that it is unamenable to reform, and intrinsically opposed to Western values) are attracting attention worldwide. In Holland where, until 2006, she was an MP for the People’s Party for Freedom and Independence (VVD), the famous ‘pillarisation’ approach to immigration — where each new culture becomes a pillar upon which the state rests — has given way to a ‘new realism’, much more in tune with Hirsi Ali’s way of thinking, and in part because of her. In Britain and in America, Ayaan Hirsi Ali has become a sort of popstar for neocons, and she now lives in Washington, and works as a fellow of the American Enterprise Institute.
But is she right? And what does ‘war with Islam’ mean? I went to find out; to meet Ayaan Hirsi Ali in the House of Lords on a bitter and blustery afternoon last week, bustling past the police, down the corridors of partial power, to the visitors’ room where she was waiting. We haven’t got much time, so can we dive straight into Islam? I ask. ‘Yes, absolutely, go ahead,’ she smiles. Up close she is disconcertingly beautiful, and fragile-looking. OK then, right. Well, you say that Islam is a violent religion, because the Prophet advocated violence. But isn’t that open to interpretation? I ask. Karen Armstrong, (a non-Muslim biographer of Mohammed) has said the Prophet was a loving man who’d have been horrified at 9/11.
‘Karen Armstrong is ridiculous,’ says Hirsi Ali in her quick, light voice — Africa still audible in the clipped consonants. ‘The Prophet would have not have disapproved of 9/11, because it was carried out in his example. When he came to Medina, the Prophet had a revelation, of jihad. After that, it became an obligation for Muslims to convert others, and to establish an Islamic state, by the sword if necessary.’
But there is such a thing as moderate Islam, I say. Muslims aren’t all terrorists. There are some like Ed Husain (author of The Islamist) who argue that there are many peaceful traditions of Koranic scholarship to choose from. Isn’t it a mistake to dismiss this gentler, acceptable branch of Islam?
‘I find the word “moderate” very misleading.’ There’s a touch of steel in Hirsi Ali’s voice. ‘I don’t believe there is such a thing as “moderate Islam”. I think it’s better to talk about degrees of belief and degrees of practice. The Koran is quite clear that it should control every area of life. If a Muslim chooses to obey only some of the Prophet’s commandments, he is only a partial Muslim. If he is a good Muslim, he will wish to establish Sharia law.’
But I don’t call myself a ‘partial Christian’ just because I don’t take the whole Bible literally, I say. Why can’t a Muslim pick and choose his scriptures too? Before Hirsi Ali can answer, the door to the waiting room flies open and a House of Lords doorman stands theatrically on the threshold. ‘You must stop this interview immediately!’ he says. Why? Is there a breach of security? A terrorist threat? ‘I have not received authorisation for it,’ he says. But we’re here with a peer, I say. I’m sure he has cleared it. ‘Please proceed to the waiting area in silence.’ So off we trudge to the foyer to sit by a fake fire — ‘it’s much nicer here, anyway,’ says Hirsi Ali kindly — and to continue our discussion about the superiority of the free, enlightened West in urgent whispers behind my rucksack.
‘Christianity is different from Islam,’ says Hirsi Ali, ‘because it allows you to question it. It probably wasn’t different in the past, but it is now. Christians — at least Christians in a liberal democracy — have accepted, after Thomas Hobbes, that they must obey the secular rule of law; that there must be a separation of church and state. In Islamic doctrine such a separation has not occurred yet. This is what makes it dangerous! Islam — all Islam, not just Islamism — has not acknowledged that it must obey secular law. Islam is hostile to reason.’
Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s eyes are now aglow. She is a terrific believer in reason. For her, Western civilisation is built on the bedrock not of Judaeo-Christian values, but of logic. After seeking asylum in Holland, she spent five years at Leiden university studying political science, absorbing the Enlightenment philosophers — Spinoza, Hobbes, Voltaire — and she mentions them fondly, as if they’re family. But there’s a steely side to her atheism, which says with Voltaire: Ecraser l’infâme! During a recent debate with Ed Husain, as Husain was explaining his moderate Islam, she began to laugh at him, saying: ‘When you die you rot, Ed! There is no afterlife, Ed!’ And it makes me wonder whether, for Hirsi Ali, Islam’s crime is as much against reason as humanity; whether she sees the point of spirituality at all.
Are you so sure you understand what is at the heart of Islam? I ask her. Isn’t there a peaceful prayerfulness — apart from the politics — that an atheist might not understand? ‘I was a Muslim once, remember, and it was when I was most devout that I was most full of hate,’ she says.
OK then, you talk about your conscience, and how your conscience was pricked by 9/11. But if there’s no God, what do you mean by a conscience? And why should we obey it?
‘My conscience is informed by reason,’ says Hirsi Ali, surprised I should ask. ‘It’s like Kant’s categorical imperative: behave to others as you would wish they behaved to you.’
I say, so let’s assume Islam is hostile and not open to reason, that it needs to be wiped out. The next question then is how? We can’t just ban it. Isn’t it destructive to curtail freedom so much in the interests of protecting it? Don’t you risk loving freedom to death?
Hirsi Ali looks at me with pity. ‘You, here in the UK, are in danger. Of course you can’t ban Islam outright, but you need to stop the spread of ideology, stop native Westerners converting to Islam. You definitely need to ban the veil in schools, and to close down Muslim schools because that’s where kids are indoctrinated.’
But, what about freedom of belief and free speech? I ask (with a nervous look at the doorman). And if you close down Muslim schools, don’t you, by the same logic, have to close all faith schools?
‘Islam is different from other faiths because it is not just a faith, it is a political ideology. Children learn that Allah is the lawgiver, and that is a political statement. You wouldn’t allow the BNP to run a school, would you?’
But if we crack down like this, won’t it make Muslims angry? I say, thinking about terrorists and my safety. ‘Well perhaps anger is no bad thing,’ says Hirsi Ali, thinking about ordinary Muslims, and their enlightenment. ‘Perhaps it’ll make Muslims more aware, help them question their beliefs. If we keep on asking questions, maybe Muslim women will realise, as I did, that they don’t have to be second-class citizens.’
Ayaan Hirsi Ali is on her favourite topic now (the subjection of women), leaning forward, gesticulating. And as she talks I realise (belatedly) what makes her different from her neocon pals. Whereas they seem motivated by fear of Muslims, she is out to protect Muslims from submission to unreason. When she speaks of a ‘war against Islam’, she’s thinking not of armies of insurgents, but of an ideological virus, in the same way a doctor might talk of the battle against typhoid. ‘Yes, I am at war with Islam,’ she says, as she gets up to leave, ‘but I am not at war with Muslims.’ It’s a crucial difference.
It’s teatime now and the House of Lords hallway is suddenly full of peers’ wives chattering, shaking their brollies. Sorry about all these women in headscarves, I say unnecessarily, as I shake her hand goodbye. ‘Don’t worry,’ says Ayaan Hirsi Ali, ‘It’s not the hijab, the headscarves are just to protect them against the rain!’ And she walks off, laughing.
The Spectator, 22 Old Queen Street, London, SW1H 9HP. All Articles and Content Copyright ©2007 by The Spectator (1828) Ltd. All Rights Reserved
Mary Wakefield
Wednesday, 28th November 2007
An interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Last Tuesday at nightfall, as the servants of democracy fled SW1, a young Somali woman stood spotlit on a stage in Westminster. Behind her was the illuminated logo for the Centre for Social Cohesion: a white hand reaching down across England to help a brown one up; in front, an audience of some of Britain’s biggest brains — politicians, editors, academics. She drew her shawl a little closer round her shoulders, looked up and said: ‘We are not at war with “terror”, that would make no sense.’
‘Hear, hear,’ said a voice at the back. ‘Terror is just a tactic used by Islam,’ she continued. ‘We are actually at war, not just with Islamism, but with Islam itself.’
Out in the dark began a great wobbling of heads. Neocons nodded, Muslims shook their heads; others, uncertain, waggled theirs anxiously from side to side: at war with all Islam, even here in the UK? What does that mean?
It would be easier in some ways to ignore Ayaan Hirsi Ali, to label her as bonkers — but it would also be irresponsible. She’s not just another hawkish hack, anxious to occupy the top tough-guy media slot — she has the authority of experience, the authenticity of suffering. In the spring of 2004 she wrote a film called Submission (an artsy 11-minute protest against Islamic cruelty to women) which was shown on Dutch TV. In November 2004 the film’s director, Theo van Gogh, was assassinated and the killer left a long letter to Hirsi Ali knifed into his corpse which said, in short: you’re next. But Hirsi Ali couldn’t be silenced. She has since written an autobiography (Infidel) about growing up a Muslim (in Somalia, then Saudi Arabia and Ethiopia), describing her circumcision, the beatings she received, her arranged marriage, her flight to Holland. She risks her life daily, speaking out against what she calls the ‘fairytale’ that Islam is in essence a religion of peace.
The other reason to take her seriously is that Hirsi Ali’s ideas about Islam (that it is unamenable to reform, and intrinsically opposed to Western values) are attracting attention worldwide. In Holland where, until 2006, she was an MP for the People’s Party for Freedom and Independence (VVD), the famous ‘pillarisation’ approach to immigration — where each new culture becomes a pillar upon which the state rests — has given way to a ‘new realism’, much more in tune with Hirsi Ali’s way of thinking, and in part because of her. In Britain and in America, Ayaan Hirsi Ali has become a sort of popstar for neocons, and she now lives in Washington, and works as a fellow of the American Enterprise Institute.
But is she right? And what does ‘war with Islam’ mean? I went to find out; to meet Ayaan Hirsi Ali in the House of Lords on a bitter and blustery afternoon last week, bustling past the police, down the corridors of partial power, to the visitors’ room where she was waiting. We haven’t got much time, so can we dive straight into Islam? I ask. ‘Yes, absolutely, go ahead,’ she smiles. Up close she is disconcertingly beautiful, and fragile-looking. OK then, right. Well, you say that Islam is a violent religion, because the Prophet advocated violence. But isn’t that open to interpretation? I ask. Karen Armstrong, (a non-Muslim biographer of Mohammed) has said the Prophet was a loving man who’d have been horrified at 9/11.
‘Karen Armstrong is ridiculous,’ says Hirsi Ali in her quick, light voice — Africa still audible in the clipped consonants. ‘The Prophet would have not have disapproved of 9/11, because it was carried out in his example. When he came to Medina, the Prophet had a revelation, of jihad. After that, it became an obligation for Muslims to convert others, and to establish an Islamic state, by the sword if necessary.’
But there is such a thing as moderate Islam, I say. Muslims aren’t all terrorists. There are some like Ed Husain (author of The Islamist) who argue that there are many peaceful traditions of Koranic scholarship to choose from. Isn’t it a mistake to dismiss this gentler, acceptable branch of Islam?
‘I find the word “moderate” very misleading.’ There’s a touch of steel in Hirsi Ali’s voice. ‘I don’t believe there is such a thing as “moderate Islam”. I think it’s better to talk about degrees of belief and degrees of practice. The Koran is quite clear that it should control every area of life. If a Muslim chooses to obey only some of the Prophet’s commandments, he is only a partial Muslim. If he is a good Muslim, he will wish to establish Sharia law.’
But I don’t call myself a ‘partial Christian’ just because I don’t take the whole Bible literally, I say. Why can’t a Muslim pick and choose his scriptures too? Before Hirsi Ali can answer, the door to the waiting room flies open and a House of Lords doorman stands theatrically on the threshold. ‘You must stop this interview immediately!’ he says. Why? Is there a breach of security? A terrorist threat? ‘I have not received authorisation for it,’ he says. But we’re here with a peer, I say. I’m sure he has cleared it. ‘Please proceed to the waiting area in silence.’ So off we trudge to the foyer to sit by a fake fire — ‘it’s much nicer here, anyway,’ says Hirsi Ali kindly — and to continue our discussion about the superiority of the free, enlightened West in urgent whispers behind my rucksack.
‘Christianity is different from Islam,’ says Hirsi Ali, ‘because it allows you to question it. It probably wasn’t different in the past, but it is now. Christians — at least Christians in a liberal democracy — have accepted, after Thomas Hobbes, that they must obey the secular rule of law; that there must be a separation of church and state. In Islamic doctrine such a separation has not occurred yet. This is what makes it dangerous! Islam — all Islam, not just Islamism — has not acknowledged that it must obey secular law. Islam is hostile to reason.’
Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s eyes are now aglow. She is a terrific believer in reason. For her, Western civilisation is built on the bedrock not of Judaeo-Christian values, but of logic. After seeking asylum in Holland, she spent five years at Leiden university studying political science, absorbing the Enlightenment philosophers — Spinoza, Hobbes, Voltaire — and she mentions them fondly, as if they’re family. But there’s a steely side to her atheism, which says with Voltaire: Ecraser l’infâme! During a recent debate with Ed Husain, as Husain was explaining his moderate Islam, she began to laugh at him, saying: ‘When you die you rot, Ed! There is no afterlife, Ed!’ And it makes me wonder whether, for Hirsi Ali, Islam’s crime is as much against reason as humanity; whether she sees the point of spirituality at all.
Are you so sure you understand what is at the heart of Islam? I ask her. Isn’t there a peaceful prayerfulness — apart from the politics — that an atheist might not understand? ‘I was a Muslim once, remember, and it was when I was most devout that I was most full of hate,’ she says.
OK then, you talk about your conscience, and how your conscience was pricked by 9/11. But if there’s no God, what do you mean by a conscience? And why should we obey it?
‘My conscience is informed by reason,’ says Hirsi Ali, surprised I should ask. ‘It’s like Kant’s categorical imperative: behave to others as you would wish they behaved to you.’
I say, so let’s assume Islam is hostile and not open to reason, that it needs to be wiped out. The next question then is how? We can’t just ban it. Isn’t it destructive to curtail freedom so much in the interests of protecting it? Don’t you risk loving freedom to death?
Hirsi Ali looks at me with pity. ‘You, here in the UK, are in danger. Of course you can’t ban Islam outright, but you need to stop the spread of ideology, stop native Westerners converting to Islam. You definitely need to ban the veil in schools, and to close down Muslim schools because that’s where kids are indoctrinated.’
But, what about freedom of belief and free speech? I ask (with a nervous look at the doorman). And if you close down Muslim schools, don’t you, by the same logic, have to close all faith schools?
‘Islam is different from other faiths because it is not just a faith, it is a political ideology. Children learn that Allah is the lawgiver, and that is a political statement. You wouldn’t allow the BNP to run a school, would you?’
But if we crack down like this, won’t it make Muslims angry? I say, thinking about terrorists and my safety. ‘Well perhaps anger is no bad thing,’ says Hirsi Ali, thinking about ordinary Muslims, and their enlightenment. ‘Perhaps it’ll make Muslims more aware, help them question their beliefs. If we keep on asking questions, maybe Muslim women will realise, as I did, that they don’t have to be second-class citizens.’
Ayaan Hirsi Ali is on her favourite topic now (the subjection of women), leaning forward, gesticulating. And as she talks I realise (belatedly) what makes her different from her neocon pals. Whereas they seem motivated by fear of Muslims, she is out to protect Muslims from submission to unreason. When she speaks of a ‘war against Islam’, she’s thinking not of armies of insurgents, but of an ideological virus, in the same way a doctor might talk of the battle against typhoid. ‘Yes, I am at war with Islam,’ she says, as she gets up to leave, ‘but I am not at war with Muslims.’ It’s a crucial difference.
It’s teatime now and the House of Lords hallway is suddenly full of peers’ wives chattering, shaking their brollies. Sorry about all these women in headscarves, I say unnecessarily, as I shake her hand goodbye. ‘Don’t worry,’ says Ayaan Hirsi Ali, ‘It’s not the hijab, the headscarves are just to protect them against the rain!’ And she walks off, laughing.
The Spectator, 22 Old Queen Street, London, SW1H 9HP. All Articles and Content Copyright ©2007 by The Spectator (1828) Ltd. All Rights Reserved
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
"When does life begin?"
Nemo's Airtight Argument Against Abortion By: NemoParticularis
One of the most frequently asked questions in the abortion debate is: "When does life begin?" It's the wrong question. Life, as any biologist will tell you, never begins. It always ends, eventually - but it never begins. All living matter comes only from other living matter.
Let us narrow the scope of the question. "When does human life begin?" The answer is the same as above: Human life comes only from pre-existing human life. Living human cells come only from other living human cells.
Very well then, "When does human life become a human being?" That is the correct question. The answer lies in the definition of "human being." Biologically, a living human being is a vertebrate animal organism, Homo sapiens.
What, then, is an organism? It is a living, corporeal entity that exists and functions of, by, and for itself. It may consist of a single cell, such as an amoeba, or of a group of cells, tissues, and organs that can achieve titanic size, such as a blue whale.
If an organism can consist of a single cell (such as an amoeba) can we say that a sperm cell from a frog is an organism? No. Nor can we make the same statement for a brain cell or a muscle cell. These are highly specialized cells and function only as part of a collective whole. Isolate a brain cell from its living matrix and it soon dies. Likewise, the sperm cell has but one function: to fertilize the ovum or die.
An organism, on the other hand, is self-sufficient. It ingests and metabolizes food; it grows; it is usually capable of locomotion; it is capable of reproduction. Most importantly, it is an independently functioning, living "machine," so to speak, existing of its own accord.
In order to establish the parameters necessary to define an organism, biologists utilize three criteria: morphology (the form of a cell, tissue, organ, or organism); physiology (the function of a cell, tissue, organ, or organism); and genomics (the DNA "blueprint" of a cell, tissue, organ, or organism). Of these three criteria, genomics establishes the identity of an individual organism with the greatest precision.
Every organism has its own unique genetic code. That code tells us precisely what the organism is. Thus, we can present the biologist with two apparently identical samples of tissue, one from the liver of a human and the other from that of a chimpanzee. After carefully examining the chromosomes in the nuclei of cells taken from each of the tissue samples, the biologist can tell us with absolute certainty which is human and which is simian. Living simian cells come only from other living simian cells. Living human cells come only from other living human cells. A simian cell can never become a human cell and vice versa.
Every organism has a definite lifecycle: There is a point in time at which the organism begins its existence as an organism, followed by a period of metabolism, growth, and reproduction, ending at the moment the organism dies.
The human organism - like every other living organism - begins its existence as a single cell. As we have seen above, a sperm cell is not an organism. Neither is an ovum. Yet, when the two unite, they form a zygote. This zygote is a complete - though not completed - living, organized, unique, individual human life form with its own particular morphological and physiological destiny. It contains the entire genetic code sequence of an individual human being (with the informational equivalent of 1,000 volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica).
The programming in this genetic code will cause the zygote to divide and differentiate, to form hormones and tissues. In the absence of disease, accident, or incident, this single cell will, in the course of 36 to 39 weeks, become a newborn human. From the time it begins its existence it is never anything but alive (living cells can come only from other living cells) and never anything but human (only human cells come from other human cells). The human zygote is therefore a living, human organism.
But is it a human being?
Most people understand that a frog never becomes an elephant. A frog is a frog. Then again, a tadpole is a tadpole. But is a tadpole a frog? Some folks would argue not: The tadpole has no lungs; it has gills. It has no legs; it has a tail. It looks and acts just like a fish. It can't be a frog, can it? Well, it depends upon how you define the frog organism.
May we identify an organism as a frog purely on the basis of its morphology (physical form)? The biologist will say no. Three criteria are necessary for biological identification, morphology being only one of them. Physiology and genomics are the other two.
The biologist will not hesitate to affirm that the tadpole is indeed a frog. The living organism we call "frog" (Rana catabiensis) undergoes profound morphological and physiological changes in the course of its lifecycle. Although these changes are radical, the genetic code - the DNA blueprint that defines this particular organism - never changes. For this reason, no biologist ever confuses form with substance when establishing the identity of an organism.
The biologist will tell you that a frog is a frog from the instant it first functions as an independent organism, regardless of the form it takes during the course of its development. It will be nothing other than a frog when it dies. An organism is never identified purely on the basis of its morphological or physiological state at any given point in its lifecycle. It would be like declaring the benchmark of life for the butterfly organism is the presence of wings and antennae and then, after examining the caterpillar, pronouncing that, because it has neither wings nor antennae, it is neither living nor a butterfly, despite the fact that it is a living organism with the genome of the butterfly and, if it is not killed before it completes its metamorphosis, will become nothing other than a butterfly.
Nevertheless, there are some people who persist in their belief that an unborn human is not a human being, particularly when discussing the earlier stages of human development in the womb: "But I just don't feel that it's human. It doesn't look or act human. Wouldn't a better criterion be heartbeat, brain waves, arms, legs, viability outside the womb, etc.?"
The list is long and could be extended indefinitely, but all such criteria are vague, arbitrary, or scientifically insupportable. While fetal viability, for example, may be a convenient benchmark for consensus politicians, it is irrelevant with regard to the biological humanity of the developing fetus. The intrauterine development of an organism is simply one phase of its living existence, and is immaterial to its biological identity.The operative word is "feel" and that approach is as old as it is dangerous. Slave owners didn't “feel” that Negroes were fully human; Nazis didn't “feel” that Jews, Slavs and Gypsies were fully human and concocted outrageous pseudo-scientific proof that they were sub-human. From time immemorial, man's inhumanity to man has been rooted in the fact that one particular family, clan, tribe, or nation did not feel that another was truly human, and on countless tragic occasions this has become the twisted rationale behind persecutions, slavery, pogroms, ethnic cleansing, and genocide.
Biological science demonstrates with geometric force that every human being begins his existence as a zygote and that every living human zygote is a human being at the first stage of development in his lifecycle. This determination has nothing to do with feeling or emotion and is no more a matter of religion or opinion than 1+1=2 or E=mc2.
Having established through logic and science that every human being begins his existence as a zygote, we now address two additional questions:
1. Are all human beings human persons?
2. Do all human persons have an inalienable right to life?
We now enter the realm of political philosophy and the theory of personhood and rights. Generally, "personhood" is a term used in the context of the rights and obligations of human beings, although the concept has been extended to embrace corporations. In this context, a human person is defined as a human being possessing certain rights and obligations.
Is Joe Doakes a human being because he is a human person or is he a human person because he is a human being? This is the pivotal question in the abortion debate and it has only two possible answers.
A. If we state that Joe Doakes is a human being because he is a human person, we must conclude that the defining source of "personhood" lies apart from his existence as a human organism. In the absence of anarchy and solipsism, the only defining source of personhood becomes the government. The existing political authority defines personhood and establishes who and what are persons, as well as who and what are not persons.
Consequently, personhood is ultimately defined by the prevailing political agenda. If government becomes the source of personhood (and therefore what is and is not human), it logically follows that political power becomes the fountainhead of human rights and a government with this degree of power is nothing less than totalitarian, with Nazi Germany as the paradigm.
In effect, Hitler's Reich said: "You are a human being only if you are a person. We will decide who is and who is not a person. You Jews and Gypsies are not persons and therefore are not humans."
The Nazis might have objected that the reverse was true, that Hitler said: "According to our best scientific minds, you Jews and Gypsies are not humans and therefore are not persons." In this case we can only reiterate the biological facts outlined earlier. The denial of their humanity had nothing whatsoever to do with biological fact; it had everything to do with "feeling" and egregious pseudo-science. If the Nazis were truly honest they would have said, "We just don't feel that you are human."
We are thus presented with the defining question: Is the human fetus a human being only because it is a human person? In effect that was the question addressed by the ruling of the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade. For that matter, we could have posed a similar question in 1857: "Is the Negro a human being only because he is a human person?" We all know the answer of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott decision. If we accept that personhood derives from the state and not from the fact that one is a human being, we have made the unalienable right to life (and any other civil right) an empty, meaningless concept.
B. If Joe Doakes is a human person precisely because he is a human being, everything changes. His personhood - and the rights that accompany it – derive exclusively from the fact that he is a human being. To paraphrase the Declaration of Independence "All human beings are created equal and endowed with certain unalienable rights, among these, life..."
An unalienable right is one that is intrinsic to humanity and cannot be ceded to any other individual or authority. From time to time, these rights may be abridged or even deprived through due process of law (e.g., imprisonment for committing a felony, or execution for capital crimes). Nevertheless, as natural endowments, they possess a moral authority that imposes upon the state the obligation to respect and uphold them. Therefore, by his very nature as a human being, Joe Doakes is a person, and no political power on earth can take his personhood away from him.
Biological science tells us that African slaves were human beings (even if ignorant bigots said they were not). The Declaration of Independence tells us that, as human beings, they were therefore human persons (even if a feckless Supreme Court said they were not). The U.S. Constitution tells us that, as human persons, they possessed the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (even if these rights were systematically denied to them for centuries).
The conclusion is unavoidable: The human fetus is a human being; all human beings are human persons; all human persons possess an inalienable right to life which, according to the U.S. Constitution, may not be deprived without due process of law.
In order to conform itself to biological reality, the intent of the Founding Fathers and our own Constitution, both federal and state governments would have to establish as a matter of law that one's very existence as an unborn human being - if undesired by the mother - is a capital crime punishable by death. To fulfill the constitutional requirement of due process, a mother who chooses to abort her child would have to file criminal charges.
However, commission of a crime requires criminal intent - a capacity the unborn human lacks. Assuming this hurdle is vaulted, the abortion procedure would be preceded by a trial in a court of law. In the event of a guilty verdict, the subsequent appeals would take years to move through the appellate courts. By the time they are exhausted, the defendant would be at least 10 years old.
To circumvent this Kafkaesque absurdity, the Supreme Court effectively stripped personhood from prenatal human beings by denying they are human beings, thereby establishing that personhood derives from political authority instead of humanity. This is no more rational than affirming that blacks are chattel or Jews and Slavs are sub-human.
In many cases, well-meaning people oppose abortion for religious reasons or from intuitive feelings of right and wrong. As we have seen in the course of this brief discussion, the argument against abortion need not incorporate either religion or morality; it is founded squarely upon biological science and the political principles upon which our republic was founded. Abortion violates the civil rights of the unborn human person and denies that human person his or her unalienable right to life.
One of the most frequently asked questions in the abortion debate is: "When does life begin?" It's the wrong question. Life, as any biologist will tell you, never begins. It always ends, eventually - but it never begins. All living matter comes only from other living matter.
Let us narrow the scope of the question. "When does human life begin?" The answer is the same as above: Human life comes only from pre-existing human life. Living human cells come only from other living human cells.
Very well then, "When does human life become a human being?" That is the correct question. The answer lies in the definition of "human being." Biologically, a living human being is a vertebrate animal organism, Homo sapiens.
What, then, is an organism? It is a living, corporeal entity that exists and functions of, by, and for itself. It may consist of a single cell, such as an amoeba, or of a group of cells, tissues, and organs that can achieve titanic size, such as a blue whale.
If an organism can consist of a single cell (such as an amoeba) can we say that a sperm cell from a frog is an organism? No. Nor can we make the same statement for a brain cell or a muscle cell. These are highly specialized cells and function only as part of a collective whole. Isolate a brain cell from its living matrix and it soon dies. Likewise, the sperm cell has but one function: to fertilize the ovum or die.
An organism, on the other hand, is self-sufficient. It ingests and metabolizes food; it grows; it is usually capable of locomotion; it is capable of reproduction. Most importantly, it is an independently functioning, living "machine," so to speak, existing of its own accord.
In order to establish the parameters necessary to define an organism, biologists utilize three criteria: morphology (the form of a cell, tissue, organ, or organism); physiology (the function of a cell, tissue, organ, or organism); and genomics (the DNA "blueprint" of a cell, tissue, organ, or organism). Of these three criteria, genomics establishes the identity of an individual organism with the greatest precision.
Every organism has its own unique genetic code. That code tells us precisely what the organism is. Thus, we can present the biologist with two apparently identical samples of tissue, one from the liver of a human and the other from that of a chimpanzee. After carefully examining the chromosomes in the nuclei of cells taken from each of the tissue samples, the biologist can tell us with absolute certainty which is human and which is simian. Living simian cells come only from other living simian cells. Living human cells come only from other living human cells. A simian cell can never become a human cell and vice versa.
Every organism has a definite lifecycle: There is a point in time at which the organism begins its existence as an organism, followed by a period of metabolism, growth, and reproduction, ending at the moment the organism dies.
The human organism - like every other living organism - begins its existence as a single cell. As we have seen above, a sperm cell is not an organism. Neither is an ovum. Yet, when the two unite, they form a zygote. This zygote is a complete - though not completed - living, organized, unique, individual human life form with its own particular morphological and physiological destiny. It contains the entire genetic code sequence of an individual human being (with the informational equivalent of 1,000 volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica).
The programming in this genetic code will cause the zygote to divide and differentiate, to form hormones and tissues. In the absence of disease, accident, or incident, this single cell will, in the course of 36 to 39 weeks, become a newborn human. From the time it begins its existence it is never anything but alive (living cells can come only from other living cells) and never anything but human (only human cells come from other human cells). The human zygote is therefore a living, human organism.
But is it a human being?
Most people understand that a frog never becomes an elephant. A frog is a frog. Then again, a tadpole is a tadpole. But is a tadpole a frog? Some folks would argue not: The tadpole has no lungs; it has gills. It has no legs; it has a tail. It looks and acts just like a fish. It can't be a frog, can it? Well, it depends upon how you define the frog organism.
May we identify an organism as a frog purely on the basis of its morphology (physical form)? The biologist will say no. Three criteria are necessary for biological identification, morphology being only one of them. Physiology and genomics are the other two.
The biologist will not hesitate to affirm that the tadpole is indeed a frog. The living organism we call "frog" (Rana catabiensis) undergoes profound morphological and physiological changes in the course of its lifecycle. Although these changes are radical, the genetic code - the DNA blueprint that defines this particular organism - never changes. For this reason, no biologist ever confuses form with substance when establishing the identity of an organism.
The biologist will tell you that a frog is a frog from the instant it first functions as an independent organism, regardless of the form it takes during the course of its development. It will be nothing other than a frog when it dies. An organism is never identified purely on the basis of its morphological or physiological state at any given point in its lifecycle. It would be like declaring the benchmark of life for the butterfly organism is the presence of wings and antennae and then, after examining the caterpillar, pronouncing that, because it has neither wings nor antennae, it is neither living nor a butterfly, despite the fact that it is a living organism with the genome of the butterfly and, if it is not killed before it completes its metamorphosis, will become nothing other than a butterfly.
Nevertheless, there are some people who persist in their belief that an unborn human is not a human being, particularly when discussing the earlier stages of human development in the womb: "But I just don't feel that it's human. It doesn't look or act human. Wouldn't a better criterion be heartbeat, brain waves, arms, legs, viability outside the womb, etc.?"
The list is long and could be extended indefinitely, but all such criteria are vague, arbitrary, or scientifically insupportable. While fetal viability, for example, may be a convenient benchmark for consensus politicians, it is irrelevant with regard to the biological humanity of the developing fetus. The intrauterine development of an organism is simply one phase of its living existence, and is immaterial to its biological identity.The operative word is "feel" and that approach is as old as it is dangerous. Slave owners didn't “feel” that Negroes were fully human; Nazis didn't “feel” that Jews, Slavs and Gypsies were fully human and concocted outrageous pseudo-scientific proof that they were sub-human. From time immemorial, man's inhumanity to man has been rooted in the fact that one particular family, clan, tribe, or nation did not feel that another was truly human, and on countless tragic occasions this has become the twisted rationale behind persecutions, slavery, pogroms, ethnic cleansing, and genocide.
Biological science demonstrates with geometric force that every human being begins his existence as a zygote and that every living human zygote is a human being at the first stage of development in his lifecycle. This determination has nothing to do with feeling or emotion and is no more a matter of religion or opinion than 1+1=2 or E=mc2.
Having established through logic and science that every human being begins his existence as a zygote, we now address two additional questions:
1. Are all human beings human persons?
2. Do all human persons have an inalienable right to life?
We now enter the realm of political philosophy and the theory of personhood and rights. Generally, "personhood" is a term used in the context of the rights and obligations of human beings, although the concept has been extended to embrace corporations. In this context, a human person is defined as a human being possessing certain rights and obligations.
Is Joe Doakes a human being because he is a human person or is he a human person because he is a human being? This is the pivotal question in the abortion debate and it has only two possible answers.
A. If we state that Joe Doakes is a human being because he is a human person, we must conclude that the defining source of "personhood" lies apart from his existence as a human organism. In the absence of anarchy and solipsism, the only defining source of personhood becomes the government. The existing political authority defines personhood and establishes who and what are persons, as well as who and what are not persons.
Consequently, personhood is ultimately defined by the prevailing political agenda. If government becomes the source of personhood (and therefore what is and is not human), it logically follows that political power becomes the fountainhead of human rights and a government with this degree of power is nothing less than totalitarian, with Nazi Germany as the paradigm.
In effect, Hitler's Reich said: "You are a human being only if you are a person. We will decide who is and who is not a person. You Jews and Gypsies are not persons and therefore are not humans."
The Nazis might have objected that the reverse was true, that Hitler said: "According to our best scientific minds, you Jews and Gypsies are not humans and therefore are not persons." In this case we can only reiterate the biological facts outlined earlier. The denial of their humanity had nothing whatsoever to do with biological fact; it had everything to do with "feeling" and egregious pseudo-science. If the Nazis were truly honest they would have said, "We just don't feel that you are human."
We are thus presented with the defining question: Is the human fetus a human being only because it is a human person? In effect that was the question addressed by the ruling of the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade. For that matter, we could have posed a similar question in 1857: "Is the Negro a human being only because he is a human person?" We all know the answer of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott decision. If we accept that personhood derives from the state and not from the fact that one is a human being, we have made the unalienable right to life (and any other civil right) an empty, meaningless concept.
B. If Joe Doakes is a human person precisely because he is a human being, everything changes. His personhood - and the rights that accompany it – derive exclusively from the fact that he is a human being. To paraphrase the Declaration of Independence "All human beings are created equal and endowed with certain unalienable rights, among these, life..."
An unalienable right is one that is intrinsic to humanity and cannot be ceded to any other individual or authority. From time to time, these rights may be abridged or even deprived through due process of law (e.g., imprisonment for committing a felony, or execution for capital crimes). Nevertheless, as natural endowments, they possess a moral authority that imposes upon the state the obligation to respect and uphold them. Therefore, by his very nature as a human being, Joe Doakes is a person, and no political power on earth can take his personhood away from him.
Biological science tells us that African slaves were human beings (even if ignorant bigots said they were not). The Declaration of Independence tells us that, as human beings, they were therefore human persons (even if a feckless Supreme Court said they were not). The U.S. Constitution tells us that, as human persons, they possessed the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (even if these rights were systematically denied to them for centuries).
The conclusion is unavoidable: The human fetus is a human being; all human beings are human persons; all human persons possess an inalienable right to life which, according to the U.S. Constitution, may not be deprived without due process of law.
In order to conform itself to biological reality, the intent of the Founding Fathers and our own Constitution, both federal and state governments would have to establish as a matter of law that one's very existence as an unborn human being - if undesired by the mother - is a capital crime punishable by death. To fulfill the constitutional requirement of due process, a mother who chooses to abort her child would have to file criminal charges.
However, commission of a crime requires criminal intent - a capacity the unborn human lacks. Assuming this hurdle is vaulted, the abortion procedure would be preceded by a trial in a court of law. In the event of a guilty verdict, the subsequent appeals would take years to move through the appellate courts. By the time they are exhausted, the defendant would be at least 10 years old.
To circumvent this Kafkaesque absurdity, the Supreme Court effectively stripped personhood from prenatal human beings by denying they are human beings, thereby establishing that personhood derives from political authority instead of humanity. This is no more rational than affirming that blacks are chattel or Jews and Slavs are sub-human.
In many cases, well-meaning people oppose abortion for religious reasons or from intuitive feelings of right and wrong. As we have seen in the course of this brief discussion, the argument against abortion need not incorporate either religion or morality; it is founded squarely upon biological science and the political principles upon which our republic was founded. Abortion violates the civil rights of the unborn human person and denies that human person his or her unalienable right to life.
Monday, November 26, 2007
WHAT IF 20 MILLION ILLEGAL ALIENS VACATED AMERICA?
*WHAT IF 20 MILLION ILLEGAL ALIENS VACATED AMERICA?*
By Frosty Wooldridge October 29, 2007 NewsWithViews.com
Tina Griego, journalist for the Denver RockyMountain News wrote a column titled, "Mexican Visitor's lament" -- 10/25/07.
She interviewed Mexican journalist Evangelina Hernandez while she visited Denver last week. Hernandez said, "They (illegal aliens) pay rent, buygroceries,buy clothes... what happens to your country's economy if 20 million people go away?"
That's a good question - it deserves an answer. Over 80 percent of Americans demand secured bordersand illegal migration stopped. But what would happenif all 20 million or more vacated America? The answersmay surprise you!
In California, if 3.5 million illegal aliens movedback to Mexico, it would leave an extra $10.2 billionto spend on overloaded school systems, bankruptedhospitals and overrun prisons. It would leave highwayscleaner, safer and less congested. Everyone couldunderstand one another as English became the dominantlanguage again.
In Colorado, 500,000 illegal migrants - plus their300,000 kids and grand-kids - would move back "home,"mostly to Mexico. That would save Coloradans an estimated $2 billion (other experts say $7 BIL) annually in taxes that pay for schooling, medical,social-services and incarceration costs. It means12,000 gang members would vanish out of Denver alone. Colorado would save more than $20 million inprison costs, and the terror that those 7,300 alien criminals set upon local citizens. Denver Officer DonYoung and hundreds of Colorado victims would not have suffered death, accidents, rapes and other crimescommitted by illegals. Denver Public Schools would not suffer a 67 percent drop out rate via thousands of illegal alien students speaking 41 different languages. At least 200,000 vehicles would vanish from our grid locked cities in Colorado. Denver's four percent unemploymentrate would vanish as our working poor would gain jobs at a living wage.
In Florida, 1.5 million illegals would return the Sunshine State back to America, the rule of law and English.
In Chicago, 2.1 million illegals would free up hospitals, schools, prisons and highways for a safer, cleaner and more crime-free experience.
If 20 million illegal aliens returned "home" --
If 20 million illegal aliens returned "home," theU.S. economy would return to the rule of law. Employers would hire legal American citizens at aliving wage. Everyone would pay their fair share oftaxes because they wouldn't be working off the books. That would result in an additional $401 billion in IRS income taxes collected annually, and an equal amountfor local state and city coffers. No more push '1' for Spanish or '2' for English. No more confusion in American schools that now must contend with over 100 languages that degrade the educational system for American kids. Our over crowded schools would lose more than two million illegal alien kids at a cost of billions in ESL and free breakfastsand lunches. We would lose 500,000 illegal criminal alien inmates at a cost of more than $1.6 billion annually. That includes 15,000 MS-13 gang members who distribute $130 billion in drugs annually who would vacate our country. In cities like L.A., 20,000 members of the"18th Street Gang" would vanish from our nation. No more Mexican forgery gangs for ID theft from Americans! No more foreign rapists and child molesters!
Losing more than 20 million people would clear upour crowded highways and gridlock. Cleaner air and less drinking and driving American deaths by illegalaliens!
Drain on America's economy; taxpayers harmed,employers get rich --
Over $80 billion annually wouldn't return to their home countries by cash transfers Illegal migrants earned half that money untaxed, which further drains America's economy, currently suffering an $8.7 trillion debt. At least 400,000 anchor babies would not be bornin our country, costing us $109 billion per year percycle. At least 86 hospitals in California, Georgia and Florida would still be operating instead of being bankrupted out of existence because illegal aliens pay nothing via the EMTOLA Act. Americans wouldn't suffer thousands of TB and hepatitis cases rampant in our country, brought in by illegal aliens unscreened at our borders. Our cities would see 20 million less people driving, polluting and grid locking our streets. Itwould also put the "progressives" on the horns of a dilemma; illegal aliens and their families cause 11percent of our greenhouse gases. Over one million of Mexico's poorest citizens now live inside and along our border from Brownsville,Texas to San Diego, California in what the New York Times called, "colonias" or new neighborhoods. Troubleis, those living areas resemble Bombay and Calcutta with grinding poverty, filth, diseases, drugs, crimes, no sanitation and worse. They live without sewers, clean water, streets, electricity, roads or any kindof sanitation. The New York Times reported them to be America's new "Third World" inside our own country. Within 20 years, at their current growth rate, they expect 20 million residents of those colonias. (I'veseen them personally in Texas and Arizona; it'ssickening beyond anything you can imagine.) By enforcing our laws, we could repatriate them back toMexico.
High integrity, ethical invitation--
We invite 20 million aliens to go home, fix theirown countries and/or make a better life in Mexico. We invite a million more people into our country legally than all other countries combined annually. We cannot and must not allow anarchy at our borders, more anarchy within our borders and growing lawlessness at every level in our nation. It's time to stand up for our country, ourculture, our civilization and our way of life.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Is the U.S. a Democracy or Federal Republic?
Op-Ed: Is the U.S. a Democracy or Federal Republic?
We won't even get into the terms Federal Republic or Democratic Republic and related terminology, at this point. According to the Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, democracy has been given the definition as "government by the people; especially: rule of the majority", among a few others.
What does majority rule mean and why is that an important aspect of democracy? Is majority rule relevant? If so, then, why? According to the same dictionary, majority rule has been given the definition as, "a political principle providing that a majority usually constituted by 50% plus one of an organized group will have the power to make decisions binding upon the whole." Wow; such a gaggle of words.
We can gather from the definitions of Democracy and Majority Rule that the principles derived from them pertain to a tool whereby decisions can be made and applied or enforced. With that in mind, is Democracy a good thing or a bad thing? Consider this; you like strawberry milkshakes but the majority has voted and taken the decision as to whether you should like strawberry milkshakes under consideration. The majority votes that it will be vanilla milkshakes and the strawberry milkshakes will no longer be available. The same process can be applied to every aspect of your life. Is this good or is it bad? For you, the strawberry milkshake drinker, it is bad. You are in the minority so you lose that particular choice. The decision process has been removed from you. For the majority, there is no more issue. Vanilla milkshakes it is. That "sounds" a little like tyranny, doesn't it? Does this mean that Democracy is a form of tyranny? Yes, it is. However, this form of tyranny is an elected type of tyranny.
What then, is tyranny? It is back to the dictionary for a definition, "oppressive power exerted by government". Really? We just had an election and the majority voted for vanilla milkshakes. The majority rules in a Democratic society so why is this considered to be tyrannical?
This issue isn't as simple as some would lead us to believe. The Father of our Constitution, James Madison had this to say about a pure Democracy, "there is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual." Truer words have rarely been spoken. So, then, we may gather that a Democracy, in its purest form can lead to tyranny.
So, is Democracy good then? Ask John Adams. He had this gem to express, "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." Other wise men have made observations about democracy and several have compared democracy to a republic and have determined that the differences between the two are similar to the differences between chaos and order...Anarchy to be more precise. Isn't that a wondrous commentary to ponder?
People of the world and world leaders prattle on about Democracy and all they want is tyranny, chaos and order? This can sound rather contradictory can it not? Why would other peoples want this? You see, our Founding Fathers were really smart men. They had lived through various forms of government and watched many come and go. They knew the pitfalls and the snares and the traps. Unfortunately, our modern leaders have lost their way.
Our Founding Fathers had every intention on protecting the people of the new Nation of America. They did not want a tyrannical form of government. They did not want a king. They did not want a dictator. They intended to create a republican form of government, not to be confused with a republican political party. We will need to define this form of government so, it is back to the dictionary: "a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law." This is a far cry from Democracy is it not?
Personally, I don't know why our politicians in this country as well as others make a big deal over Democracy. It is certainly superior to Socialism or Communism but we will discuss those issues another day.
Would it not be better to spread our Founding Fathers' dream and experiment? Yes it would. However, we would have to return to it in order to proclaim it and spread the good news around. That brings us to Liberty.
What is Liberty? It is the "freedom to do as one pleases (anarchy) and quality or state of being free and free from arbitrary or despotic control." Our form of government as envisioned by our Founding Fathers was a Federal Republic, ruling over the "various states" and ensuring continuity and protection from foreign and domestic enemies. It was a combination of Democracy, Tyranny, Republican, Anarchy and Liberty. Combine them all into one form and you achieve a Federal Republic where the PEOPLE govern and the politicians carry out the demands of the PEOPLE, not the other way around.
The people are free to CHANGE the government at will (remember that). Combining these five elements and deriving law and order, a healthy society will emerge.
Today, in America, the politicians have become the governing body and "We The People" are their serfs. We have become a form of government our Founding Fathers feared the most. The people are no longer the ruling body. It is time to Take Our Country Back.
I have read on the blogs at Townhall and elsewhere, where several terminologies are either being exaggerated, abused and/or misrepresented. I have been hearing we are a "Democratic Republic". I have been hearing that we are a "Democracy". I have been hearing that we are a "Republic". It all started when an author posted the "Atheist Democracy" article. That was a good article, by the way. With that being said, I will post here a bit of data that will explain in not so much boring detail, the gist of what a Federal Republic is, in laymens' terms.
The United States was founded as a Federal Republic. This means that is was to be a representative form of government. Many people do not know what this entails.
There are three forms of "representation". First, there is the Trustee form. This is where the elected official, theoretically, listens to the constituents and is trusted to use their best judgments to make decisions for or, in the stead of (not a good plan). Second, there is the Delegate representative who votes the way their constituents would want them to vote, whether or not the representative agrees with the majority of the constituents (majority rule). Third, there is the Politico representative which, flip-flops between the Delegate and Trustee forms of representation, depending on the issue(s) (not a good plan). It is the Delegate form the Framers had intended and it worked that way up until FDR.
From FDR and on, our representation went to hell in a hand basket and hasn't recovered yet. This form is what creates accountability in politics and we have not had much of that in decades, have we?
Are we currently being represented by Delegates? In my estimation, most certainly not. The Trustee form is what lazy and uninterested sheeple choose to live under and their "rights" can be stripped away because the Elected One "hears" them but tends to "ignore" them, thereby deciding as the Trustee so deems what is in the best interest of his constituents regardless of how the majority may or may not feel. Tyranny is the result.
Trustee representation invites a degree of indecision on the part of the people and are seemingly incapable of correcting any wrongs the trustee may have accomplished. The Trustee form of representation has a tendency to become untrustworthy.
The Politico form is a mish-mash form of socialized "keep-them-in-the-dark and feed them fish eyes" representation. There is ZERO accountability. The Politico does as he or she pleases with no threats of retaliation for not representing his or her people.
The Federal Republic was making a come back during the Reagan and Bush years but was reverted back to the socialistic ways of FDR when Clinton gained control of the American Helm. This MUST be reversed before it is too late. Should a Leftinistra (a member of the socialist liberal) gain the Throne of American politics, we will be very close to another American Civil War. I make this statement because our country has not been this split since 1861. And, look what that bred.
N.H.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)