Tag Archives: corruption

Climate, Crime, Culture, Economics, Family, Religion

PARTY OF DEATH

Leave a comment

The United States is, essentially, a “Christian” nation. We were founded by Christians and our fundamental laws and jurisprudence are inspired by the laws and advisories of how to live and love that are contained in the Old and New Testaments. For hundreds of years the lessons of Christ have slowly converted relative pagans into empathetic Christians. It never worked universally; there have always been agnostics and atheists, but until quite lately, they were the outliers. Virtually automatically, the divine lessons and instructions have been modified, structured and even diluted by men (mostly), since they were first revealed. As quickly as Jesus, the Christ, declared His “church,” Peter and his spiritual descendants have seized Christ’s teachings as the means to political power and economic, let alone intellectual, control of “the masses.”

It was unavoidable. We have “free will” and the daily, hourly, momentary opportunity to choose from evil, which seems to lurk around every corner… when not lurking right beside us. Still, prelates of churches based on multiple emphases of certain teachings and of the traditions of Catholicism or Orthodox Christianity, have continued to prod us toward incrementally closer adherence to Christ’s teachings. It worked for centuries, resulting in the evolution of what we call modern ethics and economics… and freedom. Ultimately, the pinnacle of American success was reached, approximately in 1962.

The forces attempting to unseat Christianity have never wavered. The energy they have employed was noted as “early” as the story of the Garden of Eden. As quickly as God had prepared Man and Woman to take dominion over His “garden,” the serpent offered a great temptation. At the moment of choice, God’s creation chose to accept the risk to enjoy the “benefits.” Today we call those temptations “socialism.” Its “benefits” are the promise of avoiding both responsibility and hard work, while having access to everything in creation. Ancillary benefits include debauchery and license to enjoy sexual perversions and the thrills of hatred. No longer would the “serfs” have to earn their own way or face the responsibility for their decisions. Paradise on Earth.

The simplest, clearest distinction between the “forces of God” and the forces of anti-religious socialism can be stated as Life versus Death. God promises not only life on Earth, but eternal life. Socialism promises irresponsible cavort on Earth and then, lights out. Rather than growing both spiritually and physically by accepting the tests and responsibilities, even hardships and opportunities of life, many are tempted to seek comforts, enjoyments and conveniences of life without hardship, unfairness, or injustice, as promised by the sirens of socialism and, even more promissory, Communists. Throughout the growth of the socialist opposition to Christian-based government and economics, Democrat or Social-Democrat political parties have drifted (if not skipped) closer to outright Socialism while pretending to adhere to the traditions of “Western” civilization and civilian governance. But, like all opposition to Christian influence, their efforts are constant – sometimes incremental, sometimes leaping and bounding as they undercut those same traditions in pursuit of power.

Since that same 1962, leftist forces have assumed control of the “Democratic” party. First, they killed Kennedy… not the ordinary Democrats like Johnson and others, but the rabid defenders of the C.I.A. and other elements of the growing, deep, administrative state – the true leftists. One by one, people who overtly dislike everything about religious freedom – Judaism and Christianity, specifically – managed to obtain election to the House and Senate. First through opposition to fighting Communism in Viet-Nam and marshaling students to widespread demonstrations against the government, and then, cherry on top, unseating President Richard Nixon. A new landscape emerged in American politics and power; trust in government was gone. Rebellions of the ‘60’s shifted morality to the dark side as federalized welfare began to erode family strengths and the raising of children to be new, moral, responsible adults. As the old order, the fundament of governance, liberty and improved standards of living, imperfect but wildly successful, was dumped, the new order of Roe v. Wade was imposed on the flimsy premise that the “penumbra of the Constitution” protects a brand of “privacy” that permits personal convenience to be worth more than human life.

Since the explosion of drug addiction as new streams of tar heroin entered the U. S. market from Southeast Asia (thank-you, C.I.A. and the Golden Triangle), the “War on Drugs” has managed to capture tons of drugs and dollars, but the total flow of both has increased for decades. Drugs provide a foul but profitable – and corrupting – business in cities large and small, and a slow-motion suicide process for thousands of addicts. We’ve never had the upper hand on drugs. As we have helped to feed the growth of Mexican Cartels (and their Chinese providers) there has grown a deep division in American politics: Democrats have favored illegal entrants and “sanctuary” status for cities and states, where police cannot cooperate with federal deportation enforcement. Republicans have been opposed to both, and yet thwarted in every attempt to sanction so-called, law-nullifying, “sanctuary” declarations.

Today, drugs, mainly fentanyl, kill 100,000 mostly younger Americans EVERY DAMN YEAR! If we were facing groups of people who were SHOOTING and killing 100,000 Americans every year, this American hopes that we would marshal our forces and destroy them, saving the lives of our sons and daughters. Yet, for some reason, we have neither the wit nor will to stop drugs. Apparently there is a “right” to suicide by addiction. Did I mention profitable corruption? Who opposes rampant addiction? Well, it seems to be a right-wing thing which is condemned by the left (Democrats) since so many people wind up incarcerated for drug dealing. Boo-hoo. There must be a racist component since there is a preponderance of black and brown people breaking laws involving drugs. So, less than nothing is done. Indeed, in Democrat cities there are varieties of programs that FACILITATE drug use on the basis of… hold on to your brains… SAFETY!

A hundred-thousand lives are not enough. The same forces apologizing for drug users are rabidly in favor of abortion up to the moment of birth AND EVEN BEYOND THAT MOMENT. Indeed, they base their election efforts on appealing to women who agree with having the RIGHT to destroy gestating beings. First they must remain convinced that the growth in their bellies is not a human being.

Finally, the same leftists in the U. S. tend strongly toward both globalism (communism) and wars of maintenance (leftists in both parties) where, in effect, our greatest export are young men and women who risk death or disability for circumstances that have no plan for victory. And, still, there are too many Americans.

Democrats have an affinity for globalist fantasy, like “Climate Change,” as the reason to change U. S. policy to the detriment of our economy and, now, our food supply. They’ve gone so far as to advise numbskulls to consider the climate before having children… not before having sex. After all, if something goes “wrong,” we can always kill the product. Instead of promoting a clean, non-polluting economy, they prefer the more fascist approach of restriction, mandation and coercion through economic leverage, like encouraging banks and others to not do business with anyone who threatens the climate, as they see it, or, God forbid, exercises Constitutional rights. This includes changing the technologies of washing machines, stoves, toilets and schoolbuses, and not for the better. After all, a lot of those manufacturers are white people, and of Euro-centric backgrounds who don’t deserve any consideration for climate and a hundred other reasons, especially if Christian to boot.

Covid-19 showed that the W.H.O., China and the U. N. can fool all the people some of the time, but they were able to kill off only a few million humans with the original bug and then the mRNA shots. They’ll have to do something more, ummm… effective, yes, effective, to get the world population down to their “ideal” of a billion or fewer. That many people could eat beef all they want without damaging the Earth. Still, it will take a lot of dying to achieve the “safety” of our planet in a single lifetime.

When it starts, don’t believe a word they say.

Culture, Education, Family, Governance, Politics 2023, Religion, Sex

ALLIES OF ASSAULT

Leave a comment

American patriots must face the truth of the assault on “the American way.”  The threats and active destruction of our world-leading culture and governmental theory, are premised on the warped analyses of Communist theory.  We seem to enjoy arguing “Republicanism” and “Democracy” inasmuch as these ill-defined, rather amorphous distinctions are poly-philosophic in the worst, most dangerous ways.  American political argumentation is largely hollow: platitudes are spouted by not just “both” sides, but by all the “sides” folded into our two parties, yet the translation of philosophy into public policy is nearly indistinguishable from a frontal assault.  Other forces have more to do with policy than our overly platitudinous blatherings ever have or will.

Money has a lot to do with how we govern, as does corruption.  The two are often, but not always, contiguous.  For “fellow travelers” and other acolytes, philosophical corruption is its own reward.  One may be easily drawn in to a corrupt philosophy by not recognizing that its premise is a lie… like communism, trans-genderism, oligarchy and “equity.”  Or, alternatively, one may not care if the premise is real or not, only that joining with it is a source of social capital that is comforting.  It is well to analyze the end-game of any philosophy.  Many have an intent toward a goal that is utterly destructive, of individuals, of freedom or of whole societies and cultures.  And here, sadly, is where we seem to be in 2023.  Divide and conquer.

It serves an attacking force to have a number of fifth-columns who are willing to attack simultaneously, even for deeply held reasons of their own, whose targets and purposes have been laid out for them for completely other reasons than their own.  These are they who the most cynical tyrants call “useful idiots.”  For shame.  They are not idiots… indeed, nearly all are strongly motivated by virtuous beliefs in the need for action on a host of issues, and motivated enough to take action to right a wrong, redress injustice, prevent global warming or stop the scourge of pandemic.

Unfortunately, most of these deeply-held beliefs are premised on falsehoods – falsehoods that serve the overriding purposes of those who spread them – falsehoods that contain a tiny kernel of truth.  These can include the truth of slavery and slave ownership by white Americans 150 years ago and longer.  From that truth springs the false premise of retroactive hatred: somehow doing the hating in the 21st century that was not accomplished in the 18th and 19th centuries, will make life better for … well, someone.  It cannot, of course, but it’s sold on another false premise: injustice.  Yes, there is injustice in the world, and it’s part of just about every culture, group, nation and tribe.  But it is dead wrong – sometimes deadly wrong – to foment new injustice to somehow “balance” the old injustice of slavery.  What isn’t clear to those who fall for “two wrongs will make something right,” is that the whole business of such fomenting has nothing to do with justice OR injustice: it has to do with dividing a nation against itself, segregating races and sexes and families, in order to weaken that nation, making it easier to eventually defeat it.  God forbid.

True believers who are caught up in that (or some other) movement will, most of them, deny that their aim is to destroy America… they want to make it a better, fairer country.  Their way of doing so is to steal money from those who earn it (unequal and punitive taxation) in order to pay some form of reparation to certain, select others whose main justification for receiving it is the depth of their anger at long-deceased slave owners.  There is no “justice” involved, whatsoever.  Yet warriors for justice believe that justice will increase if they support the false premise.

Those whose primary purpose is neither justice nor fairness (rarely synonymous), but destruction, are also strongly supportive of sexual deviance, especially that promulgated by the newly conjured race: trans-gender and its multiple subsets.  Nothing has proven more effective for sundering the national identity that makes a nation strong.

We have a culture… supported by thousands of years of philosophical and economic evolution including, most emphatically, Judaism, Christianity and the heritage of ancient Egypt, Greece and Rome.  What became “American” is a result of some of the greatest human advances in science, engineering and philosophy.  It is nothing to be ashamed of, nor is all the history that led humankind here.  There is no point, or stage, or precursor society or culture that may be adjudged perfect.  There is no population, each a mixture of many others, by virtue of war or proximity, that was either pure or perfect in its own right, however it may have been judged by its successors.  Each, in another sense, was perfect.  Based upon its more or less rigid philosophies and shared beliefs, every stage of human existence and advancement was “perfectly” human.  It was what it could be; each ended as it did in ways we can smugly judge to be “good” or “bad,” from our supercilious and lofty positions of hyper-technology and hyper-sexuality.  Our own greatest limitation may be  severely limited humility.

We are the wrong people to be judging ourselves unless it is to improve our honesty, philosophy, charity, economy and humility so that we might, as a culture edge closer to our more perfect ideals.  It does not seem that this could possibly succeed without shared beliefs, shared morals, shared trust in honesty and truth, and shared respect for our individual worths.  We know the forces that hurt and hobble our culture, and that interfere with the strengthening of family structure and with the raising and maturation of children.  We know these things.  Yet the number of our co-culturists who champion the weakening of these aspects of cultural success, is growing with only limited opposition.  Even our legal and penal systems fail to slow the increase of weakening efforts.  Those with eyes to see can observe what amounts to a suicide of our society and culture.

Will we collapse for lack of understanding of what our defense must consist of?  Have we talked ourselves into accepting evil as a partner in our culture?  Because it’s fair?  Or, just?

Has our system of justice earned a legal right to protect evil in contravention of ten thousands years of advancement?  We cannot seem to even agree on what is good or bad for ourselves and our “American” culture.  Must we accept that what is tearing away at our culture is a valid part of it?  Is freedom no more than a right to kill ourselves and our homeland?

Will those who follow us be guided by our best traditions and ideals… or will they spit on the grave of liberty?

Economics, Elections, Governance, Politics 2022, Representation, Taxation

“with Liberty and Corruption for all.”

Leave a comment

There are always consequences to corruption in government agencies… and officials… and it’s not always mere dollars.  Simple graft is bad enough for it demonstrates the willingness to lie more or less directly to the people an official or “representative” has sworn to serve while in office.  Typically, we, the foolish voters in either party, see our “humble” servants gain ever more comfortable styles of living, but those gaining the increased comforts are usually careful to hide the actual scale of thefts from which they benefit, and we re-elect them.  We tell ourselves that the problems facing government are the fault of other or previous representatives or senators, mayors, city councilors, governors or, ultimately, presidents, not the ones for whom WE voted.  Our civil society is breaking down, it seems, in every way we contemplate, and yet we only shake our heads when trying to explain what is happening.  The scale of American civil failure disturbs us and we try our best to isolate the one thing we would change if we ran the zoo, but it’s not really clear that our ideas would really cause the change we think we want.  Besides, we’re busy and, fortunately, there’s an election on the horizon and we’ll be able to change the party holding power – or most of it – and “things” will get straightened out.

Except they rarely do get straightened out, or even “change” very much.  Over the past, say 70 years, America’s direction has not been toward strength or toward moral purity, but toward weakness and moral decline.  Still, there appears to be a majority in the country that prefers moral straightness and traditional American honesty and trustworthiness.  Why have “things” declined – lately quite dramatically, in the past 30 years in particular – when most people want the direction to be otherwise?  It’s a damned good question.

The Prudent thing to do, as our erstwhile Vice-President, Kamala Harris, likes to say, is look for a “root cause.”

Prudence offers a theory of the root cause based on extensive evidence: official corruption.  We are in decline not because “the times” are changing.  In fact, we have purposefully caused our own decline by electing corrupt people, and then re-electing them over and over.  The effects of this simple process are very complex – for good, purposeful reasons – and far-reaching to, now, threatening the survival of our nation.  While this sounds like there’s a single “thing” we could change to correct our decline, if this theory is true, we are so far gone that no election or piece of legislation can do it.  But Prudence is committed to never leaving her readers without a solution, or a host of them, so fasten your seatbelts.

Fifty thinkers studying the problem would have 150 opinions about what should be our FIRST move, and in truth, it is the largest conundrum.  So, we have to look for some of those root causes so that beloved corrupt politicians can’t make things worse.  Although its strictures are being eroded as quickly as the left (it’s always “the left”) can chip away at them, our remarkable Constitution is still the fundament of our laws and means of governance.  However, it cannot speak to our modern, sophisticated ways and means of subversion and corruption.  It needs some upgrading via amendment, and via an amendment process that cannot be corrupted by our “deep state” or current elected officials and representatives.  It won’t be easy, but Article V. of the constitution provides the mechanisms for proposing and adopting Amendments.  One such mechanism is for 34 states to apply to Congress for the calling of a Convention for the purpose of proposing amendments.  The Congress must issue the call for such a convention, and then step aside, as the Constitution allows for no further role for the Congress in this mode of proposing amendments.  Ratification is performed by the states, too: three quarters, or 38 of them.

The key to saving our nation, then, is the nature of those who actually attend the Convention, and there is the crux of the matter.  It seems obvious to Prudence that “the left” should have no role in such a Convention.  How can this be ascertained?  Could there be a test of philosophies to select each state’s delegates, like Supreme Court nominees?  State legislatures are going to control who represents their states.  One can hope that the 34 states that ultimately make Application to the Congress to call the Convention, will be the more conservative states, but there is no certainty to that.  Many resolutions over the decades have been passed by one state legislature only to be rescinded by a later legislature.  Most had specified one or two purposes for the Convention to form into amendments.  In many cases, the nature of those reasons to call for the Convention were the reasons for recission, later.

The likelihood of actually convening an “Article V. Convention of the States” appears remote.  A more likely possibility is that during Republican control of both houses of congress, an amendment could be proposed and submitted to the states for ratification.  Such an action requires a two-thirds vote in both houses, but no approval from a President.  Still, there will be a problem obtaining even that much cooperation when one of the key elements of an amendment is to impose term limits on Senators and Representatives.  Could the case be made that the time had come for courage and sacrifice?  It all depends on how corrupt the Congress is at the time.  But let’s assume that a clean, traditionalist, pro-American delegate body could be filtered out and assembled.  What are the “TOP 12” fixes the amendment should include?

Term limits for federal offices keeps coming up as of prime importance.  With our longer lifespans, instant communications and unbridled budgeting with perpetual debt, the opportunities for becoming wealthy in Congressional “service,” are legion.  All that is required is a tingle of corrupt aggrandizement.  One need only pick apart any budget legislation or any “emergency” spending bill – often an “omnibus” bill – that is more than 20 or 30 pages long, and numerous “earmarks” can be found.  These happy “gifts” to Rep’s and Senator’s districts and, often, key supporters, are the price we pay to keep our elected “representatives in office for 20, 40 or more years.  During those decades the motivation to represent the constituents who elect a 2-year or 6-year representative, is twisted into the overarching motivation to keep a cushy, well-paid job in which lots of people treat the lucky “seat-holder” as if he or she were very important.  News media seek out the elected and ask for their unique and oh-so-important thoughts about whatever is “hot” at the moment.  Before too many months have passed since taking office, the elected begin to think that they are wise, not just smart.  After the first re-election, they also begin to accept that they occupy their “seat” because they are one of the uniquely capable humans who can understand the positions to which they have been elected, and understand, at the same time, the incredibly complex and arcane workings of government and legislation.  How fortunate are the ordinary people who are represented by any one of these august creatures.

We have a “system” of election and “representation” that corrupts men and women, alike.  Their jobs are too comfortable and too permanent.  We pay them too well no matter how poor or sloppy a job they do, and no matter how poorly the country and their constituents are doing.  There are too many “perks” and advantages built into their job descriptions and, with the exquisite tools available for twisting news and social media, there is virtually no oversight of their performance.  We re-elect them so that they might “fight for us” in Washington, or, at least, so that they can keep the scurrilous bastards and bitches in the other party from taking away our Medicare, 401k’s or Social Security, or from raising taxes and fees and imposing onerous regulations.

Helping to grease the skids toward illicit wealth are an army of lobbyists – more than we can imagine.  Many of them represent not only business and hand-out interests, but also foreign countries who all, it turns out, have their hands out, too.

The whole corrupted enterprise depends in large part on long-term relationships with those lobbyists and the abiding motivation to be re-elected.  What makes it work is repetitive re-election.  The first article of the new Amendment should be Term Limits on consecutive terms of service.  It doesn’t seem proper to create a group of people who cannot run for certain offices.  Forcing them to remain out of particular offices for a period of 4, 6, 8 or 12 years will open up representation to people who are NOT compromised by lobbyists and re-election corruption.

The second article should pertain to the budget, but not simply that it be balanced.  It should force Congress to manage budget legislation while forcing oversight of the administrative state and the flood of regulations that emanates from it.  So, the “A” paragraph will force the congress to budget no more revenue than that collected in the previous 12 months, and that it shall have 4 budgetary cycles to accomplish this goal.  The “B” paragraph will require that every Cabinet Department’s budget and planned regulatory effort for the next budget year, shall be analyzed and approved or modified separately from other departments.  A sub-committee shall also be charged to review existing regulations and to recommend changes to or “sunsetting of” regulatory regimes.  Finally, the “C” paragraph shall require a date-certain for completion of budgeting and oversight that is prior to the beginning of the next fiscal 1-year or 2-year period.

A third article would simply state that the Congress may, by law, change federal budgeting to be bi-annual rather than annual, should the work of review described in Article 2 take longer than will allow for annual budgeting.

The fourth article will require that: A. No legislation may include items of appropriation or law that are not listed in the title of the bill; B. No bill that raises or lowers taxes may be more than 40 pages long, printed in 8 point or larger type; C. Any bill that appropriates funds for projects or support for any cause or construction that impacts a single District or two or more Districts in a single state must be presented as a single bill to be voted upon separately from any other matter; and, D. Any “continuing resolution” deemed necessary for continued operation of any agency or department of the Federal Government shall include spending at a rate equal to that of the budget cycle preceding that which is just ending, whether a 1-year or 2-year budget cycle.

Finally, the fifth article will replace Social Security with a mandated private investment plan at the same rate of payroll contributions as currently required, with restrictions on dates of retirement similar to those now enforced.  A period of years would be required to completely phase out the current federal “piggy-bank” structure of Social Security so that once privatized – carefully overseen and regulated – the funds will build wealth for taxpayers and cease being a drain on the Federal budget.

There are a hundred other ideas for cleansing our federal spending and taxation and limiting opportunities for self-enrichment while in office.  With more frequent turnover of elected personnel the expectation will be that more Congress-people will employ statesmanship more often, and not fear fighting the bad habits of others.  The same will limit the amount of damage a bad-apple can do in his or her limited period in office.

Meanwhile, let us stop electing career politicians.  Let’s impose our own term limits, particularly at the caucus and primary levels.  The office-holders who have participated in expanding the debt to, now, more than $30 TRILLION, do not deserve re-election.  Remain Prudent.

Culture, Education, Immigration, Race

What Direction is “Right”

Leave a comment

The wasteland of American politics, amongst a hundred other logical and moral perturbations, is roughly divided into a party of life and a party of death, neither perfectly, of course. But… but roughly, yes. One party is aligned more with “pro-life” and one is aligned more with abortion, or “pro-choice.” Anyone can state which is which since it’s fairly well known where the two “parties” stand.

But it’s a circle and not neatly linear. The leftists, or progressives, infatuated with victim-identity-groups, exercise their dudgeon in support of “civil rights,” regardless of the effects on the group they describe as victimized by the denial of this or that civil “right.” In the case of abortion that group – and it’s a good, big one – is every woman. Rightists, or conservatives, are opposed to abortion because they think it’s evil and bad for individuals. They see the “right to life” as somehow the opposite of the freedom to choose abortion when pregnancy occurs, seeing the unborn child… and the mother… and the father, as affected individuals protected by the constitution. Leftists see the decisions about pregnancy, both the inception and the termination, as strictly the purview of the mother – so far always a woman. And so we divide.

It is impossible to avoid hypocrisy when it comes to other positions involving life and death. For example, progressives are both pro-choice and anti-death penalty, while conservatives are anti-abortion and pro-death penalty, very generally speaking. The latter would say that the unborn have a “right” to life but that murderers and other capital offenders have relinquished that right by their actions.

Progressive argue that pregnant women have the unique right to choose abortion, a right that must be protected, while those condemned to death at the hands of the “state” deserve a right to be rehabilitated from the conditions – many of those social – that caused them to kill or brutally rape and that the state should not become a murderer, itself. Both sides defend these “rights” and views with passion. Well, okay.

War – or defense – muddles the life or death arguments of both camps. Stalin, for example, caused the horribly painful deaths of millions of peasants (and intellectuals) in order to impose purer Communism, and he is regarded as a leftist exemplar and hero, today. After all, a thousand deaths are a tragedy; a million or more is a statistic. Hitler killed many fewer millions but the left declares him “right-wing,” although it is the right, today, that defends Israel. Hitler, a different-striped socialist than Stalin, the left has decided to hate; Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion mill in the world – and most profitable – they love. It can be confusing.

Progressives also fight for the “right” of illegal entrant women to have their babies (in the United States) so the confusion of leftists and of rightists trying to comprehend them, is understandable.

Giant business conglomerates that make armaments are identified with the right, although those companies, themselves, have literally no concern for parties or even nations. Their partnerships with governments removes them from the capitalist economy, in a sense, since they have saddled taxpayers with the burden of their success, not competitive customers. Both parties like these people because they are willing to support anyone financially, who will maintain them in power. It’s no longer recognized as corruption – just business, although it has little to do with the free-enterprise engine of capitalism that pays for everything.

To function over time armaments manufacturers need conflicts and threats of conflicts. Both parties come around the circle of life and death to where they bump into war and the manufacturers of the implements of war. The unpleasant side-effect of war, unfortunately, is death – death of soldiers, men and women, who despite volunteering for the military still didn’t want to die, and death of innocent civilians, no matter how careful politicians would direct the soldiers to be. Lots of death, injury and ruin, and both parties enable war in their own ways; both run in the opposite life or death direction from their opponents and inevitably bump in to the war business that puts the lie to most other philosophies each espouses.

Rightists tend to identify with “a strong military” and they use patriotism to the fullest for their advantage. Leftists, in very recent years, have come to despise patriotism, our anthem and the flag, itself, which rightists still can’t figure out. Conservatives see militarism as protection of the nation’s “life.” Progressives seem to have grown tired of the U. S. and patriotic references to it are of no value to them and may be readily opposed if only to aggravate the right. One might infer that the “death” of the nation wouldn’t upset the left nearly as much as it would the right.

Still, very generally speaking, the “right” tends to be pro-life while the “left” is pro-death. Like other destructive (of constitutional republicanism) movements based on “rights,” the right to destroy one’s fetus is defended as superior to the historic right to life. Indeed, the distinction between the two conflicting rights is a point of battle, not just opinion. As vital and fundamental as this conflict has been for 40 years (and for hundreds of years before Roe v. Wade) Society is now being sundered by the conflicts between “rights” unheard-of 40 years… or even 20 years ago.

Of ironic interest is the intensifying effort to grant Constitutional “rights” or “protections” to illegal entrants. While a pleasant-sounding attitude, there is no logical basis for giving such hard-earned rights to non-citizens. The Constitution was formed by American citizens in an era of freedom purchased by the blood of the first Americans. Citizens in the first thirteen states approved it. It is a benefit of citizenship whether by birth or by adoption, not of illegal residence or illegal presence. Yet there are large minorities in both parties – larger in the anti-Trump party – who are evidently quite happy to damage the nation, no matter how permanently, by breaking down immigration and border-defense laws. Many of these are equally enamored of Socialism… even of Stalin, himself, not because they understand what they are doing, but because they are willing to do anything to damage the United States. Make no mistake.

Many of the “no borders” zealots preach the “right of immigration” to improve one’s living conditions. It is a broad and ill-defined right that extends to everyone who is, first and foremost, not white. Like the right to abortion, when actually contemplated, the image of an immigrant or of an aborted immigrant to life, is covered in brown skin. Whites have been defined as oppressors in any and every instance, and are therefore entitled to almost no rights and chief among those so proscribed is ownership of private property. Thank you, education systems.

A more dangerous trend, Prudence teaches us, is “rights” codified based on personal, self-declared feelings. Our culture has been turned, if not twisted, by the 30-year fight for “gay” rights. Initially it was a logical, and reasonable push back against cruelty and discriminatory rejection of professed “gays” and “lesbians.”

Appropriating the word, “gay,” apparently applied primarily to male homosexuals but is sometimes used to describe lesbians as well.

But the “gay rights movement” quickly morphed from tolerance and non-discrimination towards unusual people, into demands for total acceptance and legalization of every permutation of sexual deviance – all of it self-declared. In other words, a person can declare him- or her-self to be “gay,” and come under constitutional protections now accepted as protecting every form of “expression.” That same person, however, can also choose to live as a heterosexual, self-declaring a non-gay status, and have, in effect, fewer rights or protections than previously.

This seems like a preposterous basis for application of the 14th Amendment. We have moved into a realm where people’s feelings are made the basis for anti-discrimination protections. More diaphanous is legislative logic for “trans-genderism.” With no physical evidence, men and women… and boys and girls… are permitted, if not encouraged, to live out their fantasies of being the opposite “gender.” The argument is based on “gender” being a linguistic designation of maleness and femaleness, and therefore nothing “permanent.” The lack of permanence is based on the fluidity of feelings and not of gender, itself, necessarily. Some exercise their convictions to the point of bodily mutilation and chemical distortion of their natural hormonal beings. The legitimization of these emotional incongruities has found its way into governmental responsibility for the emotional satisfaction and even physical or chemical balance of military personnel and even of prisoners who self-declare their identification with the opposite sex from that of their birth. Again, individuals are able to gain rights and protections based upon only their declarations and not on verifiable evidence. It is a dangerous path; parents keep your children safe – society no longer will.

Finally, and simply for the length of the essay, come the new “rights” to be offended. This amorphous body of social “rule-making,” stems from the concept of “hate crime” and its bastard child, “hate speech.” For a legal and judicial system that can’t define pornography, defining “hate” as an enforceable term seems a bit of a stretch. By some sort of arcane, subjective reckoning, a murder performed by a killer who keeps his feelings to himself is LESS of a crime than if he advertised his extreme dislike of the group he thinks the victim deserved to be part of. A dope who kills a fat person and who also hates fat people is in worse trouble than a murderer who loves them. You figure it out.

Academics and others who are ostensibly intelligent, actually nurture the concept of unbridled “offense” and attempt to set rules against “hate speech” (anything traditional, conservative or Constitutional… or critical of liberalism… or of Hillary Clinton), or insensitive pronouns like “his,” hers,” “he’ and “she.” By accepting the mythical “fluidity” of gender, colleges and other self-righteous arbiters of “education” buy in to the concepts of self-selected pronouns the meaning of which is decided by their inventors, with no connection to our common language(s). It’s another dangerous path, one that leads to hatred and confrontations initiated by the supposedly offended. Social and cultural adhesion are the victims… as is freedom, itself, in a country of rules rather than laws. Those are the tools of socialist fascism.

The loss of freedom our rabid quest for “rights” engenders (speaking of “gender”), is a form of death for every free person.