Shared Presidential Leadership and Immigration

After struggling and enduring much to become nationalized citizens, all new Americans enter the opened door by reciting the Oath of Citizenship. The following words were taken from that document: “I will support and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same…” To them, I say welcome home!

Past Presidents, Clinton and Obama openly spoke candidly to camera and history while in office. Both addressed the importance of national security, immigration practices and procedures, rule of law and constructions designed to protect the security of all American citizens. While they now bask in a title and answer to the name Mr. President, neither apparently has the heart, mind, spirit or love of country in their soul to step boldly forward and remind Congress, news media sources and the American public that they still believe what they had said. We need them to step forward now and embrace the role of Patriot and provide strong supporting roll leadership and inspiration precisely at a time when history demands it. Do not tell me this is improper and should not be done for any reason. Failure to solve our open gate security and immigration issues will rapidly relegate us to the ultimate destruction of the great experiment from within. Charles Krauthammer eloquently said, “Some things need to be defended”. Both must join President Trump in front of a televised joint session of Congress with all media sources in attendance and clearly lay out real solutions to our nation’s immigration continued farce and failure.

Sadly, words like cooperation, patriot, leadership, inspiration and citizenship are probably only dream words spoken by those who still believe in archaic truths found in untaught and unremembered documents.

Three Important Considerations for Today

Three Important Considerations for Today

The Cycle of a Nation’s Growth and Collapse

There is much disagreement as to who actually created these cycle stages. That does not matter. This does matter: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

(George Santayana)

“From bondage to spiritual faith

From spiritual faith to great courage

From courage to liberty

From liberty to abundance

From abundance to complacency

From complacency to apathy

From apathy to dependence

From dependence back into bondage”

Each statement line for me is a timeline of 25 to 50 years. I sense that the United States is currently located approximately between apathy and dependence. Where would you place the United States in this cycle today?

The 10^th Amendment, Doe v. Bolton and Roe v. Wade

 I am firmly convinced that one of our nation’s most heart wrenching and divisive issues can be humanely resolved through the application of our 10^th amendment and with wise guidance and support from our Supreme Court. The issue in question is abortion.

 Text of Amendment X in our Bill of Rights:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,

nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People.”

“The Tenth Amendment expresses the principle that undergirds the entire plan of the Constitution: the national government possesses only those powers delegated to it, and leaves to the several States a residuary (left with the states after government formed) and inviolable (never to be dishonored) sovereignty over all other objects. The Framers had two purposes in mind when they drafted it. The first was a necessary rule of construction. The second was to reaffirm the nature of the federal system.” Italicized word definitions were added above. Quotation source:  The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, page 479.

It is interesting to note that when the Supreme Court passed the Roe v. Wade language on January 22, 1973, it also struck down, on the same day, the state of Georgia’s position that “only Georgia residents could receive abortions under their statutory scheme. Non-residents could not have an abortion in Georgia under any circumstances.” You can further explore Doe v. Bolton on your favorite search engine.

The ever increasing length of approved times for a legal abortion are destroying us from within, individually and nationally, and an acceptable counter solution appears to be absent. However, by taking advantage of the clear language contained in the 10^th Amendment in our Bill of Rights, I believe that both individuals and states are free to accept or reject abortion at the state and personal levels and both can be satisfied. The course of action by our Supreme Court, which I am suggesting below, is not without historical precedence.  The Court took a similar course of action with Affirmative Action and Charles Krauthammer wrote an article, which appeared in the Washington Post, praising the Supreme Court for “Finally Getting it Right on Affirmative Action” Two points jumped off that article and into my heart. Justice Kennedy was quoted as saying:”The People should decide this case.” He also said “It is not about how racial preference should be resolved. It is about who may resolve it.” Justice Breyer wrote:”The Constitution permits though it does not require race conscious programs.” I believe this philosophy and law interpretation is potentially a powerful, valid and appropriate solution guide to our obvious current abortion issues because the Constitution also permits abortions but it does not require abortions. The people and the states in which they live must be allowed to decide where they need to stand and being different should bear serious consideration. Yes and no approval are merely points of view.

The Supreme Court can clearly enable the beginning of our healing. It simply needs to let the people and not the courts decide what is best for them. Each state must determine if abortion is accepted or rejected by its population. If a state vote approves abortion,  the only consideration is abortion during which trimester. In the event that a state does not support abortion, individual women from that state must be afforded the right to request and receive an abortion in any state that approves abortions based on that states existing abortion rules and regulations. It would be a win/win for states and individuals. I am of the opinion that the states favoring abortion shall financially absorb all related costs incurred by the choosing woman and those states choosing abortion must tax themselves for this purpose. The Federal government will no longer provide economic support to states and agencies for purposes of abortion. I also believe the state must determine its own abortion plan. That process would release the power of liberty in mind and action. All states determine what is best for itself and every woman in each and every state can decide for herself. The destination abortion state chosen by the woman would only be limited by the adopted laws of that state. That limitation will be left in the hands of the state’s inhabitants vote. They must determine which of the trimesters they can and will support.

Personal disclaimer:  In the earliest days of abortion I considered the path we were walking and sided with those who convinced me that the steps to be taken protected the woman who could not carry the child to term without danger to the woman with existing personal health issues. The advocates for abortion in those days also included rape or incest.  Again, I agreed that would be acceptable. That was then and it remains as far as I am willing to go.  What is your personal limit choice? None, 1^st, 2^nd, or 3^rd trimester? We are all human and not one of us can escape the finality of our decision or avert our eyes. This is none of my business just doesn’t fly.

The Green New Deal movement description contains a crucial and dangerous nation turning, talking point

Before you accept the concepts expressed in the poorly defined “Green New Deal Movement” recently suggested by a first year House of Representatives member you need to at least understand some thoughts to the contrary. The proper place to begin to understand the Deal’s foundations is with a simple comparison of the various faces of socialism which this described advanced position paper carefully and quietly has suggested. You cannot choose wisely unless you understand the basic facts of the hidden concept presence of socialism. Socialism is a quick, radical movement described by some as the only escape from capitalism which is compared to the devil incarnate. I do not accept this rhetoric. Read each described form of socialism shown below until you understand the simple entry level information and can begin to choose wisely. For good measure, return to “The Cycle of a Nation’s Growth and Collapse” above and read again. The changes described in each line are not accidental.

Socialism is a social organization of a political economic theory which advocates the means of production and distribution and exchange of all things. It is always regulated by the community as a whole. By definition the word community in context really means government. While this definition is a logical place to start, much is left unsaid and unexplained.

The Fabian Society is a British socialist organization whose purpose is to advance the principles of democratic socialism via gradualist and reformist effort in democracies, rather than by revolutionary overthrow. Do you understand the meaning of the word Progressive?

Syndicalism is a movement for transferring the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution to workers' unions. Syndicalism developed in French labor unions during the late 19th century and was at its most vigorous between 1900 and 1914, particularly in France, Italy, Spain, and the US.

Consumer Socialism is a populist economic and political system based on the public ownership (also known as collective or common ownership) of the means of production. Those means include the machinery, tools and factories used to produce goods that aim to directly satisfy human needs.

Utopian Socialism is socialism achieved by the moral persuasion of capitalists to surrender the means of production peacefully to the people.

Marxist Socialism is a transitional social state between the overthrow of Capitalism and the realization of Communism.

After reading and understanding even these small factual definition lessons, do you really want to choose to turn your back and walk away from Capitalism?  That would be, in my mind, comparable to you choosing to walk into a carnival’s house of mirrors in search of your real image. A search in that place is a search where truth does not even exist. Personal liberty and any form of socialism cannot exist together. Not Ever!

Do you think that I just used liberty incorrectly and that I should have used democracy? Think again. Democracy does not appear in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution or any of the Amendments. It is not merely the replacement of capitalism with socialism that you are trying to balance in your heart and hand. It is your personal liberty.