Globalism Series - Open Borders

The ultimate goal of the globalist is a united world society, governed by a singular government enacting universal laws, enforced by a world court. This is a goal which is not only incompatible with the vision of the United States and the will of her people; it flies against many other governments and nations and peoples as well. To suggest that this would be a simple task if people would just "cooperate" is to make an ill-informed statement at best.

As discussed in the previous article, the only answer to radically alter the acceptance quotient of the world population is the total elimination of contrary thought. That can be done by the use of social pressure to deviate from independent thought and adhere to the normative mindset defined by those in power. It can be done through the use of political power, by means of criminalizing deviant behavior, expressions, and acts of will. It can be accomplished through the use of mass media's influence on the so-called "Low Information" populous. The ultimate method was demonstrated by Pol Pot, Mao and Stalin.

The introduction to this series discussed how this is done via society and the changing of language and expression. This subtle change allowed those with a globalist agenda to radically alter the willingness to accept socialistic and communistic philosophy within a few generations. The change is most evident in the fact that while there have been socialists and communists that have run for office in the US before, none have ever enjoyed the support that Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren now see.

The previous article ended with a statement: "The real problem, ladies and gentlemen, is the myth of Open Borders."

As anyone who has followed the news during the Trump Administration is aware, the phrase "Open Borders" has been discussed at length. In fact, it has gotten to the point that few people within the news media are using it any longer. This does not by any means indicate that the drive to establish open borders has ended. If anything, like a shark, the time one should really be on guard is when it can no longer be seen.

Proponents of Open Borders philosophy are not all necessarily globalists. However, every globalist must by necessity support open borders. The difference between the two is that one wants more peace, love and dignity; the other recognizes the reality, which is total power and control. Make no mistake, Globalism uses the first group to drive forward the agenda of the second group.

At this point in play, discussion of no walls or fences on borders has run its course. That conversation will surface again, but for the time being, it has served its purpose. Now is the time to dial back the verbal debate. Now is the time to once more return to working in the shadows. Behind the backs of freedom loving people.

And as such, enter The Hague and the International Criminal Court (ICC).

By Hypergio - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0 

Within the halls of this massive compound, trials are held and verdicts are handed down which supersede the justice systems already in place within the countries that have signed on to the Rome Statute. (Text of Rome Statute) Not all countries which have signed the statute have justice systems. Of those that do, not all such systems work as they should. Thus the ICC serves a needed purpose, yet it can be exploited.

This statute is the same one that former presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama attempted to sign. In both cases, signatures was not ratified by Senate and were later revoked by the succeeding president. Both Bill and Hillary Clinton have mentioned their support for the ICC several times, as well as their desire to see the US come under its jurisdiction. Obama has echoed these sentiments, even going so far as to declare the US a "cooperating observer."

It is through this back and forth relationship with the ICC that the United States of America; which withdrew its signature from the Rome Statute and has most recently reversed the Obama era cooperation; has now found itself in a battle for sovereignty.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is the backdoor to Open Borders in the US.

The Rome Statute explicitly allows the ICC to work and maintain jurisdiction where the signatory nation has no justice system in place, or has a corrupted system in place; think of the trial one might receive in China under Mao. (Incidentally, China is not a signatory.) The ICC has no jurisdiction over nations which have not signed; nor over nations which have rescinded their signatures; nor over nations which have a fully operational justice system and the capacity to prosecute and try criminal cases within that system. Nor does it have jurisdiction over the citizens of those countries, which seems a very redundant thing to write. Unfortunately, as will soon be seen, it must be put into words.

In short, the International Criminal Court has no jurisdiction over  the United States, nor its citizens, nor any part of its governmental workings up to and including the military. Those are the guidelines by which the ICC was organized, they are not the opinion of any one person.

Right now, in The Hague within the walls of the International Criminal Court, members of the United States Military are being accused and tried. Not directly, but rather it is being argued that those who are accused of "war crimes," (think Nazi - These are the definitions for the phrase), should stand before the ICC. The information gathered by the ICCs Prosecutor against the US military service members; if indeed it exists; has not been turned over to the United States for the purpose of prosecuting those responsible. Rather, it is currently being argued that the ICC can force jurisdiction upon the US, because Afghanistan is a signatory.

While this may not seem like much; indeed, it may seem as though the United States should cooperate in this instance; nothing could be further from the truth. The reality is that just by showing up, an official attorney for the US; say a member of the Attorney General's Office; gives the Prosecutor and the ICC at large carte blanche in any matter concerning the United States.

Some will and have argued that that would be fine, as it would apply only in this single case. Again, this is an erroneous statement made from either a grievous lack of insight, or a globalist perspective. Granting the ICC jurisdiction, even in a single matter, establishes precedent. That precedent is the foundation upon which the Globalist agenda seeks to override the sovereignty of the United States. Once the ICC has jurisdiction, the laws of that country become subject to those enacted by the United Nations, and other international bodies (e.g. INTERPOL).

This is the picture of a United States under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. A Marine is accused of killing a child in front of the child's mother. This is considered to be a war crime according to the case currently being presented in The Hague. The United States Attorney General tells the ICC Prosecutor that the US will handle the matter internally. The ICC at this stage can then point to the Rome Statute and claim that the US is in violation of implied acceptance of the Statute and the rules therein, subjecting the nation as a whole to disciplinary action. This is done by referral to the Assembly of States Parties; their referral to the United Nations with recommendations; and the acceptance by the United Nations to put those recommendations into force.*

To be clear on this last point: Even though the United States has a fully functional and generally sound justice system; and the ICC supposedly operates by the doctrine of complimentarity; the end result is either the loss of sovereignty for the Unites States and increased power for the ICC, or the economic damage such actions as embargoes can have upon a nation's economy.

For the sake of clarity, the doctrine of complimentarity simply states that "[t]he ICC is intended to complement, not to replace, national criminal systems; it prosecutes cases only when States do not are unwilling or unable to do so genuinely." The ICC Prosecutor is at this stage arguing; whether literally or by implication; that the United States is subject to the Statute because of its actions within a member nation (State), and that it is unable to prosecute trials involving accused military members genuinely.

It should be noted that this tribunal in the International Criminal Court in The Hague is going on right now. In fact, it has been going on for the last two days, and has only a day of oral argument left. This is not fiction. This is not sensationalism. This is not "fake news." If ever something was truly deserving of being called fake, it would be every news network and outlet that has failed to cover this story as it should have been.

This is the backdoor by which the Globalists seek to enter. And this is the biggest fight against that agenda yet.




This is the second in a two part series. The previous article in this series can be found here. The introduction can be found here.



*Please forgive the obscene oversimplification of this process. It is far more complicated than presented, however such detail carries with it the threat of boredom in the average reader.

Confessions Of An Angry Driver

So I have a confession to make.

I am a recovering angry driver.

No, no. It's really true. I'm the driver that will slow down to five under the speed limit when another driver decides to tailgate me. I'm the driver that will match the speed of the vehicle next to me when some moron behind us is weaving back and forth trying to continue their forty over ride to Hell.

I know it's not good. It might not even be "Christian." You know what? There's a reason I don't have any Christian themed stickers or other adornments on our vehicle. Truth is, I genuinely don't want my poor handling of such situations to reflect badly on my Savior.

When a person becomes a follower of Christ, they do change. Sometimes it happens quickly, and other times it happens slowly. Most of the time, it's a varied pace. For instance, an addiction may disappear in a moment, but the swearing might last for years later. Most of the time, things hang on because they aren't so much problems as symptoms of a major issue. Once that big thing is dealt with properly, the symptoms tend to fade away.

Back to driving.

The people that drive with their blinkers on but never turn or change lanes tick me off. When people change lanes with less than a car length between us- My temper flares. When folks go through red lights; not accidentally, mind, but with birds flying; I fight back genuine rage.

I tend to be like Clive Owens' character in the movie Shoot 'Em Up. "Look. I move my finger one inch and other drivers know I intend to change lanes. This guy can't move his finger one lousy inch? What makes him so special?" His character rants a bit more and punctuates his statement by running the guy off the road.

I haven't done that; nor would I; but the temptation has certainly been there!

When bikers decide to ride up the double yellow line, I have to fight the urge to open my door. When they ride up the breakdown lane, I fight the urge to suddenly put on my hazards and pull over. When they tailgate me, I have to keep myself from hitting my brakes.

I'd like to claim that these things are issues of the past. They're not. I'm getting better at handling myself in these situations, but the temptation is absolutely and in no way any less than it was before.

The thing that has changed is that I don't view myself as a bastion of Justice any longer. I used to- I was a rescuer, addicted to injecting myself into situations I had no business being involved with just to say I had rescued someone from something.

That's been dealt with in a large part, though there are still times when that old urge resurfaces. The more it dies away, the more my driving anger simmers down.

It is strange to think that something like a savior complex could directly influence; even birth; a form of angry driving. Yet for me, the connection is unmistakable and undeniable.

In a society that medicates every little issue as if it were the end all be all, the concept of a root issue causing other issues seems to have gone by the wayside. Yet I truly believe that the more we recognize and acknowledge this reality, the more healthy we will become.

This ends the current sidebar. Now back to the regularly scheduled series, which really is in progress. More information was brought to my attention, which after extensive research, has required a total rewrite of part two.

Globalism Series - Globalism

This series was introduced in the last post, which can be read here. The gist is that Globalism, and its inevitable antecedent philosophy of Open Borders, is perhaps the worst idea mankind has had. Well, apart from genocide. It is not only unrealistic, it is an open door to global catastrophe, likely ending in a return to the Dark Ages. Globalism was initially viewed as a flight of fancy and usable only for science fiction. Today it has become the delusion that many believe possible. Forwarded slowly and patiently by proponents through various means, Globalism is this era's Imperialism; but with a far more disastrous potential set of consequences.

The "Big Problem"

The biggest problem with Globalism is the existence of enemies of state. That is not to say that there are not other great problems, but this is by far the most immediate. 

Photo by NASA on Unsplash

The concept of Globalism when put simply is this: No individual or sovereign nations, just a single world ruled by a group of individuals. While there are proponents who adhere to a more watered-down variant, the ultimate goal of the Globalist agenda is a singular world government. This means that all currencies, resources and laws must eventually be unified. It also means that all individual systems of government must fall. 

Initially this was one of the biggest reasons why many thought that Globalism could never be advanced as a viable possibility. It was suggested that the only way of doing this would be to court anarchy, and anarchists and governments don't readily mix. Thus, if the globalist were to incite anarchy within the nations; and then attempt to set up a world government; it was believed that they would fail miserably. 

Proponents of Globalism set upon a far different approach than the one previously mentioned. Rather than inciting anarchy, they simply worked subtly to breed dissatisfaction. It was a far more laborious process that required a long-term commitment, but globalists were willing to make that sacrifice. They introduced the concept of a singular government into every form of media, from educational to entertainment. At the same time, subtle changes were made within society to foster a growing dissatisfaction with current governments specifically, and life in general. An emphasis was placed upon the importance of dreams in the mid to late 1900's, and mass media underscored this message. At the same time, movies, theater, books, art and games were pushing a constant supply of dream material. It was suggested that the current system could not work, resulting in a dreary, post-apocalyptic world. Other offerings suggested that a Utopia could be achieved if only mankind could band together in a common bond. This approach worked.

The problem with the approach was that it did not address the major obstacle to the success of Globalism. That problem was the continued existence and growth of enemies of state; more specifically, those individuals and groups that would seek to work havoc in areas of the world populated by people they hated. Many of these enemies are not dissuaded from mass destruction today, even with the threat of reciprocity, annihilation, trial and imprisonment or execution. Think about this combined with a global society that doesn't restrict travel, and the problem becomes frighteningly clear.

The Attempted Solutions

"AOC"

The way to deal with enemies of state, and for that matter opponents of Globalism, has been debated. Some suggest that the simple act of opening national borders and allowing unrestricted travel will be a grand enough gesture of good will that enemies will simply cease to be enemies. For people such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, it seems as though belief in the magical solution is all there is to the problem. 

Others suggest turning to technology. Utilizing ground sensors, listening posts and video towers to monitor hypothetical borders; without implementing walls, increased border security personnel, or other practical forms of enforcement; will certainly discourage those with vile intent. Andrew Yang, a Democrat Presidential hopeful, has actually laid out something very similar to this approach. (It should be noted that as of yet, he has not openly endorsed Open Borders; but he is on board with AOC's "Free Income" stance, calling his concept "The Freedom Dividend." This alone would require another article.)

Still others suggest that what must happen is to simply do away with national identity. This has already been seen in practice on a smaller scale with attempts to color patriotism as "exceptionalism," describe a desire for secure borders as "racism" and "white supremacy," and various other methods. These individuals are not above twisting a movement to suit the purpose. For instance, the concept of "White Privilege." While originally describing a very real social problem, has also been hijacked for the purpose of shaming a large segment of the population into silence on any national issue. While some still utilize it for its original purpose, be aware that others use it for the sake of virtually bludgeoning a critic into silence. In spite of these guerrilla tactics the Big Problem remains the same, because they have not addressed reality.

The Actual Solution

What few globalists will admit, especially in this political climate, is that there is an extremely obvious and thoroughly effective solution to the Big Problem. Few if any proponents of Globalism will discuss this, because it clearly illustrates the carefully concealed double standard by which they and others of a similar mindset have come to thrive. Make no mistake: Those most powerful proponents embrace Globalism not because it requires harmony, but rather that it demands subjugation. Their altruism is shattered when motivations are broken down to the simplest denominator. They want more power. 

The aforementioned Big Problem, then, is a genuine obstacle. It cannot be properly addressed, however. Not until the majority of the population is on board with the life-changing answer to all things, which is the public relations campaign of Globalism. 

Photo by Václav Pluhař on Unsplash

The actual solution has also historically been called "The Final Solution." No, not "die Endlösung der Judenfrage," but something far more diabolical. In keeping with the theme, call it "die Endlösung für die Staatsfeinde." 

Pure and unaltered Globalism cannot function without unanimous consent. The most powerful proponents know this, and perhaps some of the lesser proponents recognize it also. The answer then is not a pie-in-the-sky alternative to immigration. Nor is it the delusional fantasy of making friends of enemies simply by treating them as friends. These do not address the core failings of humanity, and though Globalism is built upon a solidly humanistic foundation, it recognizes this as fact. Thus the actual solution is the termination of all opponents. 

Allow this to sink in for a moment.

Globalism cannot function without everyone agreeing to it. Not everyone does agree. Not everyone will agree. In order for it to be properly implemented and maintained, those in opposition must be dealt with à la Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao. No other approach actually eliminates the greatest obstacle to the globalist agenda. Unlike the three beacons of awesomeness mentioned however, this must take place on a global scale. 

Breathe Easy... For Now

For those who view the world through the lens of transhumanism; for those who are hopeful agnostics or atheists; or those who hold some other view that takes a greater-than-deserved optimistic view of humanity; the idea of genocide on a global scale is abhorrent. When the summary of this article was shown to a professor emeritus of philosophy, his reaction to the last section's conclusion was a combination of horror and denial. He gave permission to be quoted in whole or in part, but only on the condition of anonymity:

"...I can find no rational reason to dispute your logic, yet I cannot accept it as being a possibility, let alone a probability. Though humanity is capable of great evil, it is also capable of great good. The more humanity evolves, the more likely the tendency towards good. ...Humanity's growth as a species from the earliest examples unto the present day, from physical attributes to ethical reasoning [demand that] ...I can neither dispute nor accept your conclusion due to conflict of interest."

For those who hold fast to the notion that this the only life one gets, and after comes the grave and nothingness, the following advice is given: Breathe Easy. The globalist agenda has been one of slow, steady and subtle change. This makes it highly unlikely that any planet-wide genocide will happen within the next several years. While the growth of Globalism has certainly accelerated, it is unlikely that any large segment of the population will accept such a solution... Yet. 

For those who believe that the Bible is real and trustworthy: Breathe Easy... For Now. The book of Revelation clearly shows that the Antichrist rules a one-world government, it is true. It is also clear that only under this same leader does the aforementioned genocide take place. Contrary to popular belief, while the last few presidents may be (or have been) possessed of a spirit of antichrist, not one is the Antichrist. 

The real problem facing our society today is not a sudden materialization of Globalism. The real problem is what absolutely must come before Globalism can be achieved. 

The real problem is not the "Final Solution" being ratified tomorrow. The real problem is what is being talked about now, on Capitol Hill. 

The real problem, ladies and gentlemen, is the myth of Open Borders.

Globalism Series Introduction

There is a myth going around that ought to be addressed. Truthfully, it should have been addressed when it first starting gaining steam, around 2012 or so. However it would appear that few people are willing to bite the bullet and actually give a rational and intelligent rebuttal to this myth. This is due to the fact that to do so would be to court a political maelstrom, and few people know if they could survive such a storm of controversy. As an individual that has dealt with more than his fair share of withering criticism, the idea is not foreign nor is the aversion. 

With that stated, it is time to place cards on the table. When first faced with the damaging ideology of globalism, many people chuckled and suggested that it could never gain traction. People are smart. People are intelligent. The idea of a unified world without first taking radical measures to ensure its feasibility could never happen, they said. 

Unfortunately, these folks did not foresee the 1960's and 1970's, with their rising emphasis on socialist and communist philosophy. They did not foresee the recession of the 1980's; the persecution of small businesses and self-employed operators in the 1990's; and ultimately, the wide acceptance of socialist and communist philosophy within mainstream society as a result of Bernie Madoff and the Wall Street movement in the early 2000's. 

What the political gurus of the 1940's did not foresee has come to pass, and today the myth of Globalism; and its inevitable antecedent philosophy of Open Borders; has gained greater traction than could ever be thought possible. It has done this, not by taking such radical measures as would be needed to ensure success, but rather by far more nefarious means. It has gotten to this point by subtly and quietly changing small things within the United States: Language, Identity, and Perception. 

No one should be so gullible as to assume that globalists are behind every subtle change in our society. It should still be noted that as people came forward with ideas that fit the globalist agenda, these found immediate funding and support from very powerful folk. For instance, in 1970, the term "politically correct" was used in an essay by Toni Cade Bambara in reference to her concept of proper masculine behavior.  This phrase was then slowly introduced into society over the next twenty years. By 1991, even the New York Times recognized a cultural revolution of sorts was taking place in regards to the phrase. Nowadays, it is unlikely that one can tell a joke without being labeled "politically incorrect" and "insensitive." (The likelihood of this leading to the death of stand-up comedy ought to be another article entirely... Hmm...)

The result of subtle changes within society has been the acceptance of Globalism as a viable possibility, rather than its reality of being a Utopian pipe dream. The truth is that it is a grand scale delusion, much the same as the philosophy of Socialism. That philosophy when implemented as a governing political system has led to destruction in every nation in which it was attempted. Globalism, if implemented, would go much farther: It would lead to global destruction. 

To be clear, the term "global destruction" should not be understood as being the same as apocalypse, wherein the world has come to an end and is unable to sustain life on the whole. Rather, it means that everything which allows this planet to function as habitable for human life in modern times would cease to exist through systematic elimination and unanticipated consequences. That statement may seem heavy-handed, but it is not made without serious consideration and thought. 

In the next two article, Globalism as a whole will be examined, as will the Open Borders philosophy. It is the hope of this writer that there are enough genuinely free-thinking people left in the world to combat this myth. Otherwise, we may be thrust back to the Dark Ages as early as 2020.

What Has Been Will Be Again

This may be an excellent likeness of someone you know...

Hysteria. Delirium. Panic. 

These words describe the mental and emotional state of nearly every lawmaker in the United States, from those in the US Congress to those at state and local levels. The only individuals not affected by these problems can generally be seen in two groups: Those who don't care about anything that doesn't directly affect their lives, and those who are not possessed by an irrational hatred of a particular president. 

The reader should take two things into account at this point. The first is that this problem has been seen before. It is not unique to our current President, nor is it unique to one political party. It has affected folks from every walk of life, from every ethnic background, from every educational level and from every career path. The second thing is that "irrational hatred" is here defined as an emotional state which compels words and deeds that would otherwise violate one's own ethical, moral and professional codes of conduct. Such a state might be an issue for readers of this article, but affected readers likely wouldn't have made it this far, so... 

Memoria Venellam *

Was he waving at the person on the phone?

During the Obama administration, many in Congress took issue with then-president Obama. Sometimes it was over serious things, such as his cavalier use of the executive order and national emergency declarations. Other times, it was over excessively petty things, like his use of prompt screens. Of those who were obsessed with petty problems, most were Republican; most lacked the ability to recognize anything good done by the President; and nearly all refused to work with him out of personal spite, as opposed to genuine principle. 

At the time, many of the Democrats in Congress couldn't figure out what the problem was. Many lamented the stubborn refusal to work with Obama on anything. Not only were Republicans refusing to work with the President, they were also refusing to pitch their own solutions. On top of that, they were proposing legislation that directly countered Obama's agenda, and were running time and money wasting investigations and hearings. 

Conservative talk show hosts were having a field day with every little thing they could dig up. Born in Kenya. Not an American citizen. Communist. Socialist. Corrupt. Friends with a terrorist. Pastor's a radical. Father's a Muslim. His middle name is Hussein. There's no college record. It went on and on. 

Ultra-conservative talk show hosts were having an even bigger conniption fit. There were connections being made every which way but up. He was a Manchurian candidate. He was being used by Iran. He was being used by Syria. He was being used by Libya. He was also reportedly covering up FEMA camps; Big Pharma human testing; gun running; drug smuggling; and the human trafficking of his enemies. They said that he was breaking the Constitution so that it would no longer work; that he was going to do away with elections; and that he was the Antichrist. 

Veritas Utrum

Many were cartoonish in their hysteria.

While some of what the pundits and talking heads and alarmist writers were putting out there was accurate, there really wasn't a lot of genuine and factual accounting. He may have been born in Kenya, but he was also legally granted a Hawaiian document of birth. His birth father may have been Muslim, but by most accounts he barely knew the man. His pastor may have said some crazy things from the pulpit, but so have a number of other big name preachers. None of this means that he is not responsible for some of the worst abuses of power our nation has ever seen; it just means that there was a whole lot of petty crud that didn't need a fraction of the attention it received. 

There were also the straight-out lies by which even this writer was taken. For instance, one of the earliest pseudo-facts was that Obama was a full-blown Muslim. The deception didn't last long, fortunately; yet the fact that it had managed to capture the attention and energy of intelligent and rational writers such as myself remains a source of consternation. Another lie: Obama was attempting to repeal the Constitution. A few of his executive orders were strung together, along with a few statements from his campaign, which gave the appearance of an all out assault on the supreme law of the land. This one didn't last as long; in fact, it was proven to be a fabrication while researching the story for the sake of an article on this very blog. 

So what has brought on this seeming nostalgia? 

Nothing New Under The Sun

Well, as the saying goes: "New boss same as the old boss." Or if preferred: "The more things change, the more they stay the same." There was also this saying from a young man who grew up in several African countries: "A cheetah may change his spots to stripes, but his heart remains set upon your life." 

In the eyes of this author, Obama was and continues to be a scumbag. That personal opinion does not change the fact that he did a few things which were beneficial. It simply means that in the process of weighing what was good and bad about his administration according to subjective judgment, the resulting conclusion puts Obama and most of those people he surrounded himself with firmly in the "scumbag" column. This may be painfully obvious to those who are long-time readers; however what ought to be just as obvious is the fact that not everyone feels this way. Those who are capable of rational thought and logic; and who have the enviable position of accounting for the historical impact of US Presidents; have suggested that apart from his actual election, Obama's notability and historical significance is negligible. 

In the same way, President Trump currently sits in the "Meh" category. He's not yet to be cheered, nor mocked. He's done a lot of good for the country, but this has been nullified by his negative speech. He's already written his name in the history books due to five different events which were halfheartedly reported by the mainstream media. At the same time, those events have not all been seen positively, so once more he's "Meh." 

Yet as in the days of Obama, so too is it now in the days of Trump. People are losing their minds. There are those who are so consumed by irrational fear and/or hatred that they are incapable of rational thought. There are those who are so stubborn that they have turned their backs on lifelong goals solely because Trump thinks those goals are worthwhile. There are insane accusations being made. There are lies being told. There are charges being filed, hearings being held and investigations being conducted - All of which are wasting time and money. CNN is to Trump what FOX was to Obama, in a manner of speaking. 

Basically, we've stepped through the looking glass, Alice- And to fracture more idioms- The grass may be greener on the other side, but it is always full of thorns when we cross the fence. Though the only constant is change, this applies solely to that which is superficial. The heart of humanity, without any form of external influence, remains hopelessly devoid of redeeming qualities; and this explains why the basket still rolls steadily towards Hell... Exempli gratia, Concessus abortus et educationem ordinatur optimum.

* It should be noted that the author is aware of his atrocious grasp of Latin and is using it regardless for the sake of adding a lighthearted touch to an otherwise heavy handed article.

Envy The Dead

There are some things in this world that are more terrifying than others. For instance, a firecracker exploding at one's feet pales in comparison to an atom bomb doing the same. A windstorm with fifty mile an hour winds is troubling, but a hurricane is far worse. One tornado is bad, but being surrounded by multiple tornadoes is panic inducing to the extreme.

The point is, there are often more important things to concern ourselves with than whatever has got our ire up. This is certainly not always reality, but it is quite often the case. I remember hearing a story about a man who chose to weather a hurricane at home rather than evacuate. At one point in the midst of the storm, there was a break in the clouds and the sun shone through. He was on the phone with his son at the time, and complained that the bright sunlight off of the floodwaters was hurting his eyes. He complained about the sun's light, but was surrounded by devastation. As unbelievable as this story sounds, there have been a lot of accounts where people were more concerned with petty inconvenience than with potential destruction.

I was thinking about this because of late, it seems as though we're seeing a storm of "worse." Yet for some reason, everyone is apparently ignoring it to focus on the "bad." What's even more strange is that the "bad" is often a side-effect of the "worse," yet one is still focused on to the exclusion of the other. Tears For Fears had it right: It is a mad world.

The Plight of the Living

Take for example the illegal immigration issue. It's certainly a hot topic these days, and for good reason. No reasonable and rational citizen will argue that the United States was not founded and created by immigrants. Most will also agree that the conditions from which many of these immigrants are fleeing are deplorable. I think one might also be hard pressed to find a reasonable and rational person disagreeing with the sad state of these people when they arrive at the border. However, focusing solely on the people, the conditions they fled and their state upon arrival ignores a fundamental fact: The United States has a process by which all of these people can enter into the country without fear of Immigration Enforcement.

AOC and other deluded members of Congress seem to believe that the definition of the phrase "fundamental fact" is "kook thought." In reality; something which they seem to be wholly out of touch with; it is a foundational truth. Immigration has been provided for by law in this nation since 1791. While opinion on immigration has fluctuated significantly between 1800 and today, there has always been a path to citizenship for any who wish it. To react to news of immigrant caravans as though there is no structure in place is to live in a world of fantasy. Moreover, it does seem as though many legislators have some form of dementia when they begin speaking about this subject.

The Plight of the Unborn

Another example of ignoring the greater threat for the sake of the minor annoyance is the subject of abortion. Since Roe v Wade, there have been over sixty-one million abortions in the United States. There have been over one and a half billion world wide since 1980, and over eight million performed by Planned Parenthood since 1970. At the time of this writing, there have been over one hundred and seventy-seven thousand abortions this year. A little over seventeen hundred were stated to be due to rape or incest. There are no solid figures for how many abortions are done for the sake of the mother's life, but most hover around the one percent mark since 1973.

In the United States, it was initially taught to society that a fetus was nothing more than a blob of tissue. The rhetoric was changed over time to suggest that a fetus was then a parasitic organism, and now they teach that a fetus is... Well, a fetus. An undeveloped baby. Yet in New York, legislators passed a bill later signed into law by Governor Cuomo that allows abortions to be performed by anyone, anywhere, at any time, for any reason. Many states are now trying to do the same. The inconvenience is that actions (namely sex) have consequences. The greater threat is that the United States, first by ruling of the Supreme Court and now by legislation, has made murder legal.

"Murder" is defined as the termination of life, and "life" is loosely defined as the ability to function independent of aid. A baby is considered to be a live person in the United States when they can live apart from their mother. Over ninety percent can do this at twenty-six weeks, and seventy percent can do this at twenty-four weeks. Thirty-five percent of babies born at twenty-three weeks can now survive, and this percentage is growing every day with the advancement of medical science. Thus, the termination of a viable fetus is by definition murder. It is not considered to be such by law though, because inconvenience triumphs over reality.

The Plight of Society

We live in a mad world. We decry the genocide of third-world dictators, yet approve of the deaths of sixty-one million innocents, even though both are carried out in the name of convenience. We shed tears over the plight of people wanting to move freely into our nation without being inconvenienced by background checks and other safeguards, but we grow angry when acts of terrorism by foreign nationals inflict death and destruction upon us. We want to prevent our feelings from getting hurt, but have no problem in oppressing entire people groups to accomplish this task.

In short, our society in general wants to have life both ways. We want to have our cake and eat it as well. We want to live life free from consequence; we want to be free from the laws of nature by enacting laws of men. There is only one group of the world's population that has found the way to be free of consequence, and that group is growing by the minute. They are the dead, and no more apt a phrase can be applied to the world today than the words penned by the author of Ecclesiastes:

History Calling

Art by Andrew James Unlimited

Hello? Hello? Hello!

Hi! Glad to finally connect with you! So I know we never really met in school, but I saw you an awful lot in passing. Never really saw you in the halls, but sometimes I saw you in the classroom and every now and again I saw you in the library.

I guess I should introduce myself. My name's American History, and I guess the reason I wanted to have a chat with you today is really to kind of clear the air.

You know, there have been a lot of things said about me over the years. A lot of people have been really cruel in the way they've dealt with me, and yeah, I could sing songs about the troubles I've gone through. But I thought that instead of making a big scene, I'd just try and have a conversation with you. Like adults.

The first thing I want you to know is that I don't blame you at all. I was already being done wrong by your teachers long before you grew up. You're not the problem; you're the solution. I'll tell you what I mean in a moment.

You should also know that I'm not in nearly as bad of shape as a lot of people have said. Sure, I've seen my share of bad times, but so has everyone. For example, you've been told that I'm a mess and that I need to get clean. Well truth be told, there's very little about me that isn't pretty straight forward. I don't need to be clean, because the things I've seen were not clean.

Oh! No, I'm not talking about being on drugs! Sorry to have given you that impression. I just mean that facts are facts. What happened in the past can't be changed by reinterpretation, retelling or ignorance. No matter how many times someone tries to change the story, the reality of past events stays the same.

I guess I should tell you that I understand how confused you and a lot of your peers are right now. Your parents are good with celebrating national holidays like Columbus Day and Presidents Day, but you're not sure you can because of issues like slavery and human rights. Your parents are concerned with young politicians wanting socialism in the United States, and all you can see is how bad things are getting around you. I understand that things like socialism and open borders and world peace are appealing. In fact, you and your folks probably argue about it from time to time.

I have to be honest with you about this. Socialism has never worked on a national scale. My family can tell you that first hand. Ask Russian, or Polish, or German. They'll all tell you that every time its been tried, something's gone wrong. The people in power then had to figure out how to fix what went wrong, and sooner or later it became war or oppression. That's not to say there aren't some good things socialism tries to do. The United Kingdom has some socialist elements and they work. Public transportation, for instance. But they can support the programs they have put into place, and not simply because the government printed new money. Does that make sense?

World peace would certainly be nice also. I would love it if I never saw another war. But until that happens, open borders don't make sense because there will always be enemies. They don't disappear simply because you decide there shouldn't be war. The same goes for slavery. What happened prior to the American Civil War was horrific, and that war was even worse. But look around. Slavery didn't disappear, it just became less obvious. There are still slaves, right here in the United States. Why isn't that more important than a politician's haircut?

Look, I'm not trying to argue with you. I just want you to know that these days, you can't really trust what a lot of people are saying. You really do have to look into things for yourself. Search engines and internet encyclopedias are great, but they can't substitute personal research.

Why?

Well, because when you are the one doing the research for yourself, the opinions you draw are formed organically. They grow and change naturally. When you listen to the news, the anchor tells you a story based upon the network's opinion. Online resources are often written from someone else's point of view also. So when you rely on those and don't do any digging of your own, you don't have an opinion of your own. You become a clone of someone else.

I'm not trying to be insulting. I will admit that when it comes right down to it, I really don't have a lot of tact or diplomacy. I've never really had the ability to be concerned with feelings. I don't understand emotions so I don't really understand why there's more value placed on them than on facts. I'm also more of an introvert so I don't generally reach out to people. I figure if they want to know something, they'll ask.

But I can promise you that I'll always tell you the truth. Just keep digging. Keep asking. I've got nothing to gain by leaning to any direction. That's how you're the solution.

So, anyway. I guess that's all for now. I hope we'll meet again.

What Is The United States Declaration Of Independence?

The United States Declaration of Independence is a document written in 1776. The writer of the document was Thomas Jefferson. It was written to King George of England. It gave the reasons for why the people in the thirteen colonies wanted independence.

The United States Declaration of Independence was signed by fifty-six people. The oldest person signing it was Benjamin Franklin. The youngest to sign was Edward Rutledge. The largest signature on the document belongs to John Hancock who was acting as president of Congress. It is said that he wanted to make sure that King George could read it without his glasses.

The Five Parts of the Document

The United States Declaration of Independence is taught in five parts.

The first part is called the Introduction. In this part, the full date is given, which was July 4, 1776. It states that all thirteen colonies stood together in the writing and sending of it. It also says that it is their belief that history calls for events like the one they were about to do. They were going to declare freedom. They knew King George would not give them freedom. So they were declaring their own freedom and expecting war as a result.

The second part is called the Preamble. This word simply means introduction. Here it is used as a place to give an outline. The writer outlines what the colonies believed was proper government. They wanted a government that allowed for people to have a say in laws. They wanted people to have a say in taxes. when people don't have the chance to take part in government the colonies believed they had a right to declare war on the government. This is called revolution.

The third part is called the Indictment. This is where the writer and colonies with him listed all of the things that King George did wrong. It was a list of bad things King George had demanded. It also tells King George that the colonies tried to talk to him about these bad things. It says that the king didn't listen.

The fourth part is called the Denunciation. This word means that the colonies were accusing people. They accused King George. They also accused the people in England for not helping them. They say in this section that because of these problems they had to go to war.

The fifth part is called the Conclusion. Here the colonies finished their document. They said that because of all the things that England had done, they were choosing to be free of England's government. They said that they no longer saw King George as their ruler. They would rule themselves.

After these parts, the people that the colonies had sent to represent them in Congress signed their names. They wanted King George to see that everyone agreed.

What the Declaration of Independence Means 

What the Declaration of Independence means to the United States today is debated. Some say that it is just an old document. They think that the document has no value except as a piece of history. Other people think that it is important to teach. But they don't think that it is important enough to talk about. There are still a lot of people who think that it is important to talk about. They believe that forgetting the document and what it says could lead to people forgetting about what freedom really is. They think that if people forget about what King George did in the past they might allow our government now to get just as bad.

What do you think? Is the Declaration of Independence important today? Why is it important? Why isn't it important?

What Happened 

Because of this document the colonies went to war with England. King George sent many soldiers to force the colonies to obey. But the colonies didn't want to obey King George anymore. So they fought against the soldiers that King George sent. This war is called the American Revolutionary War. Many things happened in the war. Bad things were done. Good things were done. Many people died. Many more lived. In the end, the colonies became the United States of America.

But that is another story for a different time.

Assassination Justification

or, Now We Know How To Get Around Executive Order 12333

Photo by Ashwini Chaudhary on Unsplash

This past Wednesday, I had a revealing debate in a popular restaurant of all places. Two nights before, all but three Democrats in Senate voted to keep debating whether a child born alive after an abortion attempt was worth the same protection that any other child is granted. Because this vote was not necessarily in the news heavily, but being discussed by many anyway, I was naturally asked for my opinion. I say naturally, because this is a place I go to regularly, and many of the staff and frequent patrons know me. 

When I was asked my opinion, I simply stated that it was a damn shame that some children are considered to be worth less than others; at least, in the minds of forty-three Democrats and one so-called Independent. I stated that Senators Casey, Jones and Manchin deserved a standing ovation for separating from their party (Democrat) and agreeing that all children should be protected. I also said that I believed that day was perhaps the darkest day this nation has seen since the state of New York passed the "Reproductive Health Care Act" (RHA). That law, contrary to statements by supporters, uses such broad language that a child could potentially be killed without consequence even at the point of birth. Lastly, I added that this seemed like the first step in a larger attempt to decriminalize murder, possibly leading to mandated euthanasia or worse.

The woman I was talking to; and who had asked my opinion on the matter; agreed with me. She said that when New York passed the RHA, she read an article that had a statement she couldn't believe. The writer of that article had said that we could only believe that medical professionals would risk their licensing and careers to perform frivolous abortions if we showed similar distrust of doctors performing other procedures. The conclusion was that anyone who didn't trust a medical professional to do an abortion was simply unreasonable and out of their minds. The woman I was talking to then said that as recently a week before, she had seen another news report of a misbehaving doctor. 

As I agreed, a gentleman who is there on occasion decided to interject. This is an account of that discussion.

+++

"The danger of that particular bill was that it could have been used to impede a woman's right to choose," he began. "You, as a man, do not have the right to impose your will upon a woman or her body."

"I'm standing next to a woman who agrees with me," I observed dryly. 

"That's beside the point," he responded. "You do not have a voice in this matter, so your opinion is not only unwanted, it is also worthless since it relies heavily on the slippery slope fallacy."

"That's interesting," I said, feeling myself getting a little heated, "Considering that you're also a man, yet your opinion is apparently gold."

"I'm just speaking the truth," he said with a shrug. "You're the one with such a high and lofty opinion of yourself." He glanced at his phone briefly and added, "Which, I suppose, is typical for someone supporting President Frump."

Something in my mind snapped at this point. "Okay, so let's go ahead and go on record here. The lady here wanted my opinion, and quite frankly, you've made it very clear that yours is more valuable than mine. You say that the bill could be used to impede a woman's right to choose, right? Do you realize that the language of the bill explicitly sheltered any woman who gave birth after an abortion attempt? Under that law, she could not be charged with anything? How does that impede her right to choice?"

"Oh, it wasn't the law itself," he said with a chuckle. "It was the fact that it penalized doctors and medical personnel who failed to take measures to save any infant that was born alive. Doctors would stop offering abortions and women would once more begin dying from back alley procedures."

"Really? Who's making the slippery slope arguments now? From 1972 to 1979, twenty-four women died from post-abortive hemorrhaging, which is still recognized to this day by the CDC as only the third most frequent cause of death associated with abortion. They rarely talk about the first and second causes, infection and embolism. What they don't mention is that while the overall mortality rate has gone down for women who get abortions since that time, the rates of hemorrhaging and infection have risen." I raised an eyebrow. "Worse still, prior to Roe v. Wade, abortion related deaths were being reported because it was illegal to perform abortions. Now, fewer deaths are being reported, yet it is pretty clear that doesn't mean there are fewer fatalities. In fact, approximately three out of four maternal deaths related to legal abortion aren't even identified. The idea that more women are going to die if abortion is made illegal doesn't stand under the weight of the statistics. Not to mention that we're not even discussing abortion as a whole. We're talking about partial birth and after birth abortion. Murder, in my eyes." 

His posture straightened and he seemed more resolute now. "Abortion, whether it is at one day or nine months, is still the prerogative of the woman. It is not your place to say what is and is not allowed, and neither can the damn Republicans."

I leveled my eyes on him, looking for any sign of flinching as I asked, "So you're saying that a woman should be able, even at the point of birth, to decide she does not want a child?"

He didn't pause for a second. "Absolutely."

I wasn't so surprised by his response at this point, but I could tell the lady was. Her eyes widened and her mouth opened just a little. When she didn't say anything, I took the opportunity to challenge his way of thinking.

"Should a man who assaults a pregnant woman be charged with assault and murder if the child dies?"

He didn't bat an eye. "Certainly, if the state law allows for it. That's a different matter entirely."

"Fair enough," I said, appreciating his viewpoint. "But you're saying that if that same woman decides she doesn't want a child after all, even as she's giving birth, the child should die? And, of course, because it's a completely different circumstance, it is not murder. Am I understanding you correctly?"

He nodded. "Yes, and yes."

"Huh." I thought for a moment, then asked, "So by that logic, your mother could choose to terminate your life, and because it's a different circumstance, it's not murder." 

He laughed. "Of course that would be murder. Although my mother is saint, and very religious, so she wouldn't even consider it."

The woman I had initially been talking to interjected, "How fortunate for you."

If he picked up on her sarcasm, he gave no sign that he had. "I think so. I rather enjoy my life."

I held up my hand. "I just want to make certain that I have a clear picture of your stance, if I may."

He nodded again. "Certainly."

"Okay," I began, "Let us assume that the woman in this situation is in no danger of losing her life by giving birth, or by carrying a child to term."

"So assumed," he confirmed. 

"So this woman gets to her due date, and maybe a few days past it, and goes in to the hospital to have her child. somewhere along the line she panics and decides she can't raise a child. She should be allowed to kill the child without it being defined as murder?"

"Correct."

"If that woman had initially decided to have a third trimester abortion, but it didn't work, and she delivers early as a result, she should still be allowed to authorize the death of that child, without anyone being guilty of murder?"

"Absolutely. It's her right to choose."

"And if the same woman actually gives birth to the child, but has a change of heart before they cut the cord, that child can be killed, and it is not murder?"

"I would use the term 'terminated' in all cases," he corrected me smoothly, "but essentially yes."

"And just so I don't get caught up on any other minor details," I said by way of preface, "You are aware that in the last two cases, the child is now breathing air on his or her own?"

"On it's own, but yes."

"It's own. Terminated. Got it," I said, repeating the terminology for his benefit. "Okay. So basically according to your view, personhood is defined by an individual's choice. Regardless of when that choice takes place. It could be at eighteen days, or it could be eighteen minutes after birth."

He paused for a moment, looked at the ceiling, and then looked back at me. "You could say that, yes."

"So by your logic, the determining factor between undesirable and desirable," I stopped and rephrased, "Rather, the determining factor between priceless and worthless is the choice of a single individual?"

"Correct."

"Wow." I said. "I can see it all so clearly now. That means, that I could decide you are worthless, kill you, and not be charged with murder. I was only making an arbitrary choice, and preventing something worthless from taking away from our planet's valuable resources by termination. Not murder."

He smirked at me. "That's not how it works."

"Right, because I'm not a woman."

He nodded, the smirk still there. "Because you're not my mother."

"Ah, I see." I said. "So if your mother, then, tired of your viewpoint on this issue, she could choose to deem you worthless and terminate your life without being charged with murder."

"No," he said, now finally appearing flustered. "Again, that's not how this works."

"But that's what you said. A woman, even after the point of birth, can choose to terminate her child. I mean, it's either murder, or it isn't. If innocence is the deciding factor between whether the ending of a life is acceptable or not, then the difference between the death penalty and murder is understandable. But if a mother's choice is the deciding factor between whether the ending of a life is acceptable or not, then the difference between post-birth or partial-birth abortion and drowning her child doesn't make sense. It must be murder, or it must not be. There is no room for it to go both ways."

The smirk was gone. There was a vein visible in his forehead that I had not noticed before. As he walked away, he said, "You're a closed-minded bigot."

+++

As the woman I had begun the conversation with walked to the register to settle the man's tab, she suggested to me that perhaps if I had gender reassignment my opinion would be valid. I laughed at that, because the thought had not occurred to me. When she returned, she informed me that the man had overheard her comment, and stated that it still wouldn't make a difference, because I would still be biologically a man.

+++

So there you have it. This account is as accurate as I can recall. There may have been some things left out, but I have added nothing. 

Killing Children

This is the text of the "Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act." The bill, sponsored by Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse, is intended to provide protection for those infants who, in spite of abortive measures, are born alive. It protects the now born alive infant from further action to terminate its life.

This, the protection of human life, should be without question something which our lawmakers agree on. Regardless of political affiliation. Regardless of what they think of our current President. Regardless of all other views held on foreign policy, immigration, the United States Constitution, traffic laws or whether the sky is pink - Our lawmakers should desire above all else to protect human life. They all say that they do on the campaign trail. They choose to demonstrate that they do in various ways, at least during election cycles.

So with all of this said, I am naturally here to give you the rare "good news" story. The story that happens once or twice a year where politicians put aside their partisan differences for the sake of something that truly matters on a grand scale. I am here to tell you that achieved cloture on the bill, which is a fancy way of saying that they agreed there was nothing to debate and the bill must be voted on.

Ah, as the fictional narrator of a popular children's series might say, how I wish I could tell you that this is exactly what happened. How I wish I could write that the sun shone bright on the United States Senate, as it were, and that the Senators joined hands across the aisles to stand as one. I would like nothing more, in fact, to pen a sonnet about the day when a human being's right to live after drawing air for the first time was codified and made law. Perhaps one day I will do just that, but alas, today is not that day.

I cannot write these things, for at 5:42 yesterday evening, as the sun set on the Eastern seaboard of the United States of America, it set also on the hopes and dreams and battles of any newborn survivors of abortion attempts. And as the sun set on these things, so too did it set on these very lives; lives of infants who, against all odds and circumstance and technology and oppression, had fought hard enough to take that first breath... Only to have it stolen. The ember of their lives quenched without mercy or care or concern or goodness or any other human decency.

The human race, at least that which calls the United States home, denied the very promise of the nation that it so hypocritically fights for on the part of any other human. If the human is a rapist, they deserve mercy. If the human is a trafficker, they deserve leniency. If the human is a murderer, they still deserve their life.

But if the human is mere seconds old; if the human has drawn its first or perhaps its second breath; if that human has survived a saline wash, or an acid bath, or a toxic shock, or a drug overdose, or repeated stabbings, or anything else of that sort; survived these things and fought through to come into the land of the living? Well, that human is not worthy of being called a human. Apparently. Born innocent, that human is still guilty of the most heinous of crimes: Inconveniencing a society set on that humans death.

I am not being alarmist. I am not exaggerating facts, nor am I conflating any issues. I fully understand that there are women out there who are faced with horrors that should never be wished upon a human being. I realize that there are consequences for these horrors, and that one of those is pregnancy. I do not suggest that a woman in such a position be not only forced to carry such a pregnancy to term but also care for that child as well. My personal beliefs are not a part of this article, and to the best of my abilities I am trying to remain as civil as possible. I am also attempting to remain as non-judgmental as possible. If it strikes you differently, dear reader, I beg your forgiveness.

To that end, I have called several hospitals around the nation. Seventy-eight, to be exact. I have called them to inquire about specific policy completely unrelated to the abortion issue. Only six returned my calls or deigned to speak to me, and all requested anonymity. From this small sampling, I can say that at least with these hospitals, the policy for an unwanted live birth is to turn that child over for care by the state or by private organizations. In all cases, the mother's name is left off of the public record, and in many cases she is given a pseudonym. The mother need not be concerned with being tracked down in later years to be asked uncomfortable questions.

Yet it seems that many people are under the impression that a woman who chooses not to have an abortion; or a woman who has had a failed abortion; will be forced to care for the child. It seems that the going understanding is that she will be made, whether by coercion or some other means, to raise it and be reminded every hour of every day of a failing or of a horror.

This is the text of the "Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act." One Senator who voted against this bill decried its language as impeding a woman's right to choose. Please read the text. There is no such language.

Another Senator who voted against human life stated that it would send women to prison for exercising their rights to choose. This is the text of the "Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act." There is no such language; in fact, steps were taken within it to assure the exact opposite.

Still another Senator suggested that it would completely reverse the right for women to obtain an abortion. There is no such language. This is the text of the "Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act." Read it for yourself, and tell me if I am wrong.

I have said before that I don't care for the way in which our current President speaks. He is brash. He is rash. He is impulsive and contrary and seemingly set on making enemies wherever he goes. He was also one hundred percent right on this observation, and I leave it with you as an apt summary of my feelings on the injustice which every Democrat hoping for the presidency embarked upon last night.