Planned Servanthood?

"Self-love . . . is the sole antagonist of virtue, leading us constantly by our propensities to self-gratification in violation of our moral duties to others."

Thomas Jefferson

First the premise question: Is Planned Parenthood equal to Planned Severanthood?

Now some foundation.

The Founders and early Americans understood better than most today why our republic works. And we will do best when we follow the fundamentals of these great people. As a nation we struggled when faced with contradictions that our founding principals were formed on. Slavery is just one example. From the beginning it was realized by the founders to be an inconsistency related to the founding beliefs. Patrick Henry in March of 1775 said, “Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”

It took longer than maybe it should have but in time our nation, only because of ethics our foundations demanded, put the idea of slavery practiced in early America as the anathema it is mirrored by our founding principles. But what happens when we decide to ignore, change or replace these ethics? What if, as Thomas Jefferson suggests, self-love overshadows our moral duties? We might have today something akin to Planned Servanthood.

Analogy - America’s (Caucasians) could legally have Blacks as property and slaves unless such time they decide to free them with a status equal to Whites using a proclamation and forms of proof that the White owners submit giving Blacks permanent equal status as Like White. This came about because the Supreme Court ruled it is legal and Blacks are not human based on criteria most Whites agree represents human nature. Let us just say that the Dred Scott v. Sandford case, never over turned, was enforced and built upon until consciences were quelled and the law prevailed. To help families or individuals deal with these relationships and make good decisions a group develops, supported with Federal funding, called Planned Servanthood. Most Americans decide to give Blacks Like White status but there is still a large portion of slaves waiting for the same distinction with no rights other than what their owners decide. As a matter of fact, slave owners have the right to blow a Blacks' head off his shoulders to rid any inconvenience they bring to life rather than bother with the process for Like White status. Perfectly legal because the Supreme Court says so. Generally that’s not done because a professional in the field will get rid a Black for you so you won’t have to deal with the mess. Planned Servanthood is the best place to go for these services. Oh, they will help with other services too, like assist with setting up Like White procedures and even financial help for Black costs until then. But there is quite a bit of money to be made by the professional Black Eliminators, so often that route is more convenient, faster and a permanent solution. The nation becomes divided into Pro-Black and Pro-Choice factions vying against one another about the legal and ethical aspects of the situation.

Sound familiar? Planned Parenthood offers the exact same divisive posture because most arguments ignore the root ethical dispute. Is a Black human? Is a fetus human? Why is Planned Parenthood so vilified? Yes abortion is legal, but should it be? Does Planned Parenthood offer some good services? Of course, but should it be federally funded? All answers to these questions depend on whether it is ethical, not whether it is legal. Individuals may determine their own ethical compass but this nation was founded upon certain ethical criteria that no laws should supersede, because when it does that foundation is eroded and needs repair. Abortion is just as abhorrent as Black elimination, not because our laws tells us so, but because the principals those law are suppose to represent dictate it so.

"When once a republic is corrupted, there is no possibility of remedying any of the growing evils but by removing the corruption and restoring its lost principles; every other correction is either useless or a new evil."

Thomas Jefferson

"A patriot without religion in my estimation is as great a paradox as an honest Man without the fear of God. Is it possible that he whom no moral obligations bind, can have any real Good Will towards Men? Can he be a patriot who, by an openly vicious conduct, is undermining the very bonds of Society?....The Scriptures tell us "righteousness exalteth a Nation."

Abigail Adams

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here."

Patrick Henry March 23, 1775

 

James Madison or Madison Wisconsin

"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government." 

James Madison

I hope you can appreciate James Madison’s sentiment. What’s ironic here is that the “Union” protests in Madison WI and Democrats fleeing the state instead of doing their job proves his concern. There are those who prefer to assume our American foundation is a pliable, changing, and evolving democracy that can fit within a socialist type system in order to appease licentious leaning, self-serving amoral beliefs that are contrary to our republic foundation. To simplify, “our text should not separate from our historical background”.

Still trying to make out what I mean? First let me say that I’m not suggesting Americans should never grow in the understanding of our founding government or make improvements based on the intent our founders mapped for us. We have managed throughout our history to correct things the moral compass of our founding directed us. Slavery is wrong and eventually we corrected it. Racism is immoral and again we strive to discourage and eradicate any cause that supports it. This is maturing, getting wiser by the knowledge of our principals we hold as truths.

Current events related to what is taking place in Wisconsin more represents values “separate from the text” of our nation. It falls more in the realm of modern progressive self-serving entitlement rights that are contrary to what our founding fathers had in mind. The Unions (the system, not most members) and progressive leaning Democrats have high jacked the American Dream to pervert it into something even Martin Luther King would find appalling, say nothing about the founding fathers. Public servants need to realize that their Unions have garnered job entitlements beyond what the taxpayer can now afford. The private sector has made adjustments for such mistakes so both business and the employees can survive or they have gone out of business. Or they should have but for bailout money taken from the taxpayer, which will only prolong the inevitable and further burden him. Public employees are only being asked to adjust like the private sector  and in most cases not even as much, but they are stomping their feet, pouting like a spoiled teenager who believes their allowance should be larger and call his parents anything but good.

The taxpayers are the ones who should be negotiating with public employees, not the Unions and that is what the Governor of Wisconsin, Scott Walker, is attempting. Anything different is only a “distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government”. There is a huge difference between what our founding republic intends as moral, unalienable rights and the freedom to pursue happiness and property and the new unconstitutional socialistic entitlement philosophy that is muscling in disguised as a false American Dream.

Which side do you find yourself standing on? James Madison or Madison Wisconsin?

“The Constitution of the United States was created by the people of the United States composing the respective states, who alone had the right.”

James Madison

We Need Tea Without Lemon

“The Constitution . . . is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please.”

Thomas Jefferson (to Judge Spencer Roane, Sept. 6, 1819.)

One needs to understand that the founding fathers were very concerned that people, either intentionally or unintentionally would not comprehend their wisdom, which they laboriously applied when penning the documents of our republic government. These great men labored upon forming a government steeped and molded in the Christian-Judean philosophy that all involved concurred was the only way a people could govern themselves. That is not to say this is a “Christian” nation (though there are many good arguments for it) but a religious one that works well within Christian beliefs.

Many court decisions made the last fifty years play into exactly what Thomas Jefferson (and others) were concerned about when he made the above statement. One came to mind when I recently read a new policy directed by the Board of Education of Massena Central School in New York. Not to pick on them exclusively but it represents many such moves by school systems and other public organizations attempting to use court decisions that play into the progressive, liberal ideology that removes Christian influence from our government. This particular school policy may sound familiar and if it does read on why I think it is unconstitutional by intend.

Policy 2011 8360 SUBJECT: RELIGIOUS EXPRESSION IN THE INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM – “…the District will be guided by three concepts when making decisions about the appropriateness of activities for inclusion in the school program: the activity should have a secular purpose; the activity should neither advance nor inhibit religion; and the activity must not foster an excessive entanglement of "government" with religion.”

There is obviously more but the policy derives its “meat” from the court decision of LEMON v. KURTZMAN, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), which in recent years has been used less successfully but still cited. The Court's decision in this case established the "Lemon test", which details the requirements for legislation concerning religion. It consists of three prongs:

1. The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;
2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.

Our founding fathers would have no issues with number 2 and 3, because they address them in our founding documents. What I have problems with (and the founders would also) is number one. What is a secular legislative purpose? Many would contend that secularism is the only model that encompasses a neutral philosophy or void of any religious connection, thus supporting the “wall of separation” needed to keep God out of American politics. But take a look at a definition of religious from Merriam-Webster.

Religious : relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity (emphasis added).

Christianity and Secularism are both religious philosophical ideas: one based on deity and the other on different acknowledged reality. Both are based on faith and both can find certain scientific evidence to support it is true. So, for those who will quote secularism as a system that rejects all forms of religious faith I contend that it is a religion that simply opposes others. Any government action that supports a philosophical secular legislative purpose is just as lawless as one that might support a Christian philosophical purpose; based on the twisted logic purposed by Justice Burger in this court decision.

People need to understand our democratic republic, what it is based on and the intention the Framers had when they wrote the documents that make this nation such a great beacon for the rest of the world. Understand why you consider yourself patriotic and uphold the principals our government works best with, whether you consider yourself religious or not. Vote for people who understand these principals, direct your representatives to support the Founders principals or vote them out; whether it is a school board member or the President.

The Founders believed all people are on an equal legal footing. But the Framers did not espouse pure pluralism. Non-Christian-Judean philosophies could exist only insofar as they stayed within its principal boundaries - no sacrificing virgins, no polygamy, no pagan perversions. We were one nation "under God" - a particular God, with particular moral standards. The current Tea Party movement needs to keep pure. No Lemon please.

“The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.”

John Adams

Nuts on Right, on Left and Just Plain Nuts

“By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community”.

“The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society.”

The Federalist NO. 10 - Thursday, November 22, 1787 [James Madison]

Every American should have a grasp of our founding fathers vision for our republic and a great place to start is the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers written during the birth of our nation. Federalist Number 10 deals with “factions”, which means people with different ideas about how things should be. Sound familiar, like it might apply to today? You bet and today’s news just highlights it.

A right wing nut, Brett Reese, is airing an editorial four times daily - up from two - on his station KELS-FM 104.7. He is unapologetic that portions of the editorial that call King a "plastic god," a "sexual degenerate," and "an America hating communist". The Mountain States Anti-Defamation League has asked Reese to stop broadcasting the editorial. The Greeley school board passed a resolution last week supporting the holiday and calling the editorial "inflammatory and detrimental to our district and community." The vote came after Reese walked out of the meeting.

A left wing nut, James Eric Fuller, was arrested after shouting “You’re dead!” at Tucson Tea Party spokesman Trent Humphries, said Pima County Sheriff’s Department spokesman Jason Ogan. Fuller was shot in the knee and back Jan. 8 when a gunman opened fire at Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords event that day. Fuller linked the shooting to conservative leaders associated with the tea party, including Sarah Palin, Fox News commentator Glenn Beck and Nevada Senate candidate Sharron Angle. “It looks like Palin, Beck, Sharron Angle and the rest got their first target,” Fuller said.

The act of Jared Loughner is fairly simple to discern if you just look at the facts; he is just plain nuts. The news media is having a hay-day with his story though. In our republic it is expected that we will have varying ideas but as Madison alludes to, the voice of the people pronounced by a body of representatives is more conformable to the interest of the community. He argues large republic against a small republic for the choice of “fit characters” to represent the public’s voice. In a large republic where the number of voters and candidates is greater, the probability to elect competent representatives is broader.1 The effects of the Tea Party movement is exactly what Madison refers to. Given time and with a majority of the people understanding the principals our country is founded upon, it can heal and work for the common good the government is meant to preserve. “We the People” need to be the characters our founding fathers developed this country for so ALL the nuts will stay in the can where they belong. What it all boils down to is our republic works only when the people understand the ethics, philosophical integrity and religious foundation the founding fathers based it on. I finish with this quote I used before but it fits here best.

“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

John Adams – 1798

1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._10#The_question_of_faction

Control Hate Speech

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."

Thomas Jefferson, Letter, 23 December 1791

First, we need to pray for congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, her family and all those who suffered at the hands of a madman. But there are many who would rather politicize it and again claim hate speech and point finger to stir people up. They declare it is the fault of Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck. Interesting these same people don’t suggest that on June 2008 when our current President said “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” is similar talk. I’m intelligent enough to know Mr. Obama never intended this to be meant as hate speech and encourage violence. Both sides say things like this and if you are going to condemn one you have to do the same with the other.

OK, so using one of the examples pointed at, let’s see what he said about hate speech and the actions of Jared Loughner. Look at the challenge Glenn Beck (here) put forth to everyone, including those blaming him and other conservatives for the tragedy. Ignoring what others say, if you can (??) and looking ONLY at what Glenn’s statement says against violence (you will need to read it for yourself!) tell me the statement is wrong. Can you? You might think it is a simple lucid moment in an otherwise deranged individual but is it wrong? How would you feel about it if I said a liberal wrote this (I’m sure many could)? Would someone who writes this be one who would purposely direct others to commit violent acts? I do not always agree with Glenn, but he has never intentionally provoked hate like some people and organization have. The very hate speech they condemn they use to make their point. Even Richard Cohen of the Washington Post (a liberal) believes the right wing has little to no bearing on the actions perpetrated by Jared Loughner.

Hate speech can not be controlled through legislation. Thomas Jefferson and the rest of the founding fathers argued that point in many ways and at numerous times. What could we possibly use as a measure to determine what hate speech is? We know it when we hear and it is different for every individual. The only thing that will deter and limit this kind of behavior is for everyone to understand their personal obligation to strive for integrity found only in God’s commands for us to live by. It has to be taught, needs to be learned and then practiced by each person who wishes to mature.

"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves, (A)nd if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power."

Thomas Jefferson

More Tea Anyone?

 [Samuel Adams] argued that the Tea Party was not the act of a lawless mob, but was instead a principled protest and the only remaining option the people had to defend their constitutional rights. 

Samuel Adams¹ - Wikipedia

As 2010 closed and I sit here conjecturing (there’s a unique verb for you) on 2011, it intrigues me that the American people have developed a taste for tea over other favorite “drinks” of the recent past. I know you realize I speak of something other than the refreshments we part-take of on a daily basis, but let us just continue with the analogy for the fun of it.

Last year I wrote about my fascination and reflections of all the flavors of tea. I found myself too busy to finish quarter four with details and insights about those who hate tea and want to outlaw it and those so fanatical about it they understand nothing else. But I will try to pick up where I left off and see how the current tea fascination may play out this year.

A popular flavor of the herb has made it into our US House for the next few years and seems to be making an overall commotion from the aroma before anyone has even tasted it! I think I’ll wait for a sip before any judgment of the quality. But I do like tea and hope others discover the value it has. Unlike other drinks, like strong alcohol for instance, tea has major medicinal qualities, can be used in large quantities without major complications or ill effects and without worry of developing a destructive addition.

So, as we begin this year keep track with me how the Tea Party promotes or provokes political changes and how well governance absorbs and reacts to the taste “we the people” demand they serve us; because they haven’t had to deal with the cakes, cracker and crumpets we like ... yet.

“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government."

Patrick Henry

"(T)he foundation of our national policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality; ...the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained..." 

George Washington, First Inaugural, April 30 1789

¹ John K. Alexander, Revolutionary Politician, 129

Liberal or Progressive?

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government -- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests."

Patrick Henry

Note: To fully appreciate this post you need to see the first comment to my post "Populism Through Patriotism or Progressivism?

Ah, now we are getting somewhere. You have given me some insight and some real meat to chew on. I love your analogy with the cats: great point and word picture to use. The first thing I need to do is give some definitions so you may better understand my points. The first two definitions I gathered from Wikipedia.

Conservatism is a political and social philosophy that promotes the maintenance of traditional institutions and supports minimal and gradual change in society. Historian Gregory Schneider finds a continuity in conservatism across the 20th century in terms of five powerful tendencies. The first is defense of tradition, dating from the Founding Fathers. Second is a commitment to preserve the rule of law, with an emphasis on the Constitution. Thirdly, conservatives uphold the Judeo-Christian traditions in the culture wars, opposing secularism. Fourthly, they uphold the principles of freedom, especially the right to bear arms and to conduct business without government regulation. Finally they support a free-market economic system based on capitalism, as opposed to a socialist economy directed by the national government. - Wikipedia

Liberalism is the belief in the importance of liberty and equality. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but most liberals support such fundamental ideas as constitutions, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, free trade, and the separation of church and state. These ideas are widely accepted, even by political groups that do not openly profess a liberal ideological orientation. Liberalism encompasses several intellectual trends and traditions, but the dominant variants are classical liberalism, which became popular in the 18th century, and social liberalism, which became popular in the 20th century. (Emphasis added, explained later) - Wikipedia

OK, by these definitions it is obvious we could easily agree on many points when it comes to keeping our American republic grounded and directed as it was originally intended. The definition on Conservatism nails where I am coming from. Without labeling you categorically with something to unintentionally pigeonhole you, I think it is fair to assume you agree more with liberalism and ideas of a Liberal. And with the points I emphasis in the definition above and a couple of others not listed (but we have discussed before, like natural or inalienable rights) there are areas we can have healthy disagreement upon as elements that fortify our government.

So where is our disconnect? We need to define progressivism. You seem to use the term interchangeably with liberalism.

“You offer me a choice between either patriotism or progressivism as though they were diametrically opposed.”

Yes, I did because my understanding / definition of progressivism is just that. Not liberalism, but progressivism. We have a neat definition of conservatism and liberalism but there is no single good one for progressivism. Wikipedia says a progressive is, “b : one believing in political change and especially social improvement by governmental action.” It is not as definitive as the other two quoted earlier, partly because it has been high-jacked to replace or augment liberal ideas and is a moving, changing target, still being defined and redefined by the media and both ends of the political spectrum. “Lefties” are not progressives and you may only be distorting your image of liberal ideals if you align yourself with them too closely. Here is another definition from The Collaborative International Dictionary of English.

3. (U. S. History) Of or pertaining to the Progressive party. [Webster 1913 Suppl.]

4. Favoring improvement, change, progress, or reform, especially in a political context; -- used of people. Contrasted with conservative.

Note: The term progressive is sometimes used to describe the views of a politician, where liberal might have been used at one time, in communities where the term liberal has come to connote extreme views. (Emphasis added) - The Collaborative International Dictionary of English

Those who claim to be progressives are best defined by their actions aligning with their rhetoric. Progressives have and are distorting liberal philosophies because their goals do not necessarily align with those defined as liberal above. I mentioned George B. Shaw because he is one pointed to as a “father” of progressive thought. There are more obvious choices, like those who later took the title; Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D Roosevelt. Notice there is no distinction between Republican or Democrat. Interesting you didn’t mention or object to a contemporary of these, John Dewy, whom I also quoted.

I’ll let one of these be an example of progressive thought and his career accomplishments show a pattern.

“Some citizens of this country have never got beyond the Declaration of Independence …The Declaration of Independence did not mention the questions of our day. It is of no consequence to us.” - Woodrow Wilson

“All that progressives ask or desire is permission—in an era when ‘development,’ ‘evolution,’ is the scientific word—to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle; all they ask is recognition of the fact that a nation is a living thing and not a machine.” - Woodrow Wilson

“In fundamental theory socialism and democracy are almost if not quite one and the same. They both rest at bottom upon the absolute right of the community to determine its own destiny and that of its members. Men as communities are supreme over men as individuals.” (Emphasis added) - Woodrow Wilson

So, to further help I will use your analogy and some distinctions to help understand how I see the difference between a liberal and conservative. Let us just say that cats represent liberals and dogs represent conservatives (only for this example. I would never presume otherwise). We can all live with either, but do have a preference for one or the other. Whether you prefer a cat or a dog, either makes a good pet for the family and depending on the family one fits better than the other. But not all cats or canine are good for the family. It would be a disastrous idea to keep a hungry African Lion or a Dire Wolf as a family pet because chances are great either would destroy the family. If you haven’t already guessed, the African Lion is a liberal progressive and the Dire Wolf is a conservative fascist.

Woodrow Wilson could be called a liberal progressive. Some might try to label me a conservative fascist. I will react very belligerently to that statement. It is untrue because I in no way align myself with any kind of fascist ideas. Conservative, yes; fascist, not in the least. There may be conservative fascist (Hitler) but I’m not one of them. Woodrow Wilson easily lived up to the ideas of a liberal progressive but not all liberals would agree with many of his policies. But true progressives loves his ideas and wish to continue the path. That is what progressivism is all about; if possible quick, radical change. Quick might not be possible, but radical is desired.

This last president, what was his campaign slogan? Oh yea, change. Not enough questioned what kind of change when voting, but now they are asking. What change do we need? Wilson and Obama have much in common. You might believe, “Most lefties would hold up Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, and Thomas Paine as our founders and role models. We revere the Constitution and hold the Bill of Rights as you do the Ten Commandments”, and I have no issues with it. But progressives have no such proclivity. They want to and need to destroy the republic to accomplish their goals. Some might disagree with this definition of a progressive and lean only to “progress” or “liberal secularism”, but if that is true then you might better stick with liberalism and distant yourself from progressivism.

"Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure (and) which insures to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments."

Charles Carroll, signer of the Declaration of Independence