From Accomplishment to Victimhood

In this country we used to value accomplishment.  People strove to do their very best.  Students wanted to excel and be at the top of their class.  People would compete to get the first place (not the participation) trophy. 

Valuing accomplishment means valuing the successful achievement of a task.  It has meant that Individuals were rewarded for doing their best and for doing better than their peers:  they received a promotion or a raise, they were admitted to the top schools, they were recognized as excelling due to ability, talent, skill, or aptitude in a particular area.  Generally, receiving recognition for excellence required individual effort and hard work in order to attain the level necessary for such recognition.

We celebrated accomplishment and as a result this country excelled.  That is, when individuals are striving to do their best they will not only fulfill themselves but will continually improve the areas in which they are working.  As such, their society and their country will also excel and continually improve.

Of course, celebrating and awarding individual accomplishment means that some sort of ranking of individuals will result; not everyone can be number one.  At some point this started to become a problem.  People’s feelings became more important than the accomplishments of others. 

At some point we moved from celebrating accomplishment to being ashamed of and condemning it.  Those who didn’t win the top prize felt bad and, instead of saying “try harder next time” we consoled their hurt feelings with things like participation awards.  We advised winners not to be too proud.  We started removing children’s games that had winners.  We shamed those who tried too hard, who wanted to rise above the mediocre to be the best that they could be.  We made excuses for failure.  And, instead of striving to be the best we began striving for mediocrity.

And, then, we created victims; we began celebrating victimhood.

Below are three charts that show the usage of the words “accomplishment”, “victim”, and “victimhood” between 1800 and 2010.  You will note that “accomplishment” has steadily declined while “victim” began a steady rise in the 1960s and “victimhood” from almost nothing made a steep jump to the highest usage of the three beginning in the early 2000s.

Now, instead of accomplishment we celebrate victimhood.  Perhaps this change started with the over-focus on the belief that by recognizing those who perform better than others we were somehow destroying self-esteem; that is, everyone was supposed to feel good all the time.  

When someone else won and was recognized for it, that became unacceptable because someone else must be feeling bad.  We had a culture of feelings and those feelings were supposed to always be good.  Yet, what this did was also do away with the true self-esteem that comes with accomplishment.

Suddenly, it was the victims who received the attention.  People began to proclaim themselves as victims in order to obtain a variety of benefits attached to victimhood.  

Clever lawyers created defendant-victims; students began to claim one or another hardship as the reason for their lack of academic success.  

While college admissions used to look almost exclusively at academic performance, the entrance personal essay began to take center stage.  The understanding now seems to be that the applicant needs to find some sort of victimhood about which he or she can write.  Even the once objective SAT now has added a very subjective “adversity score.”

Such search for victimhood became fertile ground for those who wanted to create identity groups, groups for which, in the mold of Alinsky, one could find or create a common enemy against a community. 

Saul Alinsky, in 1971, published the book Rules for Radicals about how to successfully run a movement for change.  His book set forth how to unite less fortunate communities for social and political power.  At its core it is a way to divide people into groups of enemies with those that are less fortunate on the attack against those sitting in a better position or a position in which the less fortunate would like to be.

Politicians learned to create a victim class – an identifiable group – whose circumstances they would promise to help and improve if only they were elected.  Once in power, more often than not, they maintain this group as some form of dependent class - dependent on the politician’s retention of power and therefore instrumental in keeping that politician in office.  The politician, determined to retain power, keeps reminding this dependent identity group that it is composed of victims who are in need of the politician; that is, their victimhood becomes of prime importance while any possibility of individual achievement is forgotten.

Since the 1970s, and with the help of identity politics, we have seen groups use their victim hood to claim their entitlement to many things that in the past may have been available to only those who demonstrated superior accomplishment in a particular area.  There is far less incentive for individual achievement and that results in a lack of motivation to do one’s best. 

Now, rather than looking for ways to achieve and succeed we look for ways to be a victim and hence be entitled to something for which we have not really put in a personal effort.  

Victimhood and its celebration creates a major shift in how our society functions.  Indeed, it creates a very different country than when individual accomplishment was celebrated.  

America as we know it cannot survive if we have only victims.

Understanding Long Term Consequences Requires Overcoming the Laziness of Immediate Gratification

In many ways we have become a lazy society, and that laziness means that, amongst other things, we do not use our minds to consider the many consequences of our actions.  Rather, we do what feels good or right at the moment without pondering or even anticipating the long-term effects of what we do.

Laziness is defined as “the quality of being unwilling to work or use energy.”  The laziness I am considering in this writing is the unwillingness to use the energy to work one’s brain.  

There are two issues at the top of the news these days where this laziness is readily apparent.  In both we see people readily willing to take actions, but they do so without exercising the mind and thus fail to realistically become aware of the consequences of their actions.

One is in the area of abortion.  My previous blog addressed that issue, so here I will only briefly state that if individuals about to engage in sexual intercourse would first take the time to consider the possible consequences of that act and whether or not they are willing to take on the responsibility that comes with the consequence of pregnancy, then we would not have women claiming that their right to choose comes after the pregnancy has occurred rather that at the time they decide to engage in sex.  Taking the time to think about this fact and when a woman can freely choose what to do with her body (before there is a second individual within) might significantly change the abortion debate.

Today, however, I will write about another issue:  Immigration.  Specifically, I want to address the calls and the actions to assist those individuals who have entered the country illegally.  This is often the part of the immigration crisis that is referred to as the “humanitarian crisis.” 

We have all heard the cries from those who have crossed our border with nothing but themselves and their families; the cries for food and clothing, blankets and the basic necessities of existence.  We have all heard the admonitions that as Christians or other believers, or simply as Americans, it is our duty to help the needy. 

To some extent this is true.  But, if we would use our energy to work our brains, we would know that there are many ways in which we can generally help the needy and in this instance the hordes that are seeking a better life in this country. 

Of course, if we pass out food or donate clothing or simply write a check to those who will do so for us, we get some sort of immediate gratification:  we have done our duty; we see the smiles, we can say “they like me!” 

But let’s take a moment to consider the consequences of believing that this is enough; that this is the only, or even the best, way to help the needy.

As the caravans descend upon our border and as we take everyone in, feed them, clothe them, and perhaps give them the better life of which they dreamed, we create two clear consequences.  One is that knowing that this is the result upon their arrival at the border, more and more will come.  Those who take advantage of those coming, either monetarily or in more ugly criminal enterprises, will feel emboldened to continue and increase their practices.  That is, we are encouraging some serious criminal behavior and we are also encouraging more and more families to place their children in the many dangers that come with the long journey to the U.S.   

The second clear consequence is that at some point we will no longer be able to help – not anyone – not those who have entered nor our own citizens who need our help.  We are already diverting funds from our own impoverished citizens, our homeless, our veterans, our schools and our children, all here legally, to help those who have chosen to bypass our laws and enter illegally or to make a questionable at best claim of asylum.

America cannot sustain the whole world.  And much as we might like to help everyone everywhere who is in need, we simply cannot do so.  In the real world we must put limits on our generosity, and we must realize the consequences created by our failure to do so.

But that does not mean that we must ignore those peoples who are truly suffering and are seeing this country as a better place.  There are far better ways to exercise the duty we feel to help those in need than to simply throw money or goods at the individuals whom we see.

Of course, it is easier to reach out to those who touch us emotionally – the pictures on the news of the hungry child, the suffering mother, the father begging for work.  But, while an emotional response that provides goods to those we see may help those particular individuals, it does not help those who arrive tomorrow and it certainly does not solve the problem.

Instead, let us ask why so many are fleeing their homes.  What is it about their country or their life style that makes them feel their life is not tolerable there.    What can we do to fix that situation so that they do not feel the need to flee? Perhaps it is education that is needed – maybe they need teachers.  Maybe they need to learn how to improve their farming or business practices.  Maybe the money that we give to particular individuals might better be aggregated and donated to improve infrastructure in the individuals’ home countries.  These are just thoughts off the top of my head; I am sure that there are many many ways that we could help those in need within their home countries.

By simply giving money and goods to those already here we effectively encourage more individuals to leave their home country and seek entry here.  We encourage them to put themselves into the many negative circumstances of a migration caravan.   And, perhaps most importantly, we encourage them not to improve their home country, an act that would better serve not only them but all of their countrymen as well, both now and in the future. 

As we continue, through shortsighted acts of kindness, to encourage untold thousands to cross our borders seeking help, we are creating a situation in which, at some point, this country will truly be full.  It will no longer be able to help those who seek entry or its own citizens.  It will no longer be the country that so many are now seeking.

So, yes, helping those in need is certainly aspirational.  The easy way to do that is to hand out goods to those who touch our sympathies.  The more difficult way, the way that requires work and energy, but, the more effective way to help is to discern how to permanently help these and future seekers to improve their own living conditions in their own homelands and then to give our energies to those forms of assistance. 

Of course, there are always those who will seek America and there will always be legitimate asylum seekers.  We are a generous nation when it comes to legal immigration and we will welcome a reasonable number of immigrants who meet our statutory requirements.  But to welcome all out of some shortsighted view of the duty to help those in need in reality and in the long run helps no one.

Every act has consequences.  Sometimes an act provides us with immediate gratification.  But, that gratification can turn to heartache, dismay, and crisis if we do not overcome our laziness and look to the long-term effects of what we do.

Abortion – Let’s be Honest

Abortion is a complex topic and not something that can be covered in sound bites or bumper stickers.  But, if we are going to deal with this divisive issue, the first thing we must do is be honest in what we say, beginning with what it is.

Abortion is a killing.  People may disagree about what is being killed or whether that killing is justified, but I think we must all admit that abortion kills something that is alive.  The question is what is that living entity that is being killed?  The term of the day for pro-abortionists is that it is a “clump of cells.”  But a clump of cells of what?  The answer is “a living being.”  And, if one further asks “what being?” the answer is “a human being.”

So, if we can agree that is what is being killed, then the question becomes whether or not that killing is justified.  We know that many religions have an absolute prohibition against killing.  We also know that most legal systems have a tiered approach to whether killing is or is not justified.  That is, most statutory systems will range from first degree intentional and premeditated murder to lesser degrees of murder to negligent homicide to justifiable homicide.  These systems take into account the varying circumstances under which a killing of another person may take place.

In abortion we also see varying circumstances that result in termination of that life within the womb.  At one end of the spectrum is perhaps the young woman who “sleeps around” with the full and “premeditated intention” of terminating any pregnancy that might result.  That is, she sees abortion as simply another means of birth control.

Nearing the other end of the spectrum is perhaps the woman who began with a wanted pregnancy that she intended to carry full term, but has been informed by doctors that the child has significant medical issues or defects that may result in miscarriage, still-birth, or a life that will be far from normal for the child.  Perhaps the doctors advise abortion to the mother. 

I can relate two such circumstances of which I  am aware.  In the first, the woman took the doctor’s advice for abortion, believing that she was saving her child from suffering.  The child’s life ended late in the second trimester when she was yanked from her mother’s womb in a sterile operating room and was disposed of as medical waste.  As far as I know she never was named or given any form of end of life ceremony. 

In the second instance of which I am aware, the woman was also advised to abort but chose to remain hopeful and let the pregnancy progress.  The child was born in the 7^th month and remained alive for just under an hour.  She died in loving arms at the time that she and her Creator chose.  She was named, loved, and given a burial in accordance with her family’s religious beliefs.

While I find the second approach to the situation more in line with my beliefs, I can understand that some might find the first woman’s decision to abort to be in some way reasonable under the circumstances. 

Additionally, not all pregnancies involve a willing mother:  rape and incest present circumstances quite different from those in which the mother willingly participated in the act that resulted in the pregnancy.

Abortion is not so cut and dried as many would like to make it.  It can put individuals into an agonizing position.  Like other killing, there are abortions that are pre-meditated, there are those that are done for convenience, there are those that result from negligence and there are those that may be justifiable.

In all cases of abortion we must continue to focus on the fact that a human life is being terminated.  We lose track of that when we try to couch abortion in terms of women’s reproductive rights.  Perhaps if we see abortion as nothing more than another form of birth control we can say that it is some form of reproductive right. 

But, once the pregnancy occurs, there is someone other than the woman involved.  She is now the guardian of another life.   It is no longer simply about the mother’s “reproductive rights.”   The “woman’s right to choose,” except in the cases of rape and incest, occurred before the pregnancy; it should not include the absolute right to terminate the living result of that prior choice.    

I think that sex education now begins in elementary school most everywhere and includes facts about contraception, including that no contraception method is 100% effective.  Hence, when a woman makes the choice to have sex, she is doing so with that knowledge of the possible consequences.  That is when she had the right to choose – to say no.  Having chosen yes, she then must live with the consequences, including the fact that a new life may be growing in her womb.

Rights include responsibilities.  The woman’s right to choose to have or not have sex includes the responsibility to that “clump of cells” that is a living and independent being that may result from her choice.  We need to teach women (and men) to choose wisely (but that is a topic for another blog).

I really think that most abortion questions could be handled by laws already on the books:  the homicide statutes.  For example, my state’s statutes, like most, have a section covering homicide.  They range from most to least serious, beginning with first degree murder (the killing of one human being by another without lawful justification or excuse) and include second degree murder, manslaughter, as well as  excusable and justifiable homicide, both of which require that the defendant be found not guilty and be discharged.  While as currently written these statutes do not directly cover the sorts of situations that might make an abortion excusable or justifiable, it would not take much to amend them to do so.

While some would believe that all killing should be prohibited, as a society we have agreed that there are different types of killing and that while we do not allow blanket murder, or killing for such things a personal convenience or gain, we do see some killing as justifiable.  Whether or not a specific killing is justifiable often becomes a very fact specific question for a jury.  I would argue that the above case of abortion due to serious medical defects of the child might be such a difficult and fact specific case.  Similarly, we might agree to find all abortions that result from rape or incest to be justifiable. 

You will note that the above murder statute, like most statutes, refers to “the killing of one human being by another.”  In regard to abortion, yes, the living being growing within the woman’s womb is a “clump of cells” and yes, it is medically referred to as a “fetus” which is the medical term for the unborn offspring of a mammal, but we all know that clump of cells and that fetus are of a human mammal and that it is indeed a living human being. 

It is a disingenuous and cruel twist of words to try to say this is not living, not human, not an entity alive and with an identity separate from the woman who carries it.   The termination of this individual is not simply a woman’s reproductive right.

Abortion, the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, of a living being, of a human fetus, is the deliberate killing of one human being by another.  Such death cannot be justified as a reproductive right.  It perhaps can be justified in certain circumstances but not as some right of a woman to decide that she made a wrong choice and now does not wish to live with its consequences. 

This is America and abortion is a complex topic.  The question of abortion, like homicide, has religious overtones.  We as a society have a variety of religious beliefs, but we have decided to prevent a blanket approval of all homicide, even while allowing room for circumstances that might make a homicide justifiable.  There will still be those who, based on their religious beliefs would condemn all homicide and there are those who would allow as justifiable many homicides that we as a society and our statutes do not. 

The bigger government gets, the more we are left with a one size fits all society.  Abortion cannot be regulated in that manner.  It really should be left to the states under our 10^th Amendment.  I think that states could deal with the issue using their homicide statutes as a model.  There will be variations among the states, just as there are variations in homicide statutes and their punishments. 

I think murder is wrong.  I don’t think I could kill an intruder into my home; others might have no problem doing so.   Yet I am willing, indeed support, our homicide statutes that might allow such a killing as excusable or justifiable.  I don’t have a blanket Homeowner’s Right to kill any more than a woman should have a blanket Reproductive Right to abort.  In both instances there are two lives involved and we must consider the circumstances and rights of both.

It is time to be honest about abortion.  It is indeed a killing of a living being that is human.  There is a wide range of facts and circumstances that lead to any given abortion.  With the exception of rape and incest, a woman has the right to choose not to put herself in a situation that might result in a pregnancy.  That was when she had a right to choose.  Once she is pregnant, there is a second individual involved.  To allow abortion on demand as some sort of reproductive right gives women a blanket right to kill another individual living being. 

If we would be honest about these things, we might have some sort of reasonable discussion about abortion and its limitations instead of using it as just another talking point with which to attack political opponents.   Until we do so, the living beings in the womb, our children, exist without any rights at all.

Without Facts a Nation will be Lost

In today’s world everyone seems to think they are an expert on everything.  What is troubling is that people are expressing, asserting, and voting based on opinions that are woefully uninformed.

Take for example illegal immigration.

A recent Harvard-Harris Poll of 1,536 registered voters (conducted between April 30 and May 1) revealed that only about 13% (less than 2 of 15) Americans could answer correctly about the number of illegal aliens arriving at the US-Mexico Border when asked “About how many people do you think are caught trying to enter through the southern border each year?”  76% of respondents gave answers well below the current levels which are between 250,000 to 500,000 border apprehensions each year; instead, more than 75% incorrectly stated there were between 0 and 250,000 apprehensions. 

(The full results  of the Harvard/Harris poll (which deals with other topics as well as immigration) can be found HERE; the questions relating to immigration begin on page 155) 

In the same study, when those polled were told there were more than 100,000 apprehensions in the last month, 52% said they supported the Presidents declaration of a national emergency at the southern border.

Now, this poll can be found on some major media sites (e.g. The Hill), but not those that are primarily referred to as the main stream media– the media from which most people get their news (e.g. ABC, CBS, NBC none of which, at the time of this writing, had reported on this poll – perhaps they were still considering how to spin it, or were simply embarrassed since it reflects the lack of information that they are providing to their audiences). 

Yet people are vociferously voicing their opinions on the border without any or with only incomplete facts.  Facts that are incredibly relevant and very likely might change the opinions voiced.

For those who are interested in basing their positions on facts, here are some to get you started:

·        109,144 individuals were apprehended at the border in April alone.

·        103,492 illegal and inadmissible aliens were apprehended during the month of March alone.

·        76,325 apprehensions occurred in February.

·        Border arrests have reached their highest point in 12 years.

·        February numbers showed a 1,744% increase in asylum claims.

·        Family unit apprehensions by Border Patrol jumped 311% during the first five months of this fiscal year over the first five months of last fiscal year.

·        4,117 migrants were apprehended on a single day in March.

·        Just 6% of the people crossing the border are expressing a credible fear and requesting asylum in one sector, according to an immigration official.

·        A recent survey found that one-third of Guatemala’s population wants to come to the U.S.

·        There are at least 1.9 million known criminal aliens sitting in U.S. jails.

·        Human smugglers are running radio ads in Central America, according to a Border Patrol official.

·        ICE is having to reallocate resources to deal with “fake families” trying to manipulate border policies.

·        Now Border Patrol reports that children are also being rented and “recycled” to defraud immigration officials.

·        Border Patrol agents in Texas over just the last week apprehended 5,500 migrants per day.

The assault on our southern border is flooding our country.  Catch and release polices result in illegals along with questionable asylum seekers being released into various locations around the country.  While the border states are suffering most, the release locations are moving further and further north.   (Interestingly, 66% of the survey respondents answered that those with questionable asylum claims should immediately be turned back to Mexico for staging).

The survey shows that a slight majority of respondents view the border as a growing humanitarian and security crisis.  Let me suggest that the humanitarian aspect of the crisis stems from the refusal of many to acknowledge that there is a security crisis and the Democrats refusal to work with the President to control our borders.  With the knowledge that many within this country will assist those seeking entry in thwarting our laws, why shouldn’t more and more arrive at our borders with the belief that they will easily gain entry, whether legally or illegally? 

As a result of the ignorance of what is going on at the border, and in a false belief that the immigration laws should not be enforced, more and more children are placed into the humanitarian crisis that even some Democrats will now acknowledge.  Then we are told that we must take tax dollars and benefits from American citizens and give them toward helping these people in the humanitarian crisis that our own refusal to enforce our laws has created.  

            (One example:  4-H clubs of New Mexico have had to cancel two annual events normally held at the State Fairgrounds so that the dormitories that they had reserved for these events can be used to house migrants seeking legal entry into the U.S.; while the Democrat governor of New Mexico and mayors of the state’s major cities state that there is no border crisis, tax dollars are allocated from programs that would help impoverished or otherwise suffering legal residents to help transient migrants instead.)

Those who are ignorant of the actual statistics relevant to the border, further show their ignorance as they try to shame those who would enforce border laws and security by claiming that the Bible requires everyone to “help their neighbor.”  While that is, indeed, a Christian directive, there are many ways to help one’s neighbor, including perhaps not encouraging our southern neighbors to enter the dangerous migrant caravans with false hopes for what their life will be in the U.S.  

One must also wonder whether helping one’s neighbor, as interpreted by those using that phrase to shame those who oppose open borders, means ignoring your actual neighbors who live here legally in order to help others who may or may not have the best intentions for you or your current neighbors.  Yet we see many regularly giving a political interpretation of Biblical phrases and using that interpretation to shame those who do not agree with their political agenda.

The point is that there are too many people who use only the facts that are convenient, sometimes even twisting those to their purposes or using them out of context, while remaining ignorant of all the facts about a given situation.   Ignorance may be bliss, but only if one keeps that ignorance to oneself.  When one begins to advocate a position based on incorrect or incomplete facts, then the rest of us potentially suffer. 

It is more difficult in this day of overwhelming information to not be misinformed.  Being well and fully informed is a key duty for those who live in a democracy.  What we often hear called fake news is really news that is empty of key facts. 

It is crucial that everyone be aware of those voids in the news and if they care to be involved in important issues (which means if they care to exercise their civic duty to vote) then it is essential that they take the time to discover what is and is not being reported to them by their usual sources and take the time to fill in the missing information from elsewhere.  Only then can we have realistic discussions and proper solutions to problems and crises, including the crisis on our border, that are facing our Nation.

Time to Stand Up, Pick Your Side, and Speak Up

It is becoming fully apparent that the Democrats won’t rest until they have not only destroyed President Trump but have completely torn the Country apart as well.

We know why they have this need to destroy the President:  First, he won the election which they were “supposed to” win in 2016.  Now they are concerned that with his many promises kept, the booming economy, improved standing in the world, etc., that they will not be able to beat him in 2020, so they must destroy him one way or another before then.  And, of course, they just don’t like him – he is not like them, he is real, he says what he thinks, rather than play political games he’d rather just get things done.  His successes prove how ineffective the Democrats have been and how little they really care about the American people and their country.

So, the Democrats are willing to tear the country apart, destroy it perhaps beyond repair, just to regain their power and finish off the man whom they irrationally hate.

They are already well on their way to success.  The most obvious display of their irrationality is in their continuing obsession with the Mueller report.  They refuse to give up on their debunked Russia collusion story.  They defy well established law as they hold the Attorney General in contempt for following laws that prohibit the release of confidential grand jury testimony.   They would hold hearings after hearings after hearings for no legitimate purpose while the real business of the country, the business they were elected to attend to, goes unattended and ignored.

But there is more.  They have put the Constitution itself under attack.  They find several ways to silence those whose views do not agree with their own.  Conservative speakers are often excluded from a variety of events; those who support the President are shamed and attacked, both verbally and physically; those who serve the president are the subject of not only verbal and sometimes physical assault, but also of every possible legal assault as well.  Lawsuit upon lawsuit upon lawsuit is filed for any action with which the Democrats do not concur – no matter that it reflects the will of the people, thus slowing down action after action that would benefit this Country and its people.  Political correctness silences views and opinions that are not those which the Democrats approve – no matter that those opinions or observations may be necessary to have a full and objective discussion of an issue. 

Like little angry children who can’t accept compromise, the Democrats in essence keep yelling “It’s my way or the highway!”  They cannot accept the will of the people when it isn’t what they want.  This is not what our Constitution envisions; it is not the way our Democratic Republic works!

Democrats are trying to change the way our president is elected.  The loss of the electoral college would put far more power in the Democratic strongholds – large cities and liberal coastal states – leaving those in fly-over country with no real reason to even cast a vote. 

Their lack of understanding of the Constitution is startling at times.  Nancy Pelosi recently stated that Congress is the “superior branch” of government when she should know that all 3 branches are equal.  Democrats, in their goal to eliminate guns, compare them to cars which are licensed, ignoring the fact that while there is a Constitutional right to bear arms, there is no constitutional right to own or drive a car. 

Democrats have lost respect for the protections that our Constitution provides against unreasonable search and seizure.  They disregard such concepts as “innocent until proven guilty.”  Rather, if they approve a narrative that proclaims someone guilty, they will ignore any and all evidence to the contrary.  The Constitution strives to treat all citizens equally; the Democrats would divide us based on a variety of identity characteristics as they pick favorites and those whom they condemn in their continuing games of identity politics.

In the same vein, the Democrats have forgotten that the Constitution protects our right to hold our own beliefs and be free to exercise them.  We hear anti-Christian and anti-Semetic sentiments, as well as anti-white and anti-other disfavored identity groups daily from the mouths of Democrats who should know better.  And, they further seek to rewrite history, eliminating what they don’t like, eliminating unpleasant aspects that we may not be proud of but from which we learned and evolved.  That is, they would eliminate part of what in the end makes us great.  And, what they do not seek to eliminate, they would rewrite to serve their own ends.

I do not mean to imply that Constitutional rights cannot be limited; they can when there is a compelling need to do so, but such restrictions are as narrow as possible.  The Constitution is the core of our Country.  It gives us our representative form of Democracy which allows every citizen to have a voice and in so doing protects us from mob rule of a pure Democracy or State control by a Socialist or Communistic structure.  The Democrats seemingly do not want us to have that protection. 

The Democrats are not going to give up in this war that they are waging on the President, our Country, and our way of life.  No one can stand on the side any longer.

I am reminded of the words of Pastor Niemoller, regarding his failure to speak up in Nazi Germany.  Beginning with the Jews he lists several groups that were subsequently and incremental purged, group after group. After stating each group, he confesses he did not speak up because he was not one of them.  The statement ends with the words “Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”

We are all in the shoes of Pastor Niemoller in the face of the Democrats.  Don’t let their double-speak and projections of their behavior onto that of their enemy fool you.  It is not Donald Trump or the Republicans who would destroy the Constitution and our Country; it is the Democrats who are doing so even as I write, and you read this.

A time comes when one must choose sides.  If not now, that time is fast approaching.  In choosing one must not be swayed by what is popular or pretty or immediately gratifying.  One must truly understand with whom they are choosing to stand and what their victory would mean, not just in the short term, but in the long view of the individual, our Constitution, our Country, and our way of life.

This is serious business.  And it demands a serious review of who we are and what our Nation stands for, and what will be lost if we do not stop the Democrats’ march to destroy it all.  The Democrats would prefer that no one take notice, that like blind sheep we ignore the wolf they have become in our midst.  Those who choose to do that, to simply sit back and assume all will be fine, must consider that when they have lost all that was, there will be no one left to speak for them.

Save the Country from What? The Democrats!

Today I read that Eric Swalwell states that “Impeachment is the only way to save the country.”  We hear this sentiment coming from the mouths of most Democrats these days.  The ever-increasing mob of Democrat candidates seem to all center their campaign on the argument that in order to save us all, President Trump must be removed; if not we are all doomed.

I would like to ask just exactly what we must save ourselves from.  What are the horrible things that the President is doing for the Country?  Let me list just a few of what he has accomplished despite being under constant attack since taking office:

            -Almost 4 million jobs created since election.

-More Americans are now employed than ever recorded before in our history.  

-Manufacturing jobs growing at the fastest rate in more than three decades.  Over 400,000 manufacturing jobs since Trump’s election.

-Economic growth last quarter hit 4.2 percent.

-New unemployment claims recently hit a 49-year low.

-Median household income has hit highest level ever recorded.

-African-American unemployment has recently achieved the lowest rate ever recorded.

-Hispanic-American unemployment is at the lowest rate ever recorded.

-Asian-American unemployment recently achieved the lowest rate ever recorded.

-Women’s unemployment recently reached the lowest rate in 65 years.

-Youth unemployment has recently hit the lowest rate in nearly half a century.

-Lowest unemployment rate ever recorded for Americans without a high school diploma.

-Veterans’ unemployment recently reached its lowest rate in nearly 20 years.

-Almost 3.9 million Americans have been lifted off food stamps since the election.

-The Pledge to America’s Workers has resulted in employers committing to train more than 4 million Americans. The current Administration is committed to vocational education.

-95 percent of U.S. manufacturers are optimistic about the future—the highest ever.

-Retail sales surged last month, up another 6 percent over last year.

-Signed package of tax cuts and reforms. After tax cuts, over $300 billion poured back in to the U.S. in the first quarter alone.

-As a result of Trump’s tax bill, small businesses will have the lowest top marginal tax rate in more than 80 years.

-Enacted regulatory relief for community banks and credit unions.

-Obamacare individual mandate penalty gone.

- Trump administration is providing more affordable healthcare options for Americans through association health plans and short-term duration plans.

-Last month, the FDA approved more affordable generic drugs than ever before in history. Many drug companies are also freezing or reversing planned price increases.

-Reformed the Medicare program to stop hospitals from overcharging low-income seniors on their drugs—saving seniors hundreds of millions of dollars this year alone.

-Signed Right-To-Try legislation.

-Secured $6 billion in NEW funding to fight the opioid epidemic.   Reduced high-dose opioid prescriptions by 16 percent during first year in office.

-Signed VA Choice Act and VA Accountability Act, expanded VA telehealth services, walk-in-clinics, and same-day urgent primary and mental health care.

-Withdrew the United States from the job-killing and otherwise ineffective Paris Climate Accord.

-Cancelled the illegal, anti-coal, so-called Clean Power Plan.

-Secured record $700 billion in military funding; $716 billion next year.

-NATO allies are spending $69 billion more on defense since 2016.

-Withdrew from the horrible, one-sided Iran Deal.

-Moved U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem.

-Protecting Americans from terrorists with the Travel Ban, upheld by Supreme Court.

-Concluded a historic U.S.-Mexico Trade Deal to replace NAFTA. And negotiations with Canada are underway.

-Reached a breakthrough agreement with the E.U. to increase U.S. exports.

-Imposed tariffs on foreign steel and aluminum to protect our national security.

-Imposed tariffs on China in response to China’s forced technology transfer, intellectual property theft, and their chronically abusive trade practices.

-Net exports are on track to increase by $59 billion this year.

This list could go on and on. 

The list of accomplishments looks pretty good to most Americans.  It certainly does not look like something from which we need to save the country. 

The list does not look so good to Democrats who tried for years to make America great again but failed miserably.  It probably embarrasses them that Trump, the man they love to hate, succeeded where they failed.  Perhaps that is why their colleagues in the main stream media rarely report on these and other accomplishments, but rather focus on the ways to destroy Trump and with him his powerful Administration and its many positive results for the Country. 

So from what exactly do the Democrats think the country needs saving?  Anyone who loves this Country, including Democrats, should be cheering at America’s successes.  But, instead, the Democrats tell us we need to save the Country.  “From what?” I ask.  The only possible answer that comes to mind is “from the Democrats” who would save us from our successes just for their own lust for power.  This is something that I hope every voter remembers and for which every citizen holds his or her elected officials accountable.

Solving Real Problems Means Distinguishing Reality from Ideology

Does ideology prevent one from seeing the most obvious distinctions of fact, let alone the more refined?  Or is it simply that we have dumbed down so much that many are no longer capable of doing so?

We seem to have lost our ability to think – to examine a situation for what it is rather than for what we might like it to be.  This does not allow us to find realistic solutions for real problems.  Some examples:

There is a difference between legal and illegal, yet when it comes to those entering our country, many are incapable of making this distinction.  The result is that we can’t get past that to address the real issues and rework our immigration laws.

There is a difference between solid waste pollution and global warming.  Reducing plastic bags (the current go-to feel good act for environmental activists), while reducing land fill solid waste, does nothing for climate change; it does not reduce CO2 or other emissions.  It may even aggravate climate change since it takes more energy to manufacture and transport the likely alternative paper bags.  But, apparently it has become too hard to think past the feel good act and consider even this obvious distinction.  And, the failure to do so likely means less focus on climate change solutions.

Those who would welcome all border crossers, legal or illegal, try to shame those who do not help them by quoting religious references such as “love thy neighbor.”  Yet they ignore the fact that we have citizen neighbors who are suffering from hunger, violence, and other conditions similar to those the migrants claim.   And, the demand to open the border as the only way to satisfy  helping one’s neighbor ignores that there are other reasonable and responsible ways to do so; indeed, one can question how it is “loving one’s neighbor” to place children in dangerous caravans, to promise families a “better life” here when they may not be able to find work and may end up in situations worse than what they left.   When the demand to help is limited to that which supports a political agenda, the motive is suspect, the actions tainted, and the “help” perhaps not so wise.

There also seems to be a basic inability or disinclination to read or listen.  "Narratives" overcome facts.   The instances of this increase daily.  But here are just 2 examples: 

Joe Biden is using a false narrative to support his campaign to “make America moral again.”  While Trump did utter the phrase that there “were very fine people on both sides” in regard to Charlottesville, that was in the context of referring to the fact that some people were there only to protest for or against the taking down of a statue.  He further clarified “I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and white nationalists because they should be condemned totally.”  Yet, because it is more politically convenient to perpetuate the dishonest mischaracterization of the statement, many will overlook the dishonesty as well as the irony that this dishonesty is the underpinning of a campaign for morality.

Just one of many mischaracterizations from the Barr Senate testimony:  The Mueller report provides some evidence that Trump questioned Mueller’s objectivity and considered REPLACING based on conflicts of interest.  REPLACING.  Not firing and ending the investigation.  Yet, those (firing, ending investigation) are the words repeated over and over by Democrats in referring to this evidence.  When someone is replaced, the implication is that the job of that person continues (in this case, the investigation would then continue, not end).  Yet, driven by political desire to claim obstruction by Trump, the Democrats seem to have lost not only their ability to think, but to just plain read.

Finally, while politicians throw money at problems such as poor schools, violent cities, and poverty, the same politicians refuse to consider such things as different cultural values that may contribute to the problem and call those who would look at such differences “racist.”  That is, the bias or fear of political correctness often keeps us from even acknowledging that a problem exists.  The belief that all people are equal does not mean that everyone is the same.  Nor is it synonymous with equality of opportunity.   And, none of these concepts fully comport with reality.  Indeed, identifying particular behaviors or needs of certain communities that would enhance their equality of one or another opportunity may require identifying ethnic, cultural, economic, or other distinguishing characteristics of those communities.  Yet, such identifications are often seen as politically incorrect at best and racist at worst, so we avoid them with the result that the people within those communities suffer.

The above are only a few of the numerous examples available of over-broad thinking and characterizations that cloud our perceptions of and ability to deal with reality.  Reality is more than a wishful narrative and there are many shades and distinctions between even the most similar facts and situations.  To fully deal with and solve the problems of the real world we must first be able to identify these distinctions.

When we start letting our biases color, alter, and even eliminate actual facts we lose our ability to realistically and candidly assess a situation.  We lose our ability to solve or resolve a problem.  As a society we used to have a seemingly better ability to assess situations realistically and intelligently consider actual facts and make distinctions between facts and their circumstances.  

While intelligence demands the ability to make distinctions, biased rhetoric requires only emotion.  Emotions may give one the will to solve a problem, but it takes intellect to figure out how to do so.

Yet, today we find politicians grasping at straws and mischaracterizing evidence just to make a political point.   We hear people talking in bumper sticker rhetoric.  This riles the emotions but does little else.  Complex problems do not respond to sound bite solutions.  Instead they require clear and objective thought - thought that is based in reality not ideology.