Ideology & Acceptance or Inquiry & Freedom

In 2004, NCSU Emeritus History Professor R. Slatta created a chart that captures the contrasts between Ideology and Inquiry:

As one can see from the above, the characteristics of ideology and inquiry are mutually exclusive opposites.  Nonetheless, most of humanity entertain characteristics of each, as does society and its politicians.  Yet, while in different situations we may emphasize more of one or the other,  when one becomes exclusively dominant problems arise.

When ideology completely takes over and blots out critical thinking as well as the values and principles that allow us to navigate the opposing forms of behavior and thought, then we are in trouble – we lose the ability to navigate, to keep both in check as needed, and to understand when ideology rather than those core values are guiding us.

When a country’s politicians become ideologues rather than representatives and issue solvers, then our country is in severe peril.

Politicians have always stood for certain issue or policy positions.  Their attempts to resolve issues according to their preferred policy perspective has always required navigation between the ideological and the rational.  Yet underlying the persuasive acts in favor of their particular issue resolution, there was a touchstone built on the history, core values and beliefs of the country.  That touchstone allowed the partisan politicians to find ways of coming together to further the best interests of the country as well as to prevent them from becoming blinded by pure ideology.

Not so much today.  Today we have not partisan politicians but ideologues.  You can recognize them by their hypocrisy as well as the polarization they (usually intentionally) create.  When a partisan politician cares about his or her country, he or she will be willing to compromise positions for the good of the country.  But an ideologue is “someone who theorizes; an often blindly partisan advocate of a particular ideology.”  The typical ideologue is uncompromising and dogmatic.

The ideologue’s goal is to implant a particular ideology in everyone.  Yes, everyone.  That goal outweighs all else, including facts and rational thought and Truth.  The narrative becomes all important as the narrative is used to assimilate everyone into the ideologue’s ideology and to demean and create enemies of those who will not be swayed – those who choose to think for themselves. 

This is how today we so often see politicians and their followers to be inconsistent and hypocritical in their statements and actions, why the positions of the Left actually contradict many traditional liberal positions and values.  Ideologues do not have a solid issue position but rather a position that those who are not with them are always wrong (even if they hold a position that the ideologue has advocated for, the ideologue will now take the opposite stand). 

The ideologue politicians of today have lost sight of who and what a politician is.  They have lost sight of their role as simply a go-between for the people and their government.  Having lost sight of that touchstone built upon an understanding of our country, its values, and its democracy,  absolute and complete installation of their ideology has become their primary if not their only goal.  And their own power becomes imperative to them because they believe only they can keep the ideological order that they choose to implement.

What the successful ideologue ultimately does is destroy freedom.  If one is going to create and control a successful ideology then one must keep those whom one controls from thinking for themselves.  In the ideal ideological world, everyone must be the same in every way (the Left’s equity which is in no way equality).   Except of course those in power who make the decisions for everyone else.

That is not the structure upon which America was created and which has allowed her to become the great country that she has become.  That is the structure that will destroy America (and already is doing so as the ideologues gain more and more control). 

An ideologue is both more and less than a partisan.  More, because they are often more passionate and more persuasive, and even often receive more misplaced applause for their inability to bend and compromise.  Yet they are less than a partisan because their advocacy has no valid or constructive goal other than to advance their own ideology and power.

Ideologues exist on both sides of the political aisle.  Today, the rightist ideologues mostly push the traditional American ideology.  This is certainly far less dangerous to America than the progressive and socialist ideology of the Left, but it is not totally benign.

Anyone or group that pushes ideology rather than issue and problem solving is furthering an effort that avoids the individuality of thought.  It polarizes people until they become completely incapable of acting even in their own best interests let alone in the best interests of their community and country.  Worst of all, ideology destroys individual freedom.

Freedom requires thought, intellectual inquiry, critical thinking, creativity.  And these activities require freedom.  The ideologues would destroy both – the freedom and the activities upon which it thrives and which require freedom to thrive.  Ideology requires a uniformity void of individual thought and freedom.

America has created a place where Freedom and Intellectual Inquiry thrive.  This environment has allowed America to evolve and grow, to become a world power and a shining example to the rest of the world.  Right now, the ideologues on the Left are working to destroy all that. 

The Leftist ideology can be quite persuasive but, before giving in, the people of this country need to be sure they have exercised those skills of intellectual inquiry that we all possess.  Partisanship is a part of this country, but blind ideology is not.  The one helps us to grow, the other will kill us all.

Ostrich or Bolshevik?

I find it difficult to understand how many Americans still support President Biden and his Leftist agenda.  I guess they must be either ostriches or Bolsheviks.

Ostriches, with their heads in the sand, are unaware of the obvious going on around them which include, but are certainly not limited to, the following examples: 

• Suppression of free speech –  Testifying at a House hearing yesterday our Attorney General acknowledged during questioning that he, the DOJ, and the President consulted only with the teacher’s union and then put forth the memo requested by the union that essentially condemns parents who speak up at a school board meeting in opposition to the union policies and especially to the teaching of the racist CRT. The idea that such concerned parents might be called domestic terrorists certainly has a chilling effect on their ability to speak out no matter how much the AG tries to talk his way around it.
• Intimidation and cancelling of ideas not aligned with the Left – Includes inconsistent application of laws, demands that people embrace – not just tolerate - ideas (including such things as gender fluidity or necessity of 2-year-olds wearing masks) that are not supported by science or other civil necessity.
• Loss of privacy – the White House, allegedly to prevent IRS fraud by the rich, wants to have access to bank accounts with any transaction of over $600. Most people who work and have paychecks deposited, or who pay a mortgage will have transactions of that amount on a monthly basis and hence have their personal financial transactions open for government inspection.
• Economic disasters – Job reports falling well below expectations, gas prices at a seven-year high, inflation at a 30-year high and continuing to rise, food prices up along with costs of housing, energy, and other essentials, interest rates likely to increase. The economy is failing, and the middle class are the ones who will suffer most from its failure.
• Supply chain problems – meanwhile the Secretary of Transportation is on leave since August and has not left a specified point person in charge.
• International standing – plummeting. The Afghanistan pullout was a complete embarrassment and a huge hit to America’s reputation. China outpacing us with development and successful test of a hypersonic missile (made in part using US technology).
• Military and law enforcement – Afghanistan. Disrespect for military and police; focus on inclusion and equity rather than readiness
• Coronavirus – Cases continue to rise. Mandates eviscerate the idea of personal choice when the science behind vaccine and covid is still being discovered. Meanwhile Biden policies and mandates result in firing of essential workers, leaving them without jobs, pensions, etc, and the people whom they serve without service.
• The border – Migrant encounters at the border are at a 21 year high. The Biden administration has effectively created open borders. Children are living in overcrowded cages and are flown around the country in the middle of the night. Drug and child trafficking are up. Single adult males account for about 2/3 of the crossings. Migrants are released into the interior with only a request that they return for a hearing. The President says he has been too busy to visit the border, yet he has taken any number of vacations.
• Corruption and lack of transparency – run rampant in this White House. Questions are not answered or are answered with falsehoods. Investigations of possible corruption or unethical behavior are suppressed. Even the Attorney General himself refused to have evaluated the ethics of his involvement in the threat to parents about opposing CRT at school boards despite his association via son-in-law with a firm that benefits significantly from schools using CRT.
• Biden and his administration – blame everyone else for the problems, refusing to take responsibility for anything. Biden ignores the idea of rule of law when he does such things as judge border agents guilty when accused of whipping illegal border crossers, even when the evidence shows it didn’t happen. The Administration becomes more and more authoritarian every day. And, like other authoritarian governments, while they make many rules to govern every aspect of citizen’s lives, those rules are not applied to themselves. Also, like most authoritarian governments, they are intent upon silencing any opposition to their policies and their power.

Or Bolshevik?  If you are aware of the above and the many other problematic and authoritarian activities of this administration, but continue to support Biden’s policies, then perhaps you are a Bolshevik. 

Bolshevism (from Bolshevik) is a revolutionary Marxist current of political thought and political regime associated with the formation of a rigidly centralized, cohesive and disciplined party of social revolution, focused on overthrowing the existing capitalist state system, seizing power and establishing the "dictatorship of the proletariat".  It originally referred to Russian communists, but now the term is used more generally for those who support such views and policies.

I find it hard not to characterize most of the activity of Biden and the Left as intent upon overthrowing and totally changing what we call America.  Thus, those who support such activity can easily be termed Bolsheviks.

Actually, Russian President Vladimir Putin put it well earlier this week in a speech to the International Valdai Discussion Group in Sochi.  Whatever else you may think of Putin, as former KGB he understands revolution, communism, and communist suppression.  Here are some of the more relevant parts of his speech:

The advocates of so-called ‘social progress’ believe they are introducing humanity to some kind of a new and better consciousness. Godspeed, hoist the flags as we say, go right ahead. The only thing that I want to say now is that their prescriptions are not new at all. It may come as a surprise to some people, but Russia has been there already. After the 1917 revolution, the Bolsheviks, relying on the dogmas of Marx and Engels, also said that they would change existing ways and customs and not just political and economic ones, but the very notion of human morality and the foundations of a healthy society. The destruction of age-old values, religion and relations between people, up to and including the total rejection of family (we had that, too), encouragement to inform on loved ones – all this was proclaimed progress and, by the way, was widely supported around the world back then and was quite fashionable, same as today. By the way, the Bolsheviks were absolutely intolerant of opinions other than theirs.

 

This, I believe, should call to mind some of what we are witnessing now. Looking at what is happening in a number of Western countries, we are amazed to see the domestic practices, which we, fortunately, have left, I hope, in the distant past. The fight for equality and against discrimination has turned into aggressive dogmatism bordering on absurdity, when the works of the great authors of the past – such as Shakespeare – are no longer taught at schools or universities, because their ideas are believed to be backward. The classics are declared backward and ignorant of the importance of gender or race. In Hollywood memos are distributed about proper storytelling and how many characters of what colour or gender should be in a movie. This is even worse than the agitprop department of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

 

Countering acts of racism is a necessary and noble cause, but the new ‘cancel culture’ has turned it into ‘reverse discrimination’ that is, reverse racism. The obsessive emphasis on race is further dividing people, when the real fighters for civil rights dreamed precisely about erasing differences and refusing to divide people by skin colour. . . .

 

In a number of Western countries, the debate over men’s and women’s rights has turned into a perfect phantasmagoria. Look, beware of going where the Bolsheviks once planned to go – not only communalising chickens, but also communalising women. One more step and you will be there.

 

Zealots of these new approaches even go so far as to want to abolish these concepts altogether. Anyone who dares mention that men and women actually exist, which is a biological fact, risk being ostracised. “Parent number one” and “parent number two,” “'birthing parent” instead of “mother,” and “human milk” replacing “breastmilk” because it might upset the people who are unsure about their own gender. I repeat, this is nothing new; in the 1920s, the so-called Soviet Kulturtraegers also invented some newspeak believing they were creating a new consciousness and changing values that way. And, as I have already said, they made such a mess it still makes one shudder at times.

. . . .

Again, for us in Russia, these are not some speculative postulates, but lessons from our difficult and sometimes tragic history. The cost of ill-conceived social experiments is sometimes beyond estimation. Such actions can destroy not only the material, but also the spiritual foundations of human existence, leaving behind moral wreckage where nothing can be built to replace it for a long time.

I do encourage you to read the entire speech which can be found here:  LINK  

I wonder if in 1917 the Russian ostriches and Bolsheviks knew what they were in for in the “brave new world” they either were creating or allowing to happen via their indifference.  The Bolshevik dream gave them Stalin’s reign of terror and decades of living with hunger, hardship, and fear in the fully government-controlled society.  They lived without freedom until, even when communism fell, they found they had forgotten how to be free.

Our Bolsheviks actively work towards a complete reconfiguration of America.  But their touted new world is not a new idea and it is more frightening than enlightened.  Nonetheless, their actions and support for Leftist policy tells us this is what they indeed seek to create.

But our ostriches, with heads lost in the sand, are supporting this revolution as well.  If the ostriches would raise their heads and look around, they might see what is really happening and hopefully speak out against it.  Indifference is a vote and a win for the Left and ultimately for the tragedies and horrors that come with their new world order.

What’s In a Name?

The “Women’s March” took place this past weekend.  I wish they wouldn’t call it that.  It was not a march for women but a march for abortion rights.  It advertised itself as a “Rally for Abortion Justice.” It took clear political positions on both the Texas abortion law and on Roe v. Wade.  Whether women’s rights include abortion rights is a divisive political question and one cannot necessarily call a march for one a march for the other.

Calling this a “women’s march” implies that it represents and is for all women.  Yet it does not and is not.  Not all women think (or march) in lock step.  Women are individuals capable of their own thought and of a vast diversity of views.  That includes views about abortion.  If the march is going to take only one position on abortion, then it cannot possibly also be an all-inclusive “women’s march.”

               Reproductive Rights

The women’s march, like many who are pro-abortion, likes to couch its arguments in terms of women’s reproductive rights.  But they assume that all women agree on the definition of “reproductive rights” and that those rights must include the right to terminate a separate and unique individual that is, based upon basic human biology, implanted within a female womb for approximately 9 months of its life.   I am unaware of where, other than in the arguments of pro-abortionists, it has been unquestionably established that a woman unequivocally has the right to terminate the life of that other being, or, if she does, that the right is somehow part of her own reproductive rights.

“Reproduction” is defined as “the production of offspring by a sexual or asexual process” and is further explained as “the combination of reproductive cells from two individuals.”  Now, just on its face, “reproduction” does not include the termination of something already reproduced, so how exactly is abortion a part of a woman’s reproductive rights?

A woman’s capability of participating in the creation of a child certainly involves a woman’s reproductive health.  Reproductive health, or sexual health, denotes the health of a woman’s reproductive system during all her life stages.”  This is the woman’s reproductive system.  It has nothing to do with the separate life of the unborn child. 

               The Science

Current science tells us that from the moment of conception a unique individual exists with a specific and unique genetic structure that is different from the mother, the father, and all other individuals.  Science also tells us this unique individual is a human because of the chromosomal makeup and that this individual is a life form because its cells grow.

The American College of Pediatrics states: “The predominance of human biological research confirms that human life begins at conception—fertilization.  At fertilization, the human being emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species Homo sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop. The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is one of form, not nature.”

               The “Right to Choose”

If the “right to choose” is to choose an abortion, then abortion is being equated with birth control.  But there is a key difference:  a woman who uses birth control is making a decision about her own body and her own reproductive health, including whether or not to put herself in a position where she might become pregnant; in contrast, a woman who chooses an abortion is making a choice not only about her own life but about the life of a separate and innocent human being.

Let’s look at some basic biology.  The female of our species becomes impregnated when the sperm of a male unites with the egg of the female.  This can occur via a sexual act or via some form of artificial insemination.  An adult female who engages in sexual activity with a male can understand that one of the consequences of that act is that she might become pregnant.  She can try to avoid this consequence by using various forms of birth control up to and including abstinence. 

So how does this fit in with the woman’s “right to choose”?  She certainly has the right to choose what to do with her own body, including her own reproductive system.  Putting aside such things as rape and incest which present separate questions in the abortion debate, a woman has the right to choose to engage in sex.  And, just as when we are faced with any choice, the woman has the responsibility to understand and accept the possible consequences of her actions, one of which is that she may find herself pregnant and responsible for a new and unique life for at least the approximately 9 months that it lives in her womb.

Women can understand these things.  They are capable of making an informed decision about their own body and the consequences that engaging in sex may have upon that body and their lifestyle.  But that right does not necessarily extend to the right to make life or death decisions for the unborn child.

One either does or does not accept that women can make choices and handle consequences.  One who does not accept that has very little respect for women.

I do not believe women are so helpless or naïve that they cannot make a decision pre-abortion (and pre-sex) that would negate any need for an abortion.  Those who agree that women are strong and capable of making clear choices related to their own reproductive health and see abortion as nonetheless a necessary option are equating abortion with birth control.

But abortion is not just another form of birth control.  It is the termination of a separate human life.  An innocent life.  We usually call that murder.  A woman can choose what to put into her own body – food, medicine, a man’s penis.  But on what basis can this right extend to killing a separate individual that her own choices and human biology placed within her womb for the first months of its life? 

It is both hypocritical and demeaning to believe that a woman’s choice over her own body prior to impregnation is insufficient yet she must be given the choice of life or death for a new, separate, and unique individual that her own choices have placed in her care.

               It’s About the Unborn Child

If one be fair and honest one would acknowledge that this march, like the abortion debate generally, is not about women but is about the unborn.

Abortion is the termination of a human life.  Pro-abortionists would rather you not focus on that.  Hence the refocusing on “women’s rights.”  

Some women may believe that a woman whose choice resulted in her pregnancy should nonetheless be able to escape those consequences by killing the life inside her.  It is their right to hold that view and to argue that women should have that right.  But other women disagree.  Hence, the pro-abortion march is not a “women’s” march at all, but a march about the rights or lack thereof of an unborn child.

That new and unique life seems to get lost in the pro-abortion rhetoric.  It is an innocent human.  Who speaks for it?  Why do pro-abortionists believe it should be the woman alone who perhaps finds spending 9 months nurturing that new life to be inconvenient?  Who gives her the right to choose whether that new and innocent life lives or dies? (And by the way, this new life might very well be a female – a woman for whose rights a “women’s” march should be advocating.)

Science tells us that from conception there is a new human.  A human entitled to a healthy environment in which to grow.  For nine months that environment constitutes the womb.  That is the new human’s home until after birth when that human also has the right to continue to grow and develop.  The question is, why does the woman have the right to remove this living growing human from the only environment in which it can survive just because that environment happens to be within her female biology?

A Guardian ad Litem is often appointed in cases involving the rights and care of children or incapacitated individuals who cannot speak for themselves.  The Guardian’s job is to represent and speak for the child or the incapacitated, to look out for their best interests.  In the question of abortion, the mother (along with perhaps the father, doctor, or others) is asserting her desire and her rights – the actions that are in the mother’s best interest.  But where is the Guardian who will speak for the rights and life of the unborn child that the mother seeks to kill?  Who will speak for the best interests of the child?

 Not a Women’s March

The female of the species joins with a male in the reproductive act.  Human biology dictates that it is the female that carries a new child during the first nine months of its life.  Abortion is a way of ending that life.  While all women have the same role in those first 9 months of a child’s life, they do not all agree on the question of abortion, or the rights of the unborn child.

Certainly, some women can and do advocate for abortion along with abortion funding.  Some advocate for such rights up to and even shortly after birth.  Others would put more limitations on abortions.  

But many other women are anti-abortion.  And, like the pro-abortion advocates, those against abortion have varying views.  Some are against all abortion, some would allow or even favor it for cases of rape, incest, maternal health, or similar exceptions and some would only limit it after a certain time period in the pregnancy. 

Some women prefer to follow religious teachings, something that also varies among religions and denominations.  Some prefer to follow current science which tells us that the fetus is a unique human living in vitro.  Not all women see abortion as some form of birth control affecting only a woman’s reproductive system.

Women hold many diverse views about abortion.  If the Women’s March were really that – a women’s march and not a pro-abortion march, all the views would be welcome and represented.  It would acknowledge that women are perfectly capable of thinking for themselves and that their ability to do so results in a number of diverse views about abortion.

The Women’s March is not that.  It is a Pro-Abortion March.  Perhaps the marchers believe they can be more successful in their cause if they claim it is for women.  But it is not.  If anything, it is anti the very equality of women that they would proclaim.  The rights advocated by the pro-abortionists both exclude and go beyond “women’s” rights while excluding consideration of the rights of the unborn child. 

The label “Women’s March” serves as a cover for the far more difficult issue of the rights of the unborn.  So please, stop calling it the “Women’s March.”  Be brave and honest enough to call it what it is:  a denial of the science that abortion is indeed the killing of a new and unique human being.

 

One More Lie

Case in Point.
(An example of what is being discussed)

I am not alone in often having lamented that the Left ignores facts that do not fit their narrative, that they use emotion to work people up, and that what they do is nearly always beneficial to themselves and unfair to everyone else.

Here is another case in point:  The recent photos of mounted border patrol agents as they are surrounded by illegal immigrants, most of whom happen to be dark skinned, at the border near Del Rio Texas.

The horses are being ridden in the Western style which uses long, separated reins that often hang down.  The purpose of these reins is to control the horses.  Western riders sometimes twirl these ropes. 

This gives you a calm look at what these Western style reins look like:

These ropes are reins.  If one tried to use them to provide a whipping it would hurt the horse and likely the rider too. 

Here is another photo which shows just how far down the Western style reins hang:

Actually, in this photo, the border crosser is the aggressor as he can be seen grabbing the horse's rein and bit.

Here is the photo that is most widely shown as evidence of Border Agents whipping illegal crossers. From some angles it may appear that the ropes are coming into contact with the illegal border crossers.  According to the photographer that is not the case.  

When you look at the above, the top two photos may on first glance appear to show a whip, but when one looks closer at the bottom blow ups from the same photo, one sees that is just the rein flying to the side as the border patrol agent grabs the border crosser’s shirt.

The photographer who took the images said Friday that the border agents never whipped anyone. "Some of the Haitian men started running, trying to go around the horses.  I've never seen them whip anyone.”

Photos can be deceiving.  In some photos the riders twirl the reins, which is common in Western style riding.  According to the photographer, “swinging it [the rein] can be misconstrued when you’re looking at the picture."   

Yes, some of the photos were misleading and misconstrued.  But the problem is not the photos but the way that the White House and the Left reacted to and then used them.  Indeed, they are still using them to support a false narrative, but a narrative that they find useful.

When the idea of whipping was first suggested the White House labeled these photos as “horrific.”  Not factual, not truthful, but horrific.  That the photos are horrific remains their justification to use this non-event to attack hard working border agents overwhelmed with a border crisis of Biden’s making.   A border that there is no evidence that Joe Biden has ever visited.

The photo has become a justification for the Left’s racist claims against the border agents as well as against anyone who disputes their false narrative.  These mostly Haitian border crossers are dark skinned, so the Left wants us to equate these “horrific” photos and their false narrative with violence against Blacks, and especially Black slaves, of more than a century ago.

Remember, the underlying premise that border agents were whipping these illegal border crossers has absolutely no basis in fact.  Its only basis is in a photo that some call “horrific”, a photo that stirs negative emotions in some, but which provides no evidence whatsoever of border agents whipping or otherwise abusing the people from whom it is their job to protect legal residents of the United States of America. 

That is, the job of our border agents is to protect our borders from those who would cross into our country illegally as these individuals are attempting to do.  Being mounted helps them to patrol the vast area and Western style reins and riding style make the most sense in this terrain.  That’s it.  Think what you will of the photos.

Yet, because the photos are, according to some, “horrific”, because they raise emotions, the Left realizes they can use them to find the agents guilty and then to transfer that guilt to any who oppose the Left's open border strategy.   Not guilty of what some claim the photos portray, because there are no facts to support that.  Rather, the Left will simply perpetuate the lie that the photos actually portray something which they do not. Even though facts contradict this narrative, the president proclaims, “Horses run them over, people being strapped.”

The Agency promises an investigation.  But the President has already proclaimed the agents guilty of abusing the illegals.  Again, the horses were running over no one, and the agents were holding onto reins, not whips, to control the horses – indeed, the reins were used to pull the horses in order to avoid contact with the border crossers who were surrounding and grabbing at the horses and their riders.

But when the President has already proclaimed that the border agents are guilty, how will any investigation be fairly conducted?  (Rhetorical question – the clear answer is, it won’t be.)

President Biden said the following:  "To see people treated like they did, horses barely running over, people being strapped — it’s outrageous.  I promise you; those people will pay. There will be an investigation underway now and there will be consequences. There will be consequences."

Consequences for what?  That someone took a photo that appeared to show something that did not occur and based on that the President will see the innocent border agents punished?  Their horses prohibited?  C’mon man, look at the actual facts!

Biden added that it is "an embarrassment, but beyond an embarrassment, it’s dangerous. It’s wrong. It sends the wrong message around the world. It sends the wrong message at home.  It’s simply not who we are." 

Well, I agree with that statement, but not as referring to the border agents.  Rather, the fact that the President would rush to judgement without facts and even when the judgment he arrived at is proven erroneous he sticks with it, that is indeed an embarrassment; moreover, that type of behavior is especially wrong and dangerous when it is the President of the United States who holds all sorts of international power in his hands.  And yes, a president who behaves like that does indeed send a frightening message around the world as well as at home.

And what is “simply not who we are” (or at least who we used to be) is a country that jumps to judgement based on emotion and incomplete understanding that are not based in fact.  But that is the country into which the Left is remaking us.

The White House and the Left have done a good job of spreading their narrative.  This morning I listened to a talk by my Episcopal Diocese’s Bishop's Canon to the Ordinary about the Del Rio crisis, its causes, possible solutions, etc.  It was wise, well-reasoned, and interesting until it got to the point where the Canon referred to the photos as portraying “the horrible thing that happened on the border.”   He bought Biden’s phony bill of goods without inquiring further.

Sadly, that is what too many do.  It is exactly what the Left wants you to do.  While they have avoided the topic of the border for weeks despite the escalating crisis there, they now are all over the false but useful narrative of the "evil border agents."  And, because they have turned this false whipping story into a racial issue, they can now call racist anyone who defends either the border agents or simply the truth.

Mark Morgan, former acting Border Patrol Commissioner stated, "The Border Patrol agents have been abandoned, scapegoated, and thrown under the bus by their own Secretary and now vilified by the President of the United States. They have been condemned, careers ruined, and reputations irreparably harmed without any due process -- all to distract from the out-of-control catastrophic crisis at our southern border."

And, of course this also serves as a nice distraction from the many other crises that this President has created:  Afghanistan, the return of terrorism there, the 13 dead military,  the Americans we abandoned, and a drone killing innocent civilians including a US Aid worker and 7 children; inflation; the economy; the current covid situation including mandates and rationing of treatment based on party affiliation; budget; taxes, new info coming out about Hunter and about Biden’s unpaid back taxes; to name just a few.

Actually, the White House very well might not consider any of these to be a crisis.  Biden has indicated and stated his stance for open borders, and this is just the mess that comes with it.  Just as he told us the disaster in Afghanistan was necessary for his result which he thinks is fine.  I suspect he really sees no crises but rather just the necessary turmoil as he goes about remaking America. 

The trouble is that Joe and the Left’s remaking is detrimental to so many people as well as destructive to America.  The President is making decisions without the appropriate input from the people and without the appropriate deference to our laws and constitution.  

The crocodile tears that the Left so often sheds for this or that group betray the fact that the only group they truly care about is themselves.  Anyone else is just used to raise emotions in favor of their own narratives.  Those emotional causes will be abandoned when they no longer serve the Left's purposes (e.g. Obama cages at border mostly ignored, cages during Trump administration focused on as horrifying, current cages under Biden which are far worse that either of the prior administrations are completely ignored – they don’t fit the narrative.)

This White House and the Left are chronic liars.  They have a narrative, and they will tell it – facts and science be damned.  They will stir up your emotions to foment antipathy if not anger to anything that is not their narrative.  They care about no one and no thing other than their power and complete acceptance of and obedience to their doctrine.  The border whipping story is just one more example – a case in point - of the sick game that they are playing.

Biden Knows What He Is Doing, And He Is Doing It with Glee

Yes, Biden’s behavior clearly exhibits major signs of senility, but until he is removed from office via the 25^th Amendment or otherwise, he is responsible for what he is doing.  And what he is doing is upending the core principles that make America what it is.

Gleefully dismantling the Constitution

Biden and his administration admit that their attempted use of OSHA to enforce a vaccine mandate is a workaround the Constitution, essentially admitting that they know they do not have the Constitutional authority to create such a mandate.  Yet they do it anyway.

But this is not the first or only attempt on Biden’s part to circumvent the Constitution.  Biden admitted that it would be unconstitutional for him to have the CDC mandate an eviction moratorium, yet he did so anyway.  He has claimed total federal authority over states in regard to abortion by having his Attorney General file suit against the state of Texas.  Perhaps most egregious is his support for packing the Supreme Court – turning it into a political body and thus destroying the checks and balances between the three branches of government.  Those checks and balances are a critical piece of our Constitution and its protections of our rights.

Biden attempts to justify his failure to follow and uphold the Constitution by blaming things like the pandemic or Trump or the people who oppose his various policies, but these are all just smoke that cover his unprecedented and unpresidential power grab.

First, let’s remember that our country is based on the idea of limited federal government.  The Tenth Amendment provides that “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”  The Constitution explicitly grants each branch of the federal government a limited set of carefully defined enumerated powers, while reserving most other powers to the states.  Some clauses such as the Commerce Clause have been interpreted in a way that gives the federal government broader control over some issues, but the basic principle of a limited federal government has not changed.   

The federal government cannot exercise unlimited control over the states.  Not even in an alleged attempt to stop a pandemic. 

As an aside, it is hard to argue that the Biden OSHA mandate is realistically about protecting our health when all non-citizen border crossers (legal and illegal) are exempted, all employees of businesses with less than 100 workers are exempted, all retirees are exempted, all members of Congress and their staffs are exempted, and other exemptions continue to be revealed.  Moreover, Biden asserts that the intent is to protect the already vaccinated from the unvaccinated; one wonders: If such protection is necessary, then what is the purpose of a vaccination anyway?  The pandemic is nothing more than a cover for an unconstitutional power grab.

Biden took an oath to uphold the Constitution, yet he completely ignores and violates it.  He proudly acknowledges that he is doing so.  And while he destroys the very core of our democracy, he angrily attacks those who object as he sows and cultivates dissension and hatred.

Gleefully creating a country whose people are dependent on authoritative government

Along with seizing unconstitutional power, Biden’s authoritative regime seeks to create rules and programs that will establish a dependency of all of us on the federal government.  The problem with these socialist style programs, however, is that they are paid for by the people’s tax dollars which, in large part due to the dependence on the programs they are funding, often run out.

Marc Short, Mike Pence’s former chief of staff, stated, “I think if you look at the number of the amount of spending over the last year between the COVID tax relief, the infrastructure package and now this [3.5 trillion spending bill], you'll be talking about $12 trillion dollars, which in essence would be one hundred thousand dollars given to every family in America if you were to send direct payments.”

Think of that.  Think of the taxes, the debt, the money printing that will need to happen.  These bills and others in the works by the Left would govern your life from pre-birth to death and beyond.  The Left would have guaranteed incomes, guaranteed health, guaranteed childcare, guaranteed transportation, guaranteed housing, guaranteed meals, pretty much everything you might need or want guaranteed by the government. 

Of course, the quality or amount of each thing guaranteed is not guaranteed and will of necessity diminish with greater demand and/or fewer tax dollars.  And when you have given all your money to the government you will be forced to take whatever it is they choose to give you.

Beyond dependence on the government via a variety of “assistance” programs, the government creates more and more rules to govern every aspect of your life.  These rules will make all the decisions for you so that you do not have to.  The rules decide what you can and cannot do/say/eat/believe, etc.  They remove the difficult anxiety of some decision making and cause more than a few to think that they are just one regulation away from total bliss which only a big government, authoritarian “nanny state” can provide.

They will do this in the name of concern for your welfare, but what these “nanny state” rules really do is take away your key freedom of choice. 

In this country we have individual freedoms protected by our Constitution.  The concepts of individual liberty and personal responsibility are key to America’s greatness and her survival and are also the antithesis of big government.  Authoritarian regimes tell their citizens how and what they can think, do, believe.  In America we have the freedom to make those decisions for ourselves.

The pandemic (like any good crisis) has not gone to waste for the Left and the Biden administration.  This administration would have you confuse freedom with safety and happiness and keep you in a state of anxious fear.  Using uncertainty and fear they have been able to create a climate in which many are more willing to relinquish personal freedom for safety and certainty.  Those who do not are characterized and criticized as selfish.

With such fear and then personal shaming the Left believes you will more willingly turn your freedom over to the government for their false promise of happiness in return.  But it doesn’t work that way.  When we relinquish our personal liberty, we relinquish who we are and instead leave it to an authoritarian government to define us.

While of course we need some government rules and regulations, we also need to retain our freedom and our responsibility so that we can continue to have a government of/for/by the people rather than a government of authoritarian control.

Biden clearly does not see it that way.  He gleefully would cow everyone into submission to his vision of whom you should be and how you should behave.  If you do not comply, he calls you selfish and pits the more compliant citizens against you (for example telling the vaccinated that those who have chosen not to be vaccinated, perhaps because of serious health reasons, are threatening the vaccinated even with murder).  Biden often equates his dissenters with terrorists.

Don’t fall for it.  Freedom may not be safe or easy or certain; it by necessity includes uncertainty and the anxiety that comes with being responsible for one’s own life choices, especially when those choices are not clear or easy.  But freedom allows you to be who you are rather than simply an animal confined within the cage of government control.

Gleefully putting American values last

Honor and exceptionalism are words that have often been used in conjunction with America.  “American exceptionalism is the idea that the United States is inherently different from other nations. Its proponents argue that the values, political system, and historical development of the U.S. are unique in human history, often with the implication that the country is both destined and entitled to play a distinct and positive role on the world stage" (Seymour Martin Lipset).

While not perfect, America has generally been seen as the “good guys”, the country that stands for such things as human rights, individual liberties, honesty, and honor.  Biden seems to think all that is a joke. 

Within our country Biden is dismantling not only our Constitution but is also demeaning and destroying concepts such as personal liberty, personal responsibility, individual achievement, and equality (the fact that “equity” is the antithesis of “equality” has been the subject of previous posts).  He has destroyed jobs and is destroying the economy while inflation is out of control.  Despite his claims for unity, he puts divisive identity politics on steroids as he pits every group he can define against one another. 

But he is also destroying this country on the international stage.  He presents an administration of apology, weakness, and concession rather than one of pride and power.  And honor he gleefully trashed as he completely botched the Afghanistan withdrawal, then repeatedly lied about what he had done, and then ignored and left as essentially prisoners of war an undetermined number of civilian American citizens.  Honor be damned, Joe seems proud of what he has done.

Save America from Biden

It sure seems like Biden hates America; he is certainly doing everything he can to destroy it.   His power grabs are clearly authoritarian.  His diminishment of us puts us in danger internationally.  And he seems to immensely enjoy what he is doing.

As a leader he is a terrible example.  He cannot uphold his oath of office.  He lies about everything.  He laughs at America and its people and calls them names.  Yes, he seems to enjoy what he is doing.

It is hard for me to write this, because to cover all Biden’s un or anti-American behavior would take far too many pages for a blog post, and yet I know and fear that most Americans are in large part unaware of his actions and his lies due to the media’s protection and lack of negative coverage of him.  So we just let him go on with his dishonest and destructive behavior while those who are looking see America falling.

The blood of a dying America is on Biden’s hands, but also on all those who fail to see what is happening, who gladly turn over their rights and freedoms to a man who does not respect them but will simply use them for his own delight and power.

Biden knows exactly what he is doing, and he is doing it gleefully.  But do you know what he is doing, and do you care?

Just a Few Questions

The Biden Vaccine Mandate seems to be a complete power grab with no truly sound basis in its alleged purpose of protecting health.  Questions such as those I list below reveal the illogic of Biden’s likely unconstitutional mandate.

• If the vaccine is really so great, why do the vaccinated need protection from the unvaccinated?

• If the alleged health concern requires a mandate for all Americans, why is there no requirement that immigrants crossing the border into our country be vaccinated?

• Why does Biden’s mandate not allow an alternative to vaccination in the form of regular negative Covid tests which certainly provide as much protection to others as does being vaccinated?

• Without the alternative of providing a negative Covid test, what is someone with a valid exemption to the vaccine requirement supposed to do?

• Without the alternative of providing a negative test, isn’t there a curtailment of First Amendment religious rights for those who have valid religious objections to the vaccine?

• Those who have chosen to get the vaccine and to advocate for it must trust its efficacy, so what difference does it make to them if someone else is vaccinated or not? That is, when did they become their Brother’s Keeper to the extent that they take away their Brother’s right to choose for himself?

• Why is the government so focused on the vaccine and its mandate as opposed to exploring and expanding access to treatments for Covid that have proven effective in the limited extent to which their use has been allowed? Is it that the vaccine is more profitable?

• If Covid is so dangerous, why is the death percentage rarely reported (as opposed to the number of deaths which, if all cases were reported, may be, and often is, below 1%; the death percentage varies depending on age and other risk factors, but is generally well below 10%)?

• What is the real purpose in creating two opposing identity groups of vaccinated and unvaccinated, making one out to be the root of all evil, and pitting the two groups against one another?

• Both the vaccine and the virus provide risks; those risks vary from individual to individual.  Why not let each individual, in consultation with his or her health provider, assess and balance those risks for themselves in the context of their individual health status and lifestyle, and make a realistic decision based on those factors as to whether or not to take the vaccine?

These are all valid questions.  But the biggest question of all is:  What is the real reason that the Left is so obsessed with making everyone subjugate themselves to their demand of vaccination?  What is their real reason for wanting to remove the right of one to choose for him or herself?

Let’s remember that when it comes to abortion these are the same folks who assert “your body, your choice.”  They will leave that choice to the individual even when it comes to the question of ending the life of a separate individual who is as yet unborn.  But they would give you no choice over your body when it involves taking a vaccine with known risks especially for some individuals and which provides only questionable protection from a virus which for most is a mild disease and whose death rate is only about 1% (a lot less than the 100% death rate of abortion).

Moreover, the unvaccinated, if one believes the Left’s other assertions, are not endangering the vaccinated.  Because, if we need this vaccine to protect us, then the vaccinated are protected.  Under this thinking, the unvaccinated are only putting themselves at risk, and isn’t that their choice?

But, you may say, what about the hospital space taken up by Covid patients?  Well, what about the hospital space taken up by any number of patients that have made other and more clearly risky life choices?  Does the Left plan to condemn everyone who has not lived the perfect life or perhaps made a choice that they do not approve of?  This while they from the other side of their mouths tell us we must care for and treat humanely those who, by their own life choices, have placed themselves in less than desirable situations.

So, once again the hypocrisy of the Left becomes exposed.   This is not really about Covid.  This is about their narrative and their power hungry need to impose their narrative on all others.  Those who do not comply become enemies of the State.  And our President who calls for Unity is the first to condemn all those who do not comply. 

These are frightening times, especially when, with the help of the biased media that also loves both a crisis and the Left, the masses have been fomented into a frenzy of fear of this disease and, in their attempt to allay their own anxiety will simply do as they are told. 

A better remedy would be to start thinking!

When one submits out of fear to a mandate that requires relinquishment of personal freedom and choice, one has essentially conceded that one is willing to give up that personal freedom entirely in order to simply feel less anxious.  Such people are willing to be controlled in order to feel safe.  A tiger in a cage is also safe from any predators he might face in the wild, safe from hunger and uncertainty.  But what kind of life does he live in a cage?  Certainly not a life of freedom.

As for me, I will continue to consult with my health professional, read actual studies, and make my own decisions.  I will choose whether and when to be vaccinated and boosted, whether and when to wear a mask, as I assess my own individual risk factors.  If this places me in a group of leper-like second class citizens, so be it.  I retain my integrity, my freedom, and my soul.

Is a corn dog really worth it?

This is about the freedom and privacy that one must give up to enter the State Fair this year in New Mexico.  The information comes from the NM Department of Health, in an Order signed by Acting Secretary David Scrase in compliance with and as directed by the Governor.  The full order can be found HERE    The relevant sections are Directives (8), (9), (10).

Following is a summary of the order’s requirements along with my comments

1.  If eligible to be vaccinated, proof that one is vaccinated or proof of a negative CoVid test within 48 hours of entrance.   

Comment:    OK, that is reasonable assuming that the State Fair wants to take precautions to protect its patrons from catching or spreading Covid. 

2.  If not vaccinated, one must also show proof of a valid exemption (medical condition, disability, or religious); a State Fair official will determine that the individual has met these exemption requirements.

Comment:  WHAT? How does the reason for one’s not being vaccinated have anything to do with the simple fact that one is not and thus must prove a negative covid test?  And if one is not vaccinated and provides that negative test, then the Fair’s health concerns are met. 

3.  “New Mexico State Fair officials shall maintain records of the vaccination or exemption status of all persons entering the grounds. . . .  The records regarding an individual’s vaccination or exemption status shall be provided to the Department of Health promptly upon request.”

Comments:  So, one must not only disclose personal health information to the Fair personnel and the State in order to be admitted when the safety concerns for the Fair would be fully served by simply stating one is not vaccinated and showing proof of a negative test, but beyond that, this requirement is taking away one’s freedom of choice to be vaccinated or not for whatever reason they may choose. 

That is, one has the freedom to choose not to be vaccinated, but they must then understand that in order to enter a place that requires a vaccine they may instead need to show a negative test.  As stated above, that is reasonable. 

But now they must meet specific requirements in order to “choose” not to be vaccinated.  That is not free choice, that is a State mandate of vaccination.   Only the State can "choose" for you from three specific State approved reasons allowing one to decline.

The individual has no free choice to be or not be vaccinated, to attend or stay home, or to have the necessary test in order to attend.  And there is no reason that the Fair or anyone else needs to know the reason for not being vaccinated as long as one provides the negative test required for entry. 

This is a huge overreach by the State, one that I believe wrongly interferes with our personal freedoms.

So, here is your choice:  Corndog or Freedom.  Choose wisely my friends, for the consequences will last a lifetime.

 OR