Tuesday, October 30, 2018

Birthright Citizenship and the Intent of the 14th Amendment

Before the American Civil War was fought from 1861 to 1865, the issue of human slavery was a smoking hot issue.  When slave Dred Scott was relocated by his master to a state where slavery was prohibited, Scott filed a federal lawsuit claiming that he was free by virtue of the fact that he was now living in a state that prohibited human slavery.  The Supreme Court ruled that blacks, slaves or free, did not have the same rights as white men.  The infamous decision, here, was hailed as a victory for slavery and slave owners. It's important to understand that slaves are NOT considered human beings with a bundle of human rights but merely as property of their owners.

Post Civil War years experienced many schemes to deny former slaves and their descendants their  rights and some of these schemes even called for outright deportations of blacks. Hence, the 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution were ratified.

The 13th Amendment, ratified in 1865, simply abolishes the legal institution of human slavery in America:
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.  
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, is much longer, here, and is a whole lot more complicated.  Moreover, it addresses the issue of Birthright Citizenship.

In the context of history, Birthright Citizenship is a holdover from the British Empire.  When the Brits used its military to conquer for its corporatist clients a geographic area that became British Colonies, all the people were viewed as British citizens who owned allegiance to Britain. However, many of these conquered folks did NOT acquire full citizenship rights and were just expected to be loyal to their conquerers.  They were subjects and not fully vested citizens - big difference.

In the context of US history and the 14th Amendment, birthright citizenship translates to protecting African American citizens, former slaves and their descendants from schemes to deny them their rights.  Specifically this clause is currently on the table for debate:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
While birthright citizenship has been interpreted by open borders folks to literally confer citizenship upon any individual who was born on US soil, this was clearly NOT the intention of those who wrote the 14th Amendment.  The only intent of the birthright citizenship clause was to protect African Americans from deportations and denial of their rights as US citizens.

A 2015 National Review article explains it splendidly and it also explains not only the historic context in which the 14th Amendment was written but the history of British subjectship.   I highly recommend reading the entire article.

Trump’s Critics Are Wrong about the 14th Amendment and Birthright Citizenship

Trump Says He Wants to End Birthright Citizenship By Executive Order Birthright citizenship is the policy whereby the children of illegal aliens born within the geographical limits of the U.S. are entitled to American citizenship — and, as Trump says, it is a great magnet for illegal immigration. Many of Trump’s critics believe that this policy is an explicit command of the Constitution, consistent with the British common-law system. This is simply not true.

Although the Constitution of 1787 mentioned citizens, it did not define citizenship. It was in 1868 that a definition of citizenship entered the Constitution with the ratification of the 14th Amendment. Here is the familiar language: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Thus there are two components to American citizenship: birth or naturalization in the U.S. and being subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Today, we somehow have come to believe that anyone born within the geographical limits of the U.S. is automatically subject to its jurisdiction; but this renders the jurisdiction clause utterly superfluous. If this had been the intention of the framers of the 14th Amendment, presumably they would have said simply that all persons born or naturalized in the U.S. are thereby citizens.

Indeed, during debate over the amendment, Senator Jacob Howard, the author of the citizenship clause, attempted to assure skeptical colleagues that the language was not intended to make Indians citizens of the United States. Indians, Howard conceded, were born within the nation’s geographical limits, but he steadfastly maintained that they were not subject to its jurisdiction because they owed allegiance to their tribes and not to the U.S. Senator Lyman Trumbull, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, supported this view, arguing that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant “not owing allegiance to anybody else and being subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States.”

Jurisdiction understood as allegiance, Senator Howard explained, excludes not only Indians but “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.” Thus, “subject to the jurisdiction” does not simply mean, as is commonly thought today, subject to American laws or courts. It means owing exclusive political allegiance to the U.S....

The framers of the Constitution were, of course, well-versed in the British common law, having learned its essential principles from William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England. As such, they knew that the very concept of citizenship was unknown in British common law. Blackstone speaks only of “birthright subjectship” or “birthright allegiance,” never using the terms “citizen” or “citizenship.” The idea of birthright subjectship, as Blackstone admitted, was derived from feudal law. It is the relation of master and servant: All who are born within the protection of the king owed perpetual allegiance as a “debt of gratitude.” According to Blackstone, this debt is “intrinsic” and “cannot be forfeited, cancelled, or altered.” Birthright subjectship under common law is the doctrine of perpetual allegiance.

America’s Founders rejected this doctrine. The Declaration of Independence, after all, solemnly proclaims that “the good People of these Colonies . . . are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved.” So, the common law — the feudal doctrine of perpetual allegiance — could not possibly serve as the ground of American citizenship. Indeed, the idea is too preposterous to entertain.
It's abundantly clear that those who wrote the 14th Amendment NEVER intended for it to be used as an open border mechanism. The 14th Amendment was exclusively written and ratified to protect African Americans.  Anybody who has researched the origins and intent of the 14th Amendment's clause on birthright citizenship understands its originalist intent.

Since we are obviously far removed from its orginalist intent and the birthright citizenship clause has been applied haphazardly and politically, it will indeed required a judicial intervention to once again clarify its originalist intent.

Tuesday, October 16, 2018

Who is Mad Dog James Mattis? Patriot, Neocon, Deep State or ????

Nothing quite invokes the adoration of the Republican base than a military hero and a military man named Mad Dog is red meat for the GOP base.  Secretary of Defense James 'Mad Dog' Mattis, a retired 4 Star Marine general, is worshiped by the GOP base as a tough guy.  The Republican social media world is driven by memes and definitely not history or geo-political knowledge.  I had never heard of Mattis until after Trump won the election and his name was tossed out as a candidate for Secretary of Defense.  His colorful if not creepy quotes are indeed legendary.

Gen. James "Mad Dog" Mattis: 7 memorable quotes

Mattis memes were flying fast and furious on social media after Trump defeated Clinton and the GOP base couldn't get enough of memes like this that indeed promoted the cult of Mattis lovers.

Mattis the Marine clearly has devoted his decades of military service to cultivating  a Patton-esque tough guy image.

In reality, Mattis is more of an enigma who effortlessly promotes his public persona depending on his goals and audience.  On one hand there is the tough guy, simple soldier persona but on the other hand there is erudite and ambitious student of history who reportedly hauled his 6,000 books to his various military deployments.

Mattis however is far more than a reader of history, he's a player in a playpen that is generally disdained by GOP base that worships the 'simple soldier' side of Mattis. Mattis has indeed devoted his life to clawing his way to the top by associating with individuals and institutions that promote globalism, global governance, global institutions, the US Empire and a world ruthlessly controlled by US imperialism and hegemony.

Populists, nationalists and sovereignty lovers are always dissing the secretive Bilderberg meetings but as a high ranking member of the global elites, Mattis earned himself an invite, here.

Henry Kissinger is viewed as the daddy of the US Empire, endless wars and interventionism.  He's on the board of Center for the National Interest, an organization founded by neocon Irving Kristol (father of Trump hating Bill Kristol) that also publishes The National Interest.  In July 2018, Mattis was honored by The Center for the National Interests and his speech spewed gobs of love for Kissinger, here.  Mattis said:
I cannot come before you without expressing my admiration for the two chairmen of the Center for the National Interest: Dr. Kissinger and General Boyd.

I read a recent article calling Dr. Kissinger the “grand consigliere” of strategy for our nation’s leaders. From his service as a U.S. Army sergeant in World War II, where he and the greatest generation laid the bricks of America’s post-war foreign policy, to his legendary tenure as architect of much of that policy, ushering in d├ętente during the Cold War as national security adviser and secretary of state, few can claim greater insight or influence on world history in the last century.

In a “strategy-free” time, in a city where advisors with delusions of adequacy are numerous, I am enormously grateful for Dr. Kissinger’s strategic mentorship over many years, and it builds our confidence that CFTNI counts him in their ranks. I have felled entire forests taking notes on our many conversations.
Henry Kissinger is an evil war criminal who is responsible for the deaths of millions.  Yet, this psychopath with a long history of documented murder and destruction is viewed as an American icon and is applauded for engineering a foreign policy that murders innocent folks for defense contractor profits and the US empire.  Much has been written by responsible journalists about the crimes of Henry Kissinger and an engine search will provide more documentation.

The Ivy League’s favorite war criminal: Why the atrocities of Henry Kissinger should be mandatory reading

While most Americans who advocate for constitutional limited governance absolutely do recognize that organizations like the Bilderbergs and Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) are evil globalist initiatives that promote global governance, industrial feudalism, corporatism and rule by a handful of the elites, few understand that there are many organization that are similar, such as The National Interest.

The Atlantic Council is another organization that is coming under fire since it was disclosed that Facebook is taking orders from this evil organization on who and what to censor.

Facebook Censorship And The Atlantic Council

Facebook Censorship, Mad Ben Nimmo and the Atlantic Council

Facebook Partners with The Atlantic Council on Censorship

Mattis received an award from The Atlantic Council in 2010 and he's all gussied up in his finest and formal military attire.

Understand this:  Mattis has never been anything but a globalist, a neocon, a warmonger, an elite and a defender of unspeakable evil. He's got the awards from nasty organizations to validate it.  Believe me, defending the Constitution and America has never been on his agenda. As with most men without a conscience, power and climbing the ladders of power is and always has been a burning ambition. 

Mattis didn't earn those 4 Stars by defending America and the Constitution or upholding his oath of office.  He earned them by serving the Deep State and its interests.

As much as I detest Mattis and his faux patriotism along with cultivating the image of a simple and loyal soldier that serves his country, Mattis is not nearly as dangerous as other nutjobs in Trump's administration.  In fact, he's turning into a voice of sanity when compared to John Bolton.

While Mattis is an ambitious dude who has obviously played his cards well in getting what he wants out of life and career, he's not a flaming psychopath like Bolton who is lusting to bomb, bomb and bomb Iran and maybe even Russia and North Korea, as well as anybody else his demented imagination perceives as an enemy.

As Secretary of Defense, Mattis has nowhere else to go except to hang out with his defense contractor pals who control the MIC funded think tanks in America.  He's not going to be president and is at the apex of his long career.  At this juncture, legacy is all that is left.

To be sure, Mattis is no dummy and in fact is very smart, something his long and upward moving career prove beyond a reasonable doubt.  He understands the world far more deeply than Trump because of his military and NATO experience but this no way implies that Mattis is right.  While Trump obviously respects Mattis for his achievements, these men are opposites.  Mattis the deep thinker is likely to think an issue to death while our shoot from the hip president and his notorious outbursts are likely to drive a man like Mattis nuts.  What Trump has that Mattis lacks are incredible instincts and a 'talk outloud' attitude.  Trump may be a bit crazy but in a crazy world sometimes crazy is all that is left that will work, as in the case of North Korea where 2 supposedly crazies managed to lay the groundwork for a denuclearized Korean Peninsula.

I'm sure that Mattis was duly horrified by Trump's Tweet war with Kim Jung-un. Mattis operates under the cover of stealth, organizations, bureaucracies and the chain of command, all things that Trump really has no use for.  As a speaker it would be hard to find anybody more scripted than Mattis as he methodically and boringly reads prepared speeches; he's not an extemporaneous speaker so getting into his head isn't easy; he discloses little. Of course, being severely scripted is probably how Mattis survived decades in DC and walking away with 4 stars. 

The world is rapidly changing from a US unipolar world where the US and its bombs rule the planet to a multipolar world where other nations do indeed have the power to challenge the US Empire and fight back.

On some level, Mattis understands this and he is extremely reluctant agitate Russia into a war, least of all in Syria.  While Mattis was reportedly fired by the Obama regime over his opposition to the Iran deal (JCPOA), he defended it as Trump's Secretary of Defense which of course royally pissed off the neocons in Trump's administration. I blogged about the JCPOA, here, and believe that Trump made a huge mistake by withdrawing from it.

Everybody with half a brain cell understands that Assad did NOT gas his own people.  Yet, Trump ordered that Syria be bombed twice.  In April 2017 Trump ordered Mattis to bomb Syria and Mattis hurled 59 Tomahawk missiles (at a cost of roughly $2 million each) into Syria.  An airbase was damaged and there were a few death; it was also reported that Russian and other important aircraft had been removed.  In April 2018, Trump again ordered Mattis to bomb Syria. There were no deaths and not much damage.  It's clear that the DOD heavily coordinated with Russia to avoid engaging the Russian military.  The neocons were FURIOUS at Trump and Mattis and wanted substantial devastation in Syria. They didn't care if Damascus, a city of 1.75 million, was leveled.

The NYT penned a piece titled 'Trump Talked Tough. But His Strike on Syria Was Restrained'.  Restrained it was.  The neocon WSJ wrote a blistering piece attacking Trump for giving in to the Pentagon.

Trump Bowed to Pentagon Restraint on Syria StrikesPresident was dissuaded from more robust action, in first test of new national-security team
President Donald Trump deferred to his Pentagon chief’s caution and tempered his preference for a more robust attack on Syria over allegations it used deadly gas on civilians, the first hints at the direction of his revamped national-security team.
The neocons and Deep State are not happy with Mattis or Trump.  As for Trump and his clearly undefined foreign policy, there are reasons for concern that Trump will take a neocon turn.

Making Bolton his National Security Advisor sickened antiwar activists such as myself.  Trump recently hinted that Mattis may leave and said he was 'sort of a Democrat'.

Trump says Mattis is 'sort of a Democrat' and that the defense secretary 'may leave' the administration

It's my view that a Mattis departure would constitute a huge victory for the neocons and not because Mattis isn't himself a well documented neocon but because Mattis is sufficiently sane to NOT explode the world into bigger and more destructive wars.  The neocons do not share the restrained views of Mattis and would without the slightest hesitation envelop the world under mushroom clouds.  Raining death and destruction upon humanity is done by the neocons without any concern for human death and suffering.

Also, Mattis is not a Democrat, he's just a man who understands history, military capabilities and he's served Republican and Democrat masters.  He's as non-political as anybody in the beltway can be. Who got America into WW I, WW II, Korean War, Vietnam War and the Balkan Wars?  All liberal, progressive Democrats: Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, Johnson and Clinton. The cumulative death tolls of those Democrat wars is over 100 million folks.

While I'm no fan of Mattis, what Trump needs right now is MORE Mattis and not less because Mattis as Secretary of Defense is proving himself to be the least lethal option.  God forbid that Bolton and gang should ever takeover the US military and/or control Trump foreign policy decisions.  Yes, Trump could definitely do a whole lot worse than Mattis who presently is the lone voice of sanity in his neocon heavy administration.

Finally, Trump ran as an antiwar candidate which earned him the votes of Libertarians, antiwar activists, Paulites, Constitutionalists and independents.  Trump didn't intend to be a neocon president and frequently tweeted as much.  However, the foreign policy that he campaigned on could very well turn out to be a lie.

"These 'Freedom Fighters' Fly Planes Into Our Buildings" - A List Of All The Times Trump Warned Against Attacking Syria

As the neocons concentrate power in the Trump Administration, Mattis is definitely slated for the chopping block and this is very bad for peace and a more peaceful foreign policy.  I'm hoping that Mattis will continue to fight the insanity even if it results in a forced resignation (resign or be fired), something I believe could happen after midterms.  At least I would acquire a whole new level of respect for Mattis for doing the right thing at the right time by refusing to join the neocon mob.  Despite a long history of serving nefarious folks and their grand schemes, Mattis has one whopper of an opportunity to seal his legacy.

If Trump turns neocon, ditches Mattis and Bolton-izes his brain, I'm through with him.  He will just be added to my column of evil rat bastards.

And just maybe Mattis does indeed have a conscience after all......

Tuesday, October 9, 2018

Trump's Report Card: The Good, The Bad and the Ugly (Oct. 2018)

Say what you want about President Trump but the dude loves America, the American people and in a very big way.  I don't think that the American people ever felt so loved by any president and nobody is more overtly affectionate for them than Trump.  His commitment to Making America Great Again and/or Keeping America Great is solid even if there are legitimate concerns.  When it comes to strategy and tactics, the scrappy street fighting president excels and he seems to effortlessly crush his enemies, especially the Dems and the media.


I know of no president who has accomplished so much so fast on the economic front.

On domestic policy, I give him an A for the tax cuts and reduced regulations that are propelling the Trump economy.  At the very heart of Trump's economic and tax policies is making America a great place to park and utilize capital.  Trillions of dollars in corporate profits that were sitting in foreign banks can finally be repatriated back to the US at a low tax rate.  This is CAPITAL, the life blood of market economies.  Major corporations want to do business and expand in America.  Now they can and they can do it with attractive tax policies and a reduced regulatory burden.  Low taxes and low regulations are what the Democrats view as a capital crimes.

The shinning crown of Trump's economy is the lifting of all Americans to better opportunities and prosperity.  Hispanic and African American unemployment are at historic lows and worker wages are rising.  What's not to love?

Trump has also renegotiated bad trade deals that hurt American workers and discriminated against American businesses.

On the foreign policy front, Trump scored big with the American people on his summits with Russia (Putin) and North Korea (Kim Jung un).  The American people don't want to be enemies with Russia and they definitely applaud Trump's work in working to achieve a denuclearized Korean Peninsula.

Domestic policy and the peace initiative summits were spectacular wins for Trump. The Dems and the media groaned, called Trump Putin's puppet and even attacked his North Korea confrontational strategy.  Bill Clinton gave NoKo $5 billion dollars and 2 nuclear reactors.  I'm sure that money was spend on producing nuclear weapons.  Trump on the other hand opted for the unthinkable - totally denuclearize the Korean peninsula.  Now, North Korea and South Korea are working together, along with China, to achieve peaceful and productive relations that will benefit the region.  It seems to be working and denuclearization is becoming a reality although it will take time.


Trump has always sucked on civil liberties and his commitment to liberty slashing legislation and NSA surveillance is troubling, especially considering that Trump himself was in fact a victim of surveillance during the 2016 campaign.  Fourth amendment protections and privacy have vanished in Police State USA but it also happened post 911 and long before Trump even thought about running for president. Still, there is little to zero motivation in DC to dismantle America's colossal electronic surveillance net that literally gobbles up everything in the electronic universe.

Trump could enormously benefit by ending the stupid War on Drugs or at least instructing his DEA to declassify marijuana, a scientifically valid medicine, as a Schedule 1 Drug (same as heroin).  The top 5 lobbies against marijuana legalization are: police unions, prison guard unions, private prison corporations, big pharm and the beer-booze industry.

For more information on this issue:

How Trump Can Win Millennials and Minorities on Marijuana

Moving on to other bad issues with Trump is the fact that he is surrounded by some dangerous neocons like John Bolton, National Security Advisor, Nikki Haley, Ambassador to the UN (just announced her resignation) and other warmongers.  Thus far, Trump has been reluctant to explode the world into more war but that hardly indicates a committed peace agenda.


The ugly is really ugly.  Trump's raw and absolutely hatred of Iran should concern all of us.  I totally opposed his shredding of the Iran Deal known as the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action).  Iran agreed to NOT enrich uranium or build nuclear bombs in exchange for the lifting of sanctions.  Iran is in FULL COMPLIANCE.  It's NOT enriching uranium or building nuclear bombs. Trashing the Iran Deal was dangerous and foolish.  Meanwhile the US refuses to lift sanctions. We reneged on the deal and for no valid reason.

This feeds into the paradox of why do US presidents function as Saudi stooges because every US administration literally genuflects before the terrorist House of Saud and Saudi Arabia.  Let us not forget that 15 of the 19 911 terrorists were Saudi nationals. The Saudis expect the US to fight their jihad against its 1400 year old theological enemy - Shiite Islam - and we have no business even being involved.

It's time to set the record straight on Iran and we need to start with Islamic terrorism and who is really guilty. Neither Iran nor Iranians nor Shiite Muslims are responsible for any acts of Islamist terrorism. All Islamist terrorism has been committed by Sunni Salafist Wahhabists who practice the most vile, deadly and intolerant form of Islam ever to exist. Wahhabism was spawned on the Arabian Peninsula and is the religion of Saudi Arabia, here.

Americans desperately need to learn the truth about Islamic terrorism and Iran, a nation unjustifiably accused of terrorism.

Iran is NOT a terrorist nation. Saudi Arabia is the Kingpin of Islamist Terrorism.

Also, it's important to understand what the JCPOA is and isn't.

Trump, Iran and the JCPOA - What it is and what isn't it.

Obama's foreign policy legacy is mixed but mostly bad because he expanded US wars and interventions.

Obama was NOT a man of peace & he exploded the world into more wars

Still, Obama did 2 things that I liked.  He negotiated the JCPOA and opened the US Embassy in Cuba to facilitate a new era of improved relations with Cuba.

The issue of Iran isn't just a US-Iran issue.  It's an issue that holds the potential to explode the world into a global nuclear war.  Nuclear armed Russia and China side with Iran and Syria.  Everybody knows that the US is supporting jihadists, ISIS and Al Qaeda in Syria because we are puppets of Saudi Arabia who is using us to depose Assad.  Assad runs the most tolerant nation in the entire Middle East; Syria is where the Shiites, Sunnis, Alewites, Christians, Druze, Kurds and other factions actually manage to get along.  With the US helping the Saudis churn Syria into a Wahhabist cesspool of intolerance, hate and a Saudi styled jihad factory, any sane person would have to question the logic and motivations of American Saudi stooges. They are NOT on the side of America or American values.

Finally, if Trump really wants to Make America Great Again, he absolutely must ditch neocon foreign policy and forge a new foreign policy.   America has morphed into a global bully - do as we say or we'll bomb the shit our of you.  Of course the takeover of American foreign policy by neocons and the military industrial complex has bankrupted America and left Americans with nothing but a big pile of debt (over $20 trillion that can never be repaid).

Trump's best strategy would be to endorse free trade with all nations because peaceful trade always results in across the board prosperity for all people and that is the magical recipe for PEACE.  We need for peaceful and voluntary trade to replace a foreign policy of 'murdering for defense contractor profits'.

On the issue of Iran, Trump has not only erred grievously but he has missed one whopper of an opportunity for peace and peaceful trade.  At the heart of this nightmare lies our subservience to Saudi Arabia, a vile and evil terrorist nation that is NOT worthy of our respect, loyalty and blood.

It's not too late for Trump to change his foreign policy trajectory, be a great president and truly Make America Great.

Saturday, October 6, 2018

Is the Judge Kavanaugh fiasco all about Roe v. Wade? Let's discuss abortion!

The abortion issue is never a pleasant topic to raise because emotions run high on all sides and its downright incendiary. With Brett Kavanaugh ascending to the Supreme Court, abortion is back on the table. The pro-choice folks are terrified that Roe V Wade will be overturned and the pro-life folks want it overturned. 

Here's the simple truth:  legal abortion will never be outlawed in America.  Even if R v W is overturned, the issue is automatically bounced back to the states where it is 100% probable that no state would outlaw all abortion under any circumstances.  It's such a political hot potato that legislators don't even want to deal with the issue and would prefer that it be decided in a ballot referendum.

The America of today is definitely NOT the America of 1973 when R v W was decided by the Supreme Court that declared abortion a Constitutional right in its infamous 7-2 decision.  I'm not debating that legal issue but I do believe that there is nothing in the Constitution to support abortion as a Constitutional right. However, it's been a 'done deal' for 45 years.  American women will never VOTE away that right.  Any attempts to outlaw all abortion under any circumstances is a ballot box loser that politicians profoundly understand. The wrath of female voters isn't some that politicians want to endure.

What is left of the issue?  A lot. On the pro-life side many subscribe to the theory that human life begins at the precise moment of conception.  Therefore, anything that harms, kills or evicts that bundle of cells from a female body is murder. Many radical pro-lifers even oppose birth control pills and the morning after pill because they believe that they have the potential to effectively kill a human life.

On the pro-choice side, especially with the more radical pro-choice advocates, there is little to zero tolerance of anything that restricts a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy from the moment of conception and all the way up to delivery.  Many believe that it's morally OKAY to murder any unborn fetus at any stage during pregnancy.

This of course brings us to the next issue.  What is human life?  Are the unborn human beings?   Well, science has its own definition as cells evolve.  When the sperm meets the egg and fertilization occurs, there is a bundle of cells called a zygote which then proceeds to the blastocyst phase.  The blastocyst proceeds to the embryo phase that proceeds to the fetus phase.

When R v W was decided, the 7 who voted to declare abortion a federally mandated constitutional right (6 white male justices and 1 black male justice), they agonized over the trimesters and at which point does the unborn become a human being.

The 1973 New York Times headline reads: High Court Rules Abortions Legal the First 3 Months, here.   Since 1973 there have been many court cases that have chirped in on R v W and it's been modified and tweaked.

Where do the American people stand on the issue of abortion?  The majority of Americans are not radicals.  While they overwhelmingly reject that notion that human life begins at the precise moment of conception and do in factor support early legal abortions, they also oppose late term abortions.  Many support fetal heart beat laws.  Most outright reject 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions, unless the life of the mother is at stake.

Sonograms and science have affected public perceptions of abortions.  While many were led to believe that a pregnant woman was carrying nothing more than a blob of unidentifiable cells, now they can actually see the unborn - a tiny human with a body, head, legs, toes, arms and fingers.  These tiny creatures are not blobs. They are unborn babies and human beings.

While I absolutely do not believe that R v W will ever be overturned because the political blowback would be unbearable for Republicans, I do believe that SCOTUS may slowly hack away at late term abortion rights and grant these decisions to the states.

In 2003, Congress passed and Bush signed the Federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.  Partial birth abortion is an especially gruesome and barbaric procedure; I won't go into it here but it is easily engine searched.  However, the radical pro-choice folks went nut and dragged the issue back to SCOTUS who in 2007 upheld the federal partial birth abortion act.  Therefore, we have seen some reigning in of abortion rights.

Frankly, the American people do no have to stomach for butchering the unborn.  Moreover, an unborn baby being slaughtered in utero is just horrifically repugnant to most American although it is NOT repugnant to the radical pro-choicers. Another disturbing problem with late term abortion is the issue of fetal pain.  Fetuses and especially late term fetuses have fully evolved central nervous systems and can actually feel the pain of being butchered in the womb.  Yes, it's gruesome.

On the flip side of abortion radicalism, I've know pro-lifers who demand that every woman who ever had an abortion be executed for murder.

Meanwhile, the American people seem to embrace the issue rationally and in a manner that doesn't please the radicals on each side.  They generally and overwhelmingly support legal early abortion but oppose hate term abortion.

America's south is very religious, very Evangelical and very pro-life.  Yet, voters in Mississippi rejected a ballot initiative to define life as beginning at the precise moment of conception.

Mississippi voters reject 'life begins at conception' initiative

When Judge Roy Moore was defeated by a Democrat in an Alabama senate race to replace Sen. Jeff Sessions who became Trump's Attorney General, the Republicans lost a key senate seat.  Why?  Judge Roy Moore was a 'life begins at conception' believer who opposed all abortion under any circumstances and also opposed gay marriage.  Moore got slaughtered by the female and youth vote and I blogged about his defeat, here.  It's probably true that most of the women who rejected Moore would be extremely reluctant to have an abortion but it's also a right that damn few women would vote to take away from another woman.  On the abortion issue women tend to believe that the issue is between God and the woman because they haven't lived her life or walked in her shoes.  Accordingly, they are extremely reluctant to pass judgment.

Americans tend to lean more Libertarian on the social issues because they subscribe to the 'live and let live' attitude.   American politics are already messy and divisive enough!

Going forward, it's accurate to assume that neither the radical pro-lifers or the radical pro-choicers will prevail.  Early legal abortion will forever be the law in America.  At which point the fertilized egg, zygote, blastocyst, embryo and fetus become a unborn human being worthy of legal protection will be the debate of the future.  Science will chirp in and Americans will make decisions.

Finally, I do support life and hope with all my heart that America evolves into a culture of supporting life.  As an antiwar activist, I'm highly critical of the Warvangelicals who scream I SUPPORT LIFE while cheering our damn wars that slaughter millions, including women, children, babies and the unborn.  You can't support both life and unjustified non-defensive wars.  It's an oxymoron.

Meanwhile, the American people seem to be the voice of sanity and logic and it's really sad that the radicals get all the attention.  Radical pro-lifers are not representative of conservatives and Republicans anymore than radical pro-choicers are representative of the Democratic base.  There are  Democrats who oppose late term abortions.

American politics has grown vile and hateful.  Every Democrat that is attacking Kavanaugh knows full well that abortion in America is safe.  Attacking Kavanaugh as a sexual predator, rapist, gang rapist and alcoholic and all without one iota of proof, evidence and corroboration is utterly outrageous and a total disgrace to the SCOTUS confirmation process, even for the dastardly Dems who apparently delight in trying to ruin the life and career of an innocent man.

Abortion rights in America will forever remain a high contentious and explosive issue which is precisely why abortion will never be outlawed.

Tuesday, October 2, 2018

Why vote Democrat in Midterms when Trump says America is WINNING? #WalkAway

President Trump tweeted October 2, 1018:


A Democrat responds to Trump's tweet on his Twitter page.

Replying to @realDonaldTrump
America isn’t broke, we’re being robbed. Top 1% own 40% of net worth, earn 20% of all income, pay effective tax near 15% and each have $10+ million. I’m not opposed to capitalism. I’m opposed to wealthfare. Don’t tell me taxpayers needed to give them tax cut #ReasonsToVoteBlue

The Trump economy is performing well according to all available data and it's a boat that is lifting all Americans including African Americans and Hispanics.

African-American unemployment hits lowest rate in history


Last week, the Census Bureau announced new household income numbers, which showed that median income for Hispanic households grew by 3.7 percent, adjusted for inflation, last year. That’s more than double the increase seen by all households. More Hispanics moved into the upper-income brackets, and fewer remained in the lower ones. That’s welcome news as the nation celebrates Hispanic Heritage Month.

Contrast this to the Obama economy. It took until 2015 for Hispanic household incomes to finally get back to their 2006 levels. For the population as a whole, household incomes remained flat between 2010 and 2014, as President Obama rolled out one job-killing policy after the next.

In addition to rising incomes, there are more job opportunities than ever today for Hispanics.
LOL, this is the president that the Dems and liberals continue to call racist, Hispanic hating and well a whole lot of things I wouldn't repeat here.  Anyway, African Americans and Hispanics are doing quite well in the Trump economy, much better than they ever did in the Obama economy, and primarily because of lower taxes for businesses and individual as well as less regulation.  America is once again business friendly and optimism is running high as evidenced by the stock market and consumer confidence continuing to reach new highs.

Let's get back to the guy who rejects Trump's economic achievements and urges folks to vote Democrat.  The dude is clearly upset with wealth inequality but capitalist nations will never have income equality.  That's something that is promised in socialist shitholes like Venezuela where folks are literally starving, can't find basics like medicine and toilet paper and where 2 million have left the country to escape the misery and impoverishment of socialism and a statist controlled economy.

The Democrat Trump hater says he's not opposed to capitalism, just wealthfare.  I'll give him that point.  I also agree with him that Americans are being robbed.  I oppose corporate welfare and corporate subsidies but his definition of 'wealthfare' is probably different than mine because he seems to have convinced himself that the poor and middle class can only be economically empowered  through higher taxes and wealth distribution.

I even agree that the economic system benefits the rich way more than it benefits the poor and middle class.  However, that is not because of capitalism but it is the direct result of corporatism, oligarchy, fascism and all the special interest pay to play games that go on in DC, the District of Crime. 

The Democrats demand a statist economy that is highly taxed, highly controlled and highly regulated.  That is clearly a recipe for disaster; it's been tried and it's failed.  Trump is succeeding where the Dems failed precisely because he loosened control, taxation and regulation.

Moreover, anybody who oppose corporatism should embrace truly free markets (non-existent in America).  We have corporatism because of the marriage of big business and big government and it's a system that facilitates the takeover of government by the rich for the specific purpose of serving their interests. 

Both of America's corrupt to the core political parties heavily rely on funding from big corporations and rich folks.  The folks who fund the DNC, RNC, Democratic Party and Republican Party are funding their OWN interests by buying government and the favors it doles out.  They could care less about the worker, the poor and the middle class.

Therefore, the fallacy that MORE government, MORE statism, MORE taxes, MORE welfare, MORE regulation and MORE redistribution of wealth will solve wealth inequality is stupidity on steroids.

If you want a better deal for the poor and middle class, you have to deny corporations and the rich the absolute right to buy power by virtue of their enormous wealth.

YET, the Democrats keep selling the same old, same old tired and failed policies. The Trump Administration and Trump economy are far from perfect, let alone free market, but it's a move in the right direction. 

Why in the hell would anybody vote to reverse the economic achievements of the Trump Administration? That's the definition of economic suicide.

Popular Posts