AMERICA FIRST BUDGET

AMERICA FIRST BUDGET

“Provide” or “Promote”?

If you have NOT read the “America First” budget proposal, but insist on taking a position on it because of something you read in an op/ed or other media piece, you add nothing worthwhile to the conversation.

Step one: Read the Constitution (especially, in this case, the Preamble).

Step two: Read the budget.  https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/budget/fy2018/2018_blueprint.pdf

Step three: Research budget items.

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Keep in mind that the purpose of the Constitution is to define the specific role of our government; to define its three branches and specify the roles of each. In the Preamble, two very important distinctions are made clear, with respect to those roles: to “…provide for the common defense…” and to “…promote the general welfare…”.

“Provide” and “promote”. THESE are the two key words (and concepts), both in the Constitution as well as the “America First” budget proposal.

In the “America First” budget proposal, toward the bottom, are various Summary Tables. Table 3 is a good place to start to understand the budget proposal. The “America First” budget seeks to bolster the “provide”, keeping it revenue-neutral by restoring the “promote”; fund the military while getting the government fiscally out of non-Constitutional issues.

Perhaps the second area worth reading is the “Major Agency Budget Highlights” (Page 5). This provides somewhat further details on areas of focus for the budget (and its balancing). One paragraph has the media and Democrats, along with “Establishment” Republicans in a fury:

“The Budget also proposes to eliminate funding for other independent agencies, including: the African Development Foundation; the Appalachian Regional Commission; the Chemical Safety Board; the Corporation for National and Community Service; the Corporation for Public Broadcasting; the Delta Regional Authority; the Denali Commission; the Institute of Museum and Library Services; the Inter-American Foundation; the U.S. Trade and Development Agency; the Legal Services Corporation; the National Endowment for the Arts; the National Endowment for the Humanities; the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation; the Northern Border Regional Commission; the Overseas Private Investment Corporation; the United States Institute of Peace; the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness; and the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.”

But, as I said, if you are not looking into these budget items, you add nothing to the conversation.

Two questions worth researching:

1.     How much does the government grant to these programs now?

2.     Are there any private institutions that do the same thing are these programs?

By way of example, let’s look at Meals on Wheels (which falls under the Community Development Block Grant program), a particular touchstone for the media’s, Democrats’ and Establishment Republicans’ hostility.

The CDBG’s budget is $3 billion. According to the Meals on Wheels 2015 independently-audited financial statement (http://www.mealsonwheelsamerica.org/docs/default-source/financials/meals-on-wheels-america-audited-financial-statements-2015.pdf?sfvrsn=2), on page 4 (Statement of Activities), Government Grants totaled $248,347.00. Total revenues (mostly private and corporate donations) were $7,564,588.00. So, of its total budget, the Government kicked in 3.2%.

THIS is what has the media, Democrats and Establishment Republicans up in arms.

And, let’s be VERY clear: If I can do this simple research, THEY can…..and DID….it, too. They KNOW these numbers. BUT, they are BETTING that Americans will NOT to do their own research. And, these days…..it’s not a bad bet.

And one more thing (about the CDBG, since it’s the current topic, but is RAMPANT in all these programs): These programs are a cesspool of fraud and waste. An example: in Riverside, CA, an audit in 2016 for poor documentation of their expenses. They were granted $761,744 from the CDBG, and the audit revealed that most of the grant money was used to renovate the playground at ONE school. NO money went to local Meals on Wheels program. ZERO.

What President Trump is seeking to achieve in the “America First” budget is simply this: the beginning of the process to restore the government to its Constitutional principles and limits. He seeks to bolster the “provide” and end the providing of the “promote”. 

ONE CHANCE

One chance

To see the world

To see your face

To cry in your arms

To hear you sing me to sleep

To make a 'pee fountain'

To take my first step

One chance

To dry my tears on your dress

To hear the words "I love you"

To catch a ball

To play with a baby doll and pretend to be a mommy, too

One chance

To have a broken heart

To laugh at something funny

To cry when I am sad

To scrape my knee

To play in the rain

To fail, and learn from my failure

To let you and dad know me

To see me grow into a fine young man or fine young woman

To let me fail a test in school and maybe get an "F"

To get an "A" and see how proud you are of me

To know the pain of losing someone close to me

To tell you "I love you" and hear "I love you, too"

To be loved, unconditionally

One chance

To have a date

To learn to drive a car

To get a job

To lose a job

To get a detention

One chance

To walk down the aisle

To say "I do"

To know the joy of having my own family

One chance

To grow up, to grow old

To die a natural death

I'll take all the good and all the bad that comes with an ordinary life; all the joys and sorrows, all the loves and loves lost, for that one chance

All I pray is for that one chance...

...at life

TOTALITARIANISM

HELPFUL HINTS FROM TIM

If you want a few handy indicators that a party in power is attempting to establish a totalitarian regime, look to one that:

-          Is trying to disarm you.

o   If you take a close look, throughout modern history, the rise of Totalitarian regimes have risen in the absence of a means by which a citizenry is able to defend itself from those intent on enslaving them. Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pol, Fidel, Chavez, etc…..all were able to rise to total control because of a citizenry disarmed. No truer words were ever spoken than “those who pound their swords into plowshares will plow for those who do not.” Even those who advocated peace, like Mahatma Gandhi, recognized that an armed citizenry is the only way to preserve liberty. America’s founders, in arguing for the inclusion of the Second Amendment, worried that, without a citizenry able to physically defend itself, our newly forming country would risk losing the freedom and liberty to a government turned tyrannical. So, when considering those who might wish to enslave a nation, pay careful attention to those who strive to disarm the citizenry.

-          Is actively INCREASING the movement of money from the citizens to the government

o   https://www.irs.gov/tax-professionals/tax-code-regulations-and-official-guidance

o   A cursory look at the US tax code reveals the remarkable number of taxes paid, directly and indirectly, by citizens. If one reviews the “Citizens against Government Waste” web site (www.CAGW.org), one can find ratings of those we elect as to their “tax friendliness”; the higher the grade, the fewer tax proposals for which they vote.

Pay careful attention to those who vote to INCREASE taxes.

-          Increasing government regulatory encroachment

o   Currently, at the federal level alone, there are over 150,000 regulations placed on business. ONE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND. Be mindful of those who seek to place EVEN MORE regulations on business.

A totalitarian regime cannot arise without two factors, in equal parts: government action and citizenry INaction (ignorance, complacency, silence, etc).

So, when considering whether, right now, we are seeing the rise of a totalitarian regime, consider that NONE of these indicators are present. The LAST eight years, however, were an ENTIRELY different story. In fact, with this last election, the actions of the citizenry changed the direction of our country AWAY from the circumstances which might have led to the rise of a totalitarian regime.

But…..Hillary lost. So, for a while, we at least have the ability to restore Constitutional principles; but it will be up to US, THE CITIZENRY.

WE MUST BE VOCAL.

WE MUST BE ACTIVISTS.

WE MUST BE VIGILENT.

WE MUST BE SELF-EDUCATED.

WE MUST BE PATRIOTS.

We…..must be Americans, no different than those who have fought and died throughout the years in order to preserve our union. 

THE "OPT-OUT" PROPOSAL

President Trump, this week, stated that a tax cut package will be announced soon; possibly within just a couple of weeks.

I know that this may be shocking to some, but Liberals are condemning this coming proposal.

“TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH!”

“TRUMP IS TAKING CARE OF HIS BILLIONAIRE PALS!”

“YADDA YADDA (and, of course) YADDA!!!!”

I’d like to suggest an addition to the new tax cut package:

An “Opt-out” provision.

Here’s how it works:

Since Trump is planning to cut individual taxes as well as corporate taxes (and might even take a stab at the inheritance tax), and since most Liberals will be dead set against ANY tax cutting (some going so far as to become violent in their protests), these Liberals should be able to opt-out of the tax cuts. For these Liberals, it’s merely a matter of registering for the opt-out program, after which they will still be taxed at the same rate as was previous, before the new reductions. In addition, since they are also opting-out of corporate taxes, these opt-out Liberals will be the same, higher, prices for all goods and services. With regard to the inheritance tax, once enrolled in the opt-out program, upon their death, the normal, higher, inheritance tax will be applied to whatever they leave behind for their beneficiaries (with this provision, a “take it all” option will be available).

In addition to this “opt-out” provision, I’d like to propose (to be included with this new legislation), an additional provision, providing a means by which these Liberals may choose to voluntarily pay additional taxes (income, sales, etc). It can be called the “round it up for the people” provision, where income taxes can be “rounded up” to the next $100, and in sales tax, can be “rounded up” to the next dollar.

Further, I believe that STATES should be able to opt-out as well. (For instance, California can choose to NOT comply with the new tax cuts. They’d continue to give the Federal Government the same monies derived from the former, higher, taxes; thereby offering additional aid to the people).

I think that this rather bold proposal is just the thing that Liberals need to prove, by example of their leadership, once and for all, that THEY are the ones properly serving the needs of society; and this proposal allows them to do just that!

Post script: I DO find it rather odd that Liberals take tax deductions, use tax shelters…..take advantage of ANY tax-reducing options available to them. After all…..when they do, aren’t they, in fact, part of the “problem”?

The “Opt-out” provision (for individuals and states).

The “Take it all” option.

The “Round it up for the people” option.

Please, President Trump. Please. 

SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

Since we’ll be hearing this, constantly, ad nauseam, over the next 4-8 years…

The phrase “Separation of Church and State”, a phrase which has provided the justification for such legislation such as no prayer in public schools, no religious worship or icons on public grounds, along with defending such legislation such as “The Johnson Amendment” (no political commentary “from the pulpit” for tax-exempt organizations… 501(c)(3) …), is not to be found in The Constitution. Rather, it is a phrase taken from President Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist Association; a response to a letter to Jefferson from the Danbury Baptists. Since most have read neither letter in compete context, both are included in this commentary.

When defending any of these pieces of legislation and tax code (Johnson Amendment), the term often arises. Yet, curiously, the actual text of The Constitution regarding religion is almost never used. When The Constitution is referenced, the “Establishment Clause” is never used in its entirety. Conveniently, only one part, the first part, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” is referenced. Proponents argue that the Government, in drafting these laws and tax codes, reinforces that “wall of separation”. And, taken out of context, seems to justify Government’s stance in stepping in, legislatively, to prohibit these practices.

However, in its complete context, the Establishment Clause paints an entirely different picture:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”.

The Government, in drafting laws that prohibit the “free exercise of” religion, clearly violates The Constitution, since it prohibits where a religion can be freely exercised.

President Trump will very likely move to overturn the Johnson Amendment in the tax code, and he will very likely use the Establishment Clause, in its entirety, as his justification.

Is he right?

In a word: yes.

Churches (and by this, I mean religious institutions) should be free to support candidates whose policies coincide with their religious convictions. And their support of these candidates should not be limited by where they may profess their support. By limiting, legally, where political speech may take place, the Government not only violates the Establishment Clause, but also violates those parts of the First Amendment which state “… or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

With this in mind, when I have argued this point, I’m often asked about limitations to the First, and other, Amendments. Regarding the First, I’ve been asked, “How about, for example, a religion who practices human sacrifice? Is the Government prohibited from prohibiting that?”

Again, in a word: yes.

I’m not opposed to certain limitations on the Amendments. In the First Amendment, the prohibition on yelling “FIRE!” in a crowded theater, stands as a common example. Limitations should revolve around the rights of all involved. In the “fire!” example, since the probability of other theater-goes being injured or killed as a result of ensuing panic certainly exists, so such a limitation, in my mind, is justified. In the case of human sacrifice as a part of a religious practice, the right to freely practice does not include the right to violate the rights of person (the person to be sacrificed).

The battleground is where those lines are drawn. With prayer in public schools, can prayer be required? No. Can a “moment of silence” be prohibited? Again, no.

See the difference?

As to the Johnson Amendment, I see no reason a Church cannot speak out about what it deems an offense to that Church’s teachings. And I see no reason a Church cannot speak out, either in support or against, a candidate, based on that candidate’s policies. Tax exemption has nothing to do free speech; and the Johnson Amendment states exactly that. It is bad law, not only because it violates nearly all of the First Amendment, but also because, expanded, it allows Government to also disallow ANY person or organization it deems “tax-exempt” from voicing their political opinions in a public forum.

Think about it: who would be okay if the Government decided that people who are personally tax-exempt are not allowed to speak on politics in a public forum? (#thepoor). See where this can go?

(On a side note, I find it curious that organizations such as Planned Parenthood (also subject to the Johnson Amendment) is allowed to officially endorse candidates (Hillary, Obama) and speak continually, as Planned Parenthood, in public forums. Yet, the government does nothing to stop them. Hypocrisy.)

From “the Bill of Rights Institute” (https://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/primary-source-documents/danburybaptists/)

To Thomas Jefferson, Esq., President of the United States of America.

Sir,

Among the many million in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office; we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoyed in our collective capacity, since your inauguration, to express our great satisfaction, in your appointment to the chief magistracy in the United States: And though our mode of expression may be less courtly and pompous than what many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, sir, to believe that none are more sincere.

Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty‐‐that religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals‐‐that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions‐‐that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbors; But, sir, our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter together with the law made coincident therewith, were adopted as the basis of our government, at the time of our revolution; and such had been our laws and usages, and such still are; that religion is considered as the first object of legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the state) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights; and these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgements as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those who seek after power and gain under the pretense of government and religion should reproach their fellow men‐‐should reproach their order magistrate, as a enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dare not, assume the prerogatives of Jehovah and make laws to govern the kingdom of Christ.

Sir, we are sensible that the president of the United States is not the national legislator, and also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the laws of each state; but our hopes are strong that the sentiments of our beloved president, which have had such genial effect already, like the radiant beams of the sun, will shine and prevail through all these states and all the world, till hierarchy and tyranny be destroyed from the earth. Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow of philanthropy and good will shining forth in a course of more than thirty years we have reason to believe that Americaʹs God has raised you up to fill the chair of state out of that goodwill which he bears to the millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for your arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you to sustain and support you enjoy administration against all the predetermined opposition of those who wish to raise to wealth and importance on the poverty and subjection of the people.

And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his heavenly kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.

Signed in behalf of the association, Nehemiah Dodge
Ephraim Robbins
Stephen S. Nelson

Thomas Jefferson’s Letter to the Danbury Baptist Association

To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ʺmake no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,ʺ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802

HOW IMPORTANT IS IT NOW?

Calls for Trump’s assassination.

Calls for a coup.

Calls for blowing up the White House.

Calls to secede.

So far, these have been the Liberals’ reactions to the new Presidency. And, while protests are normal (heck….they are a defining characteristic of the American culture), the number of violent incidences isn’t….at least, not since the 60’s.

Yet, here we are, it’s 2017, and a small, very hostile but very focused, group of Liberals is ready to stop this administration at any cost.

And, why? What is their motivation?

This new administration is "illegitimate". They "lied their way into power". They "manipulated the voting system". They "conspired with foreign powers to take over the country and are, as we speak, working with those powers to destroy this nation". This administration is in the "process of a complete power grab, which will render the courts and Congress irrelevant".

The rise of the next “Thousand Year Reich” is happening. RIGHT NOW.

…and it must be stopped!

Almost every time I have a conversation, post a piece on FB or on my blog, discussing some aspect of The Second Amendment, I’m generally laughed at or reminded about how stupid and ignorant I am. This happens, most often, when I discuss the Founders’ logic for enumerating that particular unalienable right. Then, I am mocked…..because I’m stupid to think that what concerned them  could EVER happen in today’s America.

But the fact remains: in the various writings and speeches of our Founders, defense against foreign invaders played a relatively minor role in the arguments for inclusion, as did hunting and personal protection.

The Founders’ greatest concern was tyranny.

Their concern was that, through manipulation of law, misuse of the military and the rendering meaningless of the vote, some government might establish, set aside our founding documents, and begin a dictatorship.

I’ve posted links, like this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHIQtxLCgrM) of others who point out the Founders’ concerns; only to be laughed at and mocked as well (Morgan’s reactions are typical).

I’ve posted quotes from those Founders, and have been awarded laughter and hostility. Quotes like:

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

So, here we are now, in 2017.

Liberals are DEEPLY concerned that a tyranny is rising.

So, I am compelled to ask:

Had you been successful in rendering the Second Amendment meaningless, and then Trump became President…

...and a tyranny IS rising...

…how, exactly, did you plan on stopping him? Harsh words, maybe? Diplomacy? A “million vagina march”?

HOW IMPORTANT IS THE SECOND AMENDMENT NOW?

Post script:

What I find most pathetic and, frankly, remarkable, about all this is that Liberals, the MOMENT a Democrat administration comes into power, will CONTINUE to push for the abolishment of the Second.

….I am increasingly convinced that some find captivity preferable to liberty.

For myself, I believe in Jefferson’s sentiments, and prefer a “…dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.”

DOES LIFE BEGIN AT BIRTH?

This is an argument I hear often from Liberals. A fetus, they argue, is not “living” until after they are born. Indeed, in the article “After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?" (http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411.short)  in the Journal of Medical Ethics, authors Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva argued, even though life begins at birth, abortions should be legal until some time AFTER that point in time.

So, the question is this: DOES life begin at birth?

Because, if it DOES, then the act of abortion is a violation of our founding documents. (Remember that included in the documents that founded and defined our nation is The Declaration of Independence, which laid out the case for our separation from the crown.

And, in that document, it states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

“…that among these are Life…”.

The Declaration of Independence states, specifically, that we have a right to Life; a right to birth, a right to be born. And states, specifically, that this right transcends government, since it defines the right to be born as a right that is unalienable (NOT granted by government, but rather by our “Creator”….which is NOT government.)

I ask, constantly now, several questions that Liberal never get around to answering. I will now add these two:

“If our Declaration of Independence recognizes the unalienable right to life, doesn’t that mean that an unborn human being has a right to be born?”

And…

“Should abortion be legal AFTER birth? And, if not…WHY not?”

I eagerly await answers….

JANUARY 22nd, 1973: The day the sanctity of "unalienable rights" died.

“Human progress is neither automatic nor inevitable... Every step toward the goal of justice requires sacrifice, suffering, and struggle; the tireless exertions and passionate concern of dedicated individuals.”

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

JANUARY 22^ND, 2017

January 22^nd marks the 44^th anniversary of Roe v Wade, the decision that federalized the legalization of abortion law in the United States.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113

As of the completion of this writing (January  6^th, 2017), the number of abortions in the United States stands at:

-       - 59,693,000 million since the Roe v Wade decision

-       - 2,800/day

-       ~ 300 by the time you finish reading this piece.

http://www.numberofabortions.com/

Democrats continue to lead the way in defending, protecting and expanding abortion law, while Republicans, much like the old Whig Party, continues to staunchly oppose Roe, while doing almost nothing to end this human rights abuse.

And make no mistake: abortion IS a human rights issue, abused, as it legally protects the right of one segment of humanity, women (already born), to murder another segment of humanity, unborn children. Democrats have decided, simply, that one segment of humanity (the unborn) has no rights and that another segment of humanity, males, have fewer rights than women.

But this is nothing new for Democrats, whose history is replete with human rights violations; from (pro) slavery to (anti) Suffrage to (anti) Civil Rights to (pro) embryonic stem cell research (and taxpayer funding of…) to (pro) abortion. Their record is unequivocal, and is consistent throughout American history, including today. In addition, Democrats (and Liberal, left-of-center, Republicans) are also defenders and expanders of ‘softer’ violations: Affirmative Action, “hate crime” legislation, etc.

Since November 8^th, 2016, I’ve cautioned Conservatives (not Republicans….CONSERVATIVES) that the fight to restore America to its Constitutional principles has only begun. As Steve Bannon puts it: “We’re at the top of the first inning.” I exclude “Republicans” for one, simple reason: the GOP has become the “New Whig Party”, whose “staunch” opposition to abortion is rhetoric, only. If it comes to a real fight, they’ll side with Democrats or will sit on the sidelines, hoping that their non-action will save their Congressional seats. Count on it.

Count, also, on Democrats doing anything and everything, legal and illegal, to win. Remember that, in response to the possibility that slavery might be curtailed or ended, Democrats formed the Ku Klux Klan, in order to violently put down opposition, both black and white. Remember that theirs is an ideology which embraces the notion that the ends justify the means.

In the debate about abortion, which is a taboo topic (unless you are a supporter, of course), I’ve heard pretty much every argument; from “a woman’s right” to “mass of cells” to “viability of the fetus” to “pro-choice isn’t the same as pro-abortion” to “what would we do with all those children”. And, when I’ve heard these, I’ve responded with the same comments and questions. Interestingly, the questions always remain unanswered, as this is precisely when the subject becomes taboo (or I get called names…)

The truth is: I really want to know how pro-abortion advocates arrive at their conclusions. I want to understand the thought process. I want to understand what, clearly, I am not seeing or understanding.

So, with this in mind….I’ll ask some of them again; hoping for insight and discussion.

Questions I’ve asked of Liberals, from both Democrat and Republican sides, to which I’ve never received an answer:

-       - If the argument FOR abortion is because “it’s a woman’s body”, should late term or partial birth abortions be unrestricted as well?

-       - If the argument FOR abortion is about “viability” of the fetus, should abortion be prohibited after 24 weeks (the current age of survivability of fetuses)?

-      - If men are not permitted to weigh in about abortion "because men don't have a uterus", does that also mean that a person must be black to weigh in on black issues. Does it mean that, because a person is not black, they cannot POSSIBLY understand that, for instance, slavery was wrong?

-       - If a fetus is not human, what, specifically, determines and defines “human”?

o   Can the “inhumanity” of a fetus be demonstrated, scientifically?

o   What, specifically, determines that a fetus is not “human”?

Some related questions:

-       - Is the death penalty a “pro-choice” issue?

o   If not, why not?

o   Is the pro/anti-death penalty argument the same as the pro/anti-abortion argument?

§  If “yes”, why? If “no”….why not?

-       - Does the Fourth Amendment protect child abusers, rapists or spouse-beaters, if the aggressor is in his/her own home?

-       - Why, specifically, was slavery wrong? Detail requested…..rather, required.

-       - Was slavery a “private property rights” (Fifth Amendment) issue? (Slaves were considered “possessions” of their “owners”.)

-       - If the issue of slavery is NOT the same, fundamental, argument as abortion, what, specifically, is different (in its principle)?

Personally, I look forward to the day when Conservatives are blamed for abortion. Because it will mean that this horrific court-written legislation will be a thing of the past; having been ended by…..Conservatives. 

A MODERN DAY EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION

By the President of the United States of America:

A Proclamation.

Whereas, on the twenty-second day of January, in the year of our Lord two thousand and eighteen, a proclamation was issued by the President of the United States, containing, among other things, the following, to wit:

"That on the twenty third day of January, in the year of our Lord two thousand and eighteen, all persons, irrespective of stage in life, shall be then, thenceforward, defined as fully human, entitled to all rights, protections and freedoms under the Constitution and forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.

And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution, upon military necessity, I invoke the considerate judgment of mankind, and the gracious favor of Almighty God.

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the City of Washington, this twenty-second day of January, in the year of our Lord two thousand and eighteen.

By the President.