A TALE OF TWO IDEOLOGIES

 Biden will be signing an Executive Order designed to encourage a “buy America” attitude in consumption. It will consist, largely, of Democrats’ two favorite buzzwords: “eliminating loopholes” and “increased federal spending”. 

As with EVERY Democrat-proposed act, this Executive Order will have three primary results: 

- Decreased spending power for Americans. Because, in order to support Biden’s plan, Americans’ taxes WILL be raised (that is where the monies for the inevitable subsidies come from), they will have less take-home money with which to purchase goods and services. 

- Greatly increased real cost of goods applicable to the “buy American” EO. Why? Because subsidies will be used to create artificially lowered prices to consumers. Artificially, because ACTUAL prices to consumers will be greatly increased. In order to maintain a competitive edge, subsidies will be used to offset the effects of coming re-regulation and re-taxation of American companies. Those subsidies will be funded with Americans’ tax dollars. And those taxes dollars will operate at less than 20% efficiency. So, every $1 in subsidies will require $5 in taxes collected. The net effect will be VAST increases in real costs of goods and services. 

- Increased costs of any foreign-made goods. This, too, is part of the coming EO. 

President Trump, in HIS quest to encourage a “buy American” attitude, ALSO relied on two favorite buzzwords: “de-regulate” and “cut taxes”; BOTH of which he did. 

And we have seen the result: American companies, over the past four years, have, indeed, grown. AND, they have been better able to compete with foreign products. AND, they have been MORE cost-effective to the American consumer. AND, those consumers have INCREASED buying power, because of those two buzzwords’ effects. 

In addition, President Trump also designed a tariff program in order to further encourage “buy American” sentiment. 

So, we have two opposing ideologies: Biden’s Socialism and President Trump’s Capitalism.

Biden’s Socialism will grow government, increase taxation, decrease buying power of Americans and increase the cost of goods. 

President Trump’s Capitalism HAS, ALREADY, shrunk government, decreased taxation, increased Americans’ buying power and decreased the cost of goods. 

Which is better for Americans?

It SHOULD be rather obvious. 

Unless you voted for Biden. 

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/biden-set-sign-made-america-100816703.html?ncid=facebook_yahoonewsf_akfmevaatca

AMERICA. July 4th, 2020.

Without question, America is history’s most ambitious experiment; a citizenry-controlled, equality-demanding society which recognizes rights, inherent in our humanity, that transcend any man’s ability to abolish or restrict.

The framers of our founding documents….the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights…having studied the failures of other systems of government, created a structure of balance within government and under the control of its citizenry.

Any failure of our government is a failure of the citizenry to act on its duty.

For over two hundred years, those documents have remained relevant; providing freedom and liberty such as has never been seen before, in any country, culture or society. And, from time to time, when the direction of this great nation seemed to go astray, those founding documents have provided the means through which balance has been, again, achieved. And those times when the direction of this great nation DID go astray, it was because we, the people, allowed those entrusted with the responsibility to faithfully guard our founding documents to set aside the principles contained within the language of those documents.

“A republic, if you can keep it”

Ben Franklin’s warning to future generations rings particularly true today, as forces within our American society work, again, to lead our nation astray from the principles contemplated by our framers. Those who would seek to abolish the notion of “unalienable rights” seek, instead, to install themselves as the authorities from which all rights are determined. Franklin’s sentiments serve as a warning; a warning against the complacency that develops from years of security and prosperity.

The greatest threat to freedom and liberty in America comes not from any foreign enemy. The greatest threat to America’s freedom and liberty comes from an enemy within.

The greatest threat to America…to the sanctity of our founding documents…to freedom and liberty… is the Democrat Party.

Historically, the Party of slavery, anti-Suffrage, anti-Civil Rights and, currently, the Party of abortion and the Party of pedophilia, the Democrat Party is solely responsible for EVERY attack on our founding documents throughout our history. Their pursuit of a Statist America is relentless; masked as “fairness”, “equality”, “progressiveness”, they seek to replace the giver of “unalienable rights” with themselves. They seek to determine which of us is equal. They seek to determine which of us has which rights. They seek absolute control over the citizenry. And they are prepared to gain this power by ANY means necessary.

Truly, the Democrat Party is the Party of Sociopathy.

So, they attack the science of genetics of reproduction. They attack the science of gender. They attack the notion of religious freedom, the freedom to defend our persons, the freedom to speak freely. They build laws that promote the destruction of the family. They build laws that relieve personal responsibility.

ALL of their laws serve ONE goal which, in turn serves their ultimate goal. Their one goal is the destruction of the family. Their ultimate goal is the destruction of the very notion of a higher authority.

Without family, there is no basis for a higher authority.

Without a higher authority, there are no “unalienable rights”.

Without “unalienable rights”, America ceases to exist. The greatest, most ambitious experiment in history ends and the world…yes…the world…descends into Hell.

Ogdru Jahad, but in real life.

The questions we, the sentient Americans, must ask ourselves EVERY DAY, is:

What is our country worth?

What is our freedom worth?

What is a secure future for our children worth?

And we must answer ourselves one of two ways:

It’s not worth fighting for.

-or-

It’s worth ANY price required.

I know MY answer.

What is yours?

"OPT OUT!"

I would like to renew my proposal for an "Opt Out!" law.

I FIRMLY believe that this should address the concerns of BOTH sides of the current "BLM" and "Defund the Police" movements.

Here's how it works:

Any citizen who chooses NOT to “Opt Out!” will see and experience NO changes whatsoever to their interactions with the police. If they (the “Opt IN” folks) call the police; the police will be there for them.

For those who choose to “Opt Out!”:

These folks’ personal, identifying information will go into a national and international database, dedicated to the “Opt Out!” program. On their persons, “Opt Out!” folks will be required to have some identifying mark (“L” tattoo on their forehead, “I’m with stupid” T-shirt, with the arrow pointing up, as examples) that is easily visible to everyone….especially the police…and criminals...so that it is ABSOLUTELY clear that cops are not to EVER interact with them unless they (the “Opt Out!” folks), themselves, are committing a crime (against a person who has NOT “Opted Out!”).

In the case where an “Opt Out!!” person has been victimized in a crime, the police (and courts) are forbidden to act, in any way, on behalf of that “Opt Out!” person. No investigation, no arrests, no prosecution.

In the case where a cop witnesses a crime in action, and the intended victim of the crime is NOT an “Opt Out!” person, but the perpetrator is, the police WILL be able to act FOR the victim and AGAINST the “Opt Out!” person.

In the case where a cop witnesses a crime in action, where the intended victim is an “Opt Out!’ person, the police will be required, BY LAW, not to interfere, in any way, with the actions of the perpetrator, or take action, in any way, on behalf of the “Opt Out!” victim. The police will be required, by law, to patiently wait until the conclusion of the criminal action. At that point, the police may ONLY take action against the perpetrator; they (the police) may NOT take ANY action or render any assistance to the victim. No ambulance service, medical first aid; no assistance whatsoever.

I, personally, cannot think of a better way to meet the demands and desires of BOTH sides of this critical argument.

I have advocated for this law for MANY years and FIRMLY believe that RIGHT NOW is the time to pass and implement it.

The descent into Hell

June 7^th, 2020

"DEFUND POLICE!”

(The descent into Hell)

That's the current rally cry of the Socialist mob. And, remarkable as it may seem, elected officials at the local and state level, as well as the likes of Ilhan Omar and AOC, are joining in the mob's demand.

I've stated, since the beginning of these protests (violent or otherwise), that legislative decisions made and passed to quell mobs are always bad.

This, clearly, is an example.

I've also stated that, when these types of legislative panic decisions are made and implemented, they are worthless; they solve nothing, they prevent no like crime. And, in the worst case, they cause FAR more harm than good.

Surely, this will be one of those cases.

All of the protests are taking place in Democrat-controlled areas. And, as the demand to “defund police” grows, those will be the centers for legislative actions.

So, while the decision certainly WON’T be to remove cops from the streets, what WILL happen, as departments lose funding, is a loss of training of those cops. Brilliant.

The direct effect will be a VAST increase in unlawful police/civilian incidents.

George Floyd and Tony Timpa times a million.

Do those making this demand NOT understand this? Well….no. And yes.

No, the mob doesn’t understand. Mobs are incapable of rational thought. Mobs don’t think. Mobs don’t reason.

Mobs…….act.

Mobs, in the sentiment of Lenin, are useful idiots.

Useful to whom? The ‘yes’ crowd: those in elected positions, some of whom will craft and pass these feel-good laws.

You see, these officials WANT unrest. They WANT these major areas to descend into hell. They WANT huge increases in unlawful police/civilian incidents.

They WANT George Floyd and Tony Timpa times a million.

Why? Simple:

Because they WANT Statism. They want absolute control. They want to abolish the Constitution and other founding documents.

Why? Because those documents recognize that “unalienable rights” exist and Statism, without the burden of those rights, becomes god, giver and taker and determiner of all rights.

It’s as simple as that, folks.

EVERY move that Democrats make is a road that leads to ONE place: Statism. And they don’t care what it takes; how many unborn children must be butchered, how many George Floyds and Tony Timpas must be unjustly killed.

As long as that ‘end’ is Statism, the ‘means’ don’t matter.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8396409/AOC-backs-Defund-Police-movement-calls-cut-NYPD-budget-wake-George-Floyds-death.html

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/ilhan-omar-says-its-time-to-disband-minneapolis-police-department

A note.....

Howdy, folks!

I'm going to be trying to write more pieces and opinions on this blog.
If you'd be kind enough to share and spread the word, I'd be grateful!

Tim.

WUHAN

Common Sense During a Panic

-       or    -

The cattle are spooked and ready to stampede.

I stated, very early in the 2020 campaign season, that the only way for Democrats to have ANY chance at all of winning the White House would be to have the economy collapse. At that point, I predicted they (Democrats) would be working to make that happen. After all, for Socialists, the ends justify the means.

Then Wuhan hit and became the Democrats’ golden opportunity. Their comrades in the media have created a national panic which has walloped the stock market, caused closures of large-gathering events, initiated travel bans and caused runs (no pun intended) on toilet paper.

EVERY conversation I’ve had over the past few days has centered around Wuhan and it seems that there is no end in sight.

So……

I thought I’d take a moment to talk some sense and bring some perspective. I read a report about a conference call from Nancy Messonnier (Director of CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases) to reporters. You can read the article here: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/03/11/cdc-official-we-do-not-expect-most-people-to-develop-serious-illness/. But I’ll point out a few, very important, takeaways:

According to Messonnier:

1.     Health experts do not expect most people to develop serious illness

2.     There are two different risk pools for this virus

a.      Those who are exposed and get sick

b.     Those who are exposed and get very sick or die from this virus

3.     Who is most at risk of developing serious illness?

a.      According to reports out of China, of about 70,000 infected, 80% were mildly sick and recovered. Fifteen to twenty percent became seriously ill.

b.     The highest risk is with patients 80 years

According to Messonnier, ““This is a time for people to prepare for what they might need to do but not a time for people to clear out the shelves. And I really want to focus on the United States and the families at highest risk because in the setting where it’s really clear that it is older Americans who are at the highest risk right now, we want to make sure that they’re taking every precaution to prepare themselves so that if there is more widespread transmission, they can stick close to home.”

Sound, reasoned, advice.

The BBC reported on the demographics of the virus (mortality rates) (https://www.bbc.com/news/health-51674743)   which broadened the scope to include all age groups (their sample was the first 44,000 cases, was based on the CDC statistics, which seems to be consistent with the later, larger,  sample).

Both the CDC and WHO have set the mortality rate at around 3.4%; but, as we can plainly see, with decreasing age (assuming normal overall health), the mortality rate drops drastically to below one percent. 

But, what neither the CDC nor WHO can include in their findings is the number of UNreported cases; those cases where someone was exposed, infected, then did not seek medical attention or get tested. It stands to reason that if 80% of reported cases are mild, then there MUST be MANY, MANY more cases of VERY mild cases where the infected party did not bother to make notification. Undoubtedly, if these cases WERE reported and included in the official numbers, the overall mortality rate would likely drop to one percent or lower (which would put the mortality rate about the same as measles).

So, is it time to panic? In a word: no.

Is it time to exercise precautions normal to a flu season? Of course.

The panic that is now happening is a contrivance of Liberals desperately acting to crash our economy, in order to take the White House. Period.

But…..mark my words: this will ultimately fail. Why? Simple:

This is America. We are strong and we are resilient. When this manufactured crisis is over, our economy will come roaring back and, likely, be even stronger than it was before the virus hit.

And, in all likelihood, that roaring economy will be roaring as we approach election day.

"Proposition 13" (2020 state ballot)

Some time back, Democrats in California asked voters if the lottery should be instituted. Their pitch, as it often is, was "it's for the kids!". The California Lottery was designed to be a HUGE source of funding, as California public schools were plummeting off the educational achievement cliff. As it was presented to voters, here's how it worked:

Let's say that the education budget for "fiscal year X" was $10 billion.

And, if passed, the lottery for that year generated $5 billion.

As the law was written and presented to voters, the revised education budget for "fiscal year X" would now be $15 billion.

Good so far?

Awesome, right? The kids would be HUGELY funded, classrooms would be updated and upgraded, new text books and other learning devices, sports, music, etc......

Truly, an awesome, amazing thing!

Then the law passed.

And, as we saw.....constantly.....with Obamacare, the legislature changed the language. The California legislature amended the mechanics of the lottery.

HERE is how the California lottery works now....today:

Let's say that the education budget for "fiscal year Y" is $10 billion.

And, let's say that the lottery for this year generates $5 billion.

As the law is amended now, the budget for "fiscal year Y" will now be CUT to $5 billion, and the $5 billion generated by the lottery will be used to build the budget back to $10 billion.

What happens to the extra $5 billion, cut from the budget? Simple:

It goes into the general fund, where, currently, it is used to support illegal immigration, sanctuary cities and clean human feces off of streets and sidewalks in Nancy Pelosi's district.

Why bother reminding voters of this disgusting piece of history? Again, simple:

Proposition 13, the formal title of which is "AB 48 (Chapter 530 of 2019), O’Donnell. Education finance: school facilities: Public Preschool, K-12, and College Health and Safety Bond Act of 2020" 

has NOTHING to do with school facilities, Public Preschool, K-12, or College Health and Safety.

NOTHING. 

The 2020 "Proposition 13" overturns the 1978 Proposition 13, thereby exposing property taxes to the whim of the state legislature. If passed, the 2020 "Proposition 13" will VASTLY INCREASE property taxes, and will mark the beginning of a staggering increase of foreclosures and confiscations due to non-payment of the, now, doubled, tripled, and even HIGHER property taxes. Those who RENT will not be safe from this, either, as their landlords' taxes will increase and THEY will be forced to pass those increases down. 

Let me be perfectly clear: NO ONE who lives in a dwelling in California will remain unaffected. 

AND, just like the California lottery, those revenues will be diverted, legislatively, to the general fund, where they will pay for MORE illegal immigration, MORE sanctuary cities and MORE cleanup of human feces in Nancy Pelosi's district. 

As with the California lottery, the kids don't matter. The schools don't matter. EDUCATION does not matter. 

VOTE AN EMPHATIC "NO!" ON THE 2020 "PROPOSITION 13". 

DEMAND ANSWERS FROM YOUR DEMOCRAT-SUPPORTING FRIENDS!

MEDICARE FOR ALL

With the 2020 race heating up, it’s important to note that the Democrats’ biggest fiscal plank, now embraced by ALL remaining candidates, is “Medicare for all”. Yes…..the single payer healthcare system.

Interestingly, though ALL Democrat candidates are on board, not one of them has dared explained the cost, other than vaguely tying it to another of their fiscal planks, “soak the rich”.

So, always being a ‘happy to help’ kind of guy, *I* will take a look at the numbers. Let’s see, based on today’s actual budget, what “Medicare for all” will cost American tax payers.

First, some relevant numbers and their sources:

Medicare: $582 billion (CBO, 2018 Federal Budget)

Medicaid: $389 billion (CBO, 2018 Federal Budget)

C.H.I.P.: $12 billion (CBO, 2018 Federal Budget)

Total revenues: $3.3 trillion (CBO, 2018 Federal Budget)

Number of Medicare recipients: 44 million (AARP)

Number of Medicaid recipients: 64 million (Medicaid.gov)

Number of CHIP recipients: 6 million (Medicare.gov)

Population of the United States, 2018: 327.2 million (US Census)

Let’s crunch some numbers….

Based on the 2018 budget, the cost, per recipient, of healthcare, was $8,623.00 (rounded to nearest dollar).

Adjusted to the total population (excluding illegals, of course), the total cost of healthcare would be $2.82 trillion.

In other words: 

with a Federal revenue of $3.3 trillion (2018), healthcare, alone, would comprise 85% of the entire budget.

On Gun Control......

In the wake of two more tragedies, while both sides staunchly defend their beliefs, I firmly believe that both sides (I’m talking about voters rather than lawmakers) want the same thing: a reduction in these tragedies.

There IS, therefore, common ground.

The question, though, is this: what measures actually make sense? Congress is GREAT at writing “feel good” laws; those laws that happen IMMEDIATELY, while accomplishing nothing (often doing more harm than good). They pass a law…ANY LAW….then pat themselves on the back, having accomplished only one thing: giving the voters a false sense of security…

…until the next tragedy.

I recall this line from “Ghostbusters”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbgTm9JLhtc. Sounds like Congress. And, sadly, it’s pretty much what we, the voters, have, complacently, come to accept…..

Knee-jerk, Pavlovian responses are equally worthless. Decide in haste; regret in leisure.

The question is this: what ACTUALLY would work, while preserving every part of the Second Amendment? There ARE solutions.

If we can manage to have the wit to avoid the “feel good” and the “knee jerk”, I’m willing to bet that we could yield some real results.

IMO, solid first steps might need to include:

1.     The realization that guns are a tool and NOT animate.  Just as a vehicle, without a driver at the wheel, is incapable of mass destruction, so is a gun dependent on the intention of the operator.

2.     The realization that NO gun control law will stop mass killings. Those intent on destruction will use whatever tools are available. The 9/11 terrorists used box cutters and airplanes. McVey used a truck filled with ANFO. In other countries, mass murderers have used fire, “melee” weapons, poisons, vehicles, etc.

3.     The realization that banning any one type of weapon is meaningless. Of course, “assault weapons” are the favorite target (no pun intended) of gun control advocates. But, according to the FBI (Uniform Crime reporting), in 2016 (as an example) “murder victims by weapon”, firearms accounted for 11,004 murders. Of those, rifles (including, but not limited to, AR15 type weapons) accounted for 374 of those murders. The Washington Post listed, in an article compiling mass shootings, types of weapons used. AR15 type rifles accounted for a modest fraction. So, a ban on AR15-type “assault” rifles (a misnomer) would not have much effect on reducing gun homicides. The stats tell us that if those weapons are not available, others will be used; and not necessarily guns.

4.     The realization that NO gun control laws, written to date, have prevented ANY of these horrific crimes.

5.     Perspective. Under the Obama administration, the CDC conducted a study of gun violence. Among its conclusions, it found that defensive use of guns is common, though not always reported. The report estimated that between 500,000 and 3 million crimes were prevented, every year, by the use of a gun (does not include police-involved incidences, and includes mere brandishing). Taking the low number, in order to achieve 1:1 equity with gun homicides, that 500,000 would need to be halved, halved again, halved again, halved again and halved again, then reduced another 5,000. Perspective.

If a sensible, reasoned discussion can be had with these in mind, I believe that sensible steps CAN be taken to reduce gun violence.

Here is, in my humble opinion, some of what I would like to see:

IMMEDIATELY ACHIEVABLE:

-       National reciprocation in concealed carry laws. Another conclusion from the CDC report found that armed citizens are less likely to be injured by an attacker. In addition, mass shootings tend to have fewer (potential) casualties when the attacker is engaged and fired upon.

-       An end to “gun free” zones. Nearly every mass shooting has taken place in designated “gun free” zones. And, no wonder. Why on Earth would a gunman (or gunmen) choose to confront an armed citizenry? Criminals go after what they perceive to be easy, soft targets.

-       Along similar lines, I’d like to see legislation that would allow those educators who choose to carry concealed, and are trained to do so, be allowed to. I would NOT make this a mandatory thing, but rather an individual, voluntary thing.

LONGER TERM:

-       I would like to see FAR stronger background checks for mental health. Admittedly, this would be a very difficult issue, since mental health issues are complex and varied, BUT it MUST be addressed and achieved.

-       Make mass shootings a Capital Offense (irrespective of number of casualties).

-       Tax legislation, to develop private-side pools (taking donations from individuals and corporations) to fund and maintain armed security for public and private schools. I’d also like to see deeper tax reductions (1:1 in dollars) if those companies hire military and police.

I am convinced, based on available evidence, that these steps WOULD work.

I encourage all, Conservatives and Liberals, to engage in this conversation. The conversation MUST start with the people; that means you and me. Waiting for our legislators to adopt anything except “feel good”, “knee jerk” solutions will only lead to more meaningless, ineffective laws and no reduction in tragedies.

Don’t we have enough meaningless, ineffectual laws? Or do we need more, so that we can feel good?

THE DEATH PENALTY

Now that Trump has reinstated the Federal death penalty statute, I thought it’d be a good time to share some thoughts about where I stand on the issue.

1.     Anyone who attempts to inject “pro-life” in a discussion of the death penalty is either attempting to deliberately mislead you or doesn’t understand EITHER issue.

a.      “Pro life” is as specific a term as “pro choice”. “Pro life” is specific to the abortion issue and is not applicable to other issues. “Pro choice” is specific to abortion as well. If I was to suggest that, because you, Mr./Mrs. Liberal, believe that big game trophy hunting should be banned, or that smoking in public places should be banned, or that carbon emissions should be banned, then you cannot claim to be “pro choice”, I would be wrong in the application of that term. Likewise, anyone claiming, as Alyssa Milano just did, that, in supporting the death penalty, a  person has, “…lost the right to pull your, 'pro-life' narrative-talking-point- b------t with me…”, is wrong in the application of the term “pro life”. (In the case of Milano’s comments, I’ll confidently side with the ‘doesn’t understand EITHER issue’ explanation).

2.     The death penalty IS, without question, contemplated in the Constitution. It’s right there in the Fifth Amendment, which, in part, states, “…nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…”. In other words: with due process of law, a person CAN be deprived of life.

3.     Erich Reimer penned an opinion piece for Townhall.com, https://townhall.com/columnists/erichreimer/2019/07/19/capital-punishment-is-government-overreach-on-our-liberty-n2550320 . It is worth reading, not because I agree with his opinion, but rather because I DON’T agree with his opinion (if you are not educating yourself on both sides of an argument, you are not educating yourself; you are indoctrinating yourself). A couple specific points of disagreement:

                                               i.     Comparing the United States to North Korea, the PRC, etc, is meaningless. Some of these countries also call themselves “republics” (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, People’s Republic of China, etc). Does that make the republic we have in America a Communist country? Nonsense.

                                              ii.     Reamer argues that the government is able to “…deprive a citizen of something as fundamental as one’s own very life.” This is simply not accurate. In the case of the death penalty, the person being executed deprives THEMSELVES of their own life.

                                            iii.     Reimer argues that the death penalty was contemplated in times far more “savage” than our current, civilized, society. I beg to differ. Read the headlines on any particular day, and the horrors of today’s society are evident. The five persons scheduled for execution, between December 2019 and January 2020 are perfect examples. (https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/25/us/five-inmates-federal-executions/index.html )

                                            iv.     Reamer argues that our society is far removed from such historical horrors as “The Great Purge” (Soviet Union; two years, 750k killed) and the “Reign of Terror” (France; one year, 40k killed). I’d argue that abortion law, which has cost the lives of at least 61 million (aprox. 1.3 million/year) unborn children, is FAR worse.

4.     The Catholic Church, currently, argues against the death penalty on the grounds that incarceration protects society from the worst of society. I disagree completely. An example: https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-aryan-brotherhood-prison-gang-federal-investigation-20190606-story.html.  Another example can be found in the Willie Horton case (while Horton did not kill anyone when furloughed, it is certainly that he retained the capacity to do so). In addition, while the Church (and others) make this argument, they seem unconcerned with the brutal rapes and murders that take place, regularly, within prison walls.

5.     The essential difference between abortion and the death penalty is simply this:

                                               i.     Abortion punishes (by putting to death) a child who is the result of actions taken by others.

                                              ii.     The death penalty punishes (by putting to death) a person who has CHOSEN to commit an act that carries with it the possible consequence of forfeiting their life.

Hopefully, this explains a) my position on the death penalty and b) why the death penalty is a fundamentally different argument than abortion. But it is also important to understand why Democrats oppose the death penalty, while staunchly supporting abortion. This, too, is simple:

-       In opposing the death penalty, Democrats take the opportunity to weaken what is clearly contemplated in the Constitution. They attack the First and Second Amendments, the Electoral College, etc, with the same ‘slippery slope’. Their long term goal, of course, is to render the Constitution meaningless, since they cannot outright abolish it.

-       In opposing the death penalty, Democrats’ desire to seek what is the common denominator in their legislation: elimination of personal responsibility. Abolishing the death penalty would relieve the convicted of the most severe punishment for a crime in which they voluntarily engaged. (This also explains their position on abortion: to seek the relief from personal responsibility of persons who, for the most part, engaged freely in choice. Of course, a discussion is certainly warranted in cases of involuntary incest and rape, but that is for another post….).