Thoughts Aloud

Archive for the ‘Liberty’ Category

I already have a “Ringer on Trump” post; but here is an even better one. In fact it is a brilliant analysis of a Trump vs. Hillary match-up in November, if they both get their Party’s nominations.  It is beautifully written, not too long, and I concur with it 100%. I highly recommend that you go read it in its entirety, so I will only excerpt a few teasers to entice you to do so:

…Bubba is a world class con man, to be sure, but Hilla the Hun is a rank amateur.

In fact, I would have to say that she has less credibility than any politician I can remember — and that’s saying a lot, considering the fact that most politicians hover near zero when it comes to that trait. Surely, Hillary’s handlers must wince every time she opens her mouth — especially when she talks about things like love, kindness, and the “war on women.”

That’s why it’s always puzzled me that so many people seem to believe Hillary is invincible. My take on her is that she is so inherently wicked, so corrupt, so vicious, such an outlandish liar, and such a transparent fraud that anyone short of Ronald McDonald, Mitt Romney, and Mush McCain could KO her with one verbal punch.

Or, how about this:

…Trump haters are placing their hopes on the belief that he’s alienated so many people that it would be impossible for him to get enough electoral votes to win a general election.

I’m not a Trump supporter (I don’t support any politician!), but I must take issue with the foregone conclusion of the Trump-hating crowd. In fact, I’m almost tempted to go so far as to say that the reason Trump might very well win it all is because he alienates so many people.

What media knotheads don’t get is that anti-establishment guys like me would love to see anyone take a wrecking ball to Washington’s Den of Thieves and break up the nonstop party that’s been going on for at least fifty years. That’s why I’m inclined to believe that the more Trump says nasty things, the more likely he is to win over fed-up Republicans, Democrats, and, above all, independents.

Read the rest of this entry »

There is a very good article on the Misis Institute site, by Jeff Deist entitled, “PC is About Control, Not Etiquette,” which ties in with some of the thoughts expressed here lately, and is well worth reading:

To begin, we need to understand that political correctness is not about being nice. It’s not simply a social issue, or a subset of the culture wars.

It’s not about politeness, or inclusiveness, or good manners. It’s not about being respectful toward your fellow humans, and it’s not about being sensitive or caring or avoiding hurt feelings and unpleasant slurs.

But you’ve heard this argument, I’m sure. PC is about simple respect and inclusiveness, they tell us. As though we need progressives, the cultural enforcers, to help us understand that we shouldn’t call someone retarded, or use the “N” word, make hurtful comments about someone’s appearance, or tolerate bullies.

If PC truly was about kindness and respect, it wouldn’t need to be imposed on us. After all, we already have a mechanism for the social cohesion PC is said to represent: it’s called manners. And we already have specific individuals charged with insuring that good manners are instilled and upheld: they’re called parents.

Political Correctness Defined

But what exactly is PC? Let me take a stab at defining it: Political correctness is the conscious, designed manipulation of language intended to change the way people speak, write, think, feel, and act, in furtherance of an agenda. [emphasis mine]

PC is best understood as propaganda, which is how I suggest we approach it. But unlike propaganda, which historically has been used by governments to win favor for a particular campaign or effort, PC is all-encompassing. It seeks nothing less than to mold us into modern versions of Marx’s un-alienated society man, freed of all his bourgeois pretensions and humdrum social conventions.

Like all propaganda, PC fundamentally is a lie. It is about refusing to deal with the underlying nature of reality, in fact attempting to alter that reality by legislative and social fiat. A is no longer A.

Read the rest of this entry »

Liberty or the State

Choose one. Only one. They are mutually exclusive.

It is interesting how both sides of our Incumbrepublocrat duopoly have very different visions of the purpose and utility of the State. Yet, both staunchly defend the existence of the Federal Government, as absolutely necessary to protect our rights and freedom. Of course they do, their cushy jobs are on the line; yet, a good many actually believe they are doing good works, in their life-long struggle to save their own vision of America, from their opponents’ strident agenda and goofy ideology. It seemingly never occurs to any of them, that if they simply shut it down and went home, most of their ‘worthy’ causes would evaporate for lack of opposition, and they would never be missed by the vast majority of a much relieved population.

What would happen if we stopped legitimizing their oligarchy? What if nobody bothered to attend the carefully choreographed kabuki theater performances they call ‘elections?’ Without our dutifully voting for the least objectionable candidates offered, they could not claim a ‘mandate’ for their ‘vision,’ and claim the mantle of ‘leader’ for their ‘constituents.’ The most important statistic worth noting in post-election polling, is how many eligible voters chose ‘none of the above,’ by the simple expedient of boycotting the sham election.

For most of a long interesting life, I have generally been an upstanding American Patriot. I wore the US Army uniform for three years back in the mid ’60s, and then a peace officer’s badge in three different small towns for several years after that. Each of these ‘government jobs,’ required that I swear an oath to defend our country and its Constitution “from all enemies, foreign and domestic.” It never occurred to me back then, to question the legitimacy of the Federal government, or its moral authority to make laws governing our conduct. Neither did I question the basis of my sworn duty to enforce them. Everyone must obey… “it’s the Law!”

Read the rest of this entry »

I started to title this post “Polls on Trump”; but decided that meme needed a rest. 🙂

Besides, my interest in the fascinating LA Times piece entitled, “Polls may actually underestimate Trump’s support, study finds” is to comment on the often mentioned polling difference, between those with and without a college degree. Researchers ran an interesting experiment, to study why Trump’s poll numbers were always higher in online polling, than in traditional telephone surveys:

The most telling part of the experiment, however, was that not all types of people responded the same way. Among blue-collar Republicans, who have formed the core of Trump’s support, the polls were about the same regardless of method. But among college-educated Republicans, a bigger difference appeared, with Trump scoring 9 points better in the online poll.

Social-desirability bias — the well-known tendency of people to hesitate to confess certain unpopular views to a pollster — provides the most likely explanation for that education gap, Dropp and his colleagues believe.

Blue-collar voters don’t feel embarrassed about supporting Trump, who is very popular in their communities. But many college-educated Republicans hesitate to admit their attraction to the blustery New York billionaire, the experiment indicates.

That finding suggests that the online surveys, which show Trump with a larger lead, provide the more accurate measure of what people would do in the anonymity of a voting booth, Dropp said. That might not be as true, however, in a public setting such as the Iowa caucus, where people identify their candidate preference in front of friends and neighbors.

“It’s our sense that a lot of polls are under-reporting Trump’s overall support,” he said.

In other words, college educated folks lie to protect their self-image as sophisticates, while truthful working class folks are not at all embarrassed by their judgements.
Read the rest of this entry »

Now, Phyllis Schlafly! Her conservative credentials just couldn’t be any more authentic, and she has declared Trump is ‘last hope for America’:

Schlafly unloaded on Republicans in Congress for passing the $1.1 trillion omnibus bill last week, a move she called a “betrayal.”

“This is a betrayal of the grassroots and of the Republican Party,” Schlafly said in an exclusive interview with WND. “We thought we were electing a different crowd to stand up for America, and they didn’t. We’re extremely outraged by what Congress has done. Nancy Pelosi couldn’t have engineered it any better. I think the people are going to react by electing Donald Trump.”

Ouch…

Read the rest of this entry »

My old mentor, Robert Ringer, has put the finest point yet on the Trump phenomenon. Typically, for an accomplished self-help guru, he recommends that those aspiring to success in life should emulate Trump’s authenticity and utter immunity to intimidation:

Though I use Donald Trump as an example, this is not meant to be a political article. Rather, it’s about two important aspects of human nature.

Many establishment Republicans dislike Trump because they believe he’s more of a liberal than a conservative. But, in truth, he’s neither. He’s really a classic example of a hard-nosed businessman who’s not hung up on politics or ideology.

Like most big-business types, he’s more than willing to humor politicians of any stripe for the sake of making a deal, because he knows the system is not only B.S., but corrupt to the core. I’ve known many wealthy businessmen who are pretty much the same as Trump in this respect. They view politics as something of a giant game, and are more than happy to use it to their benefit.

If it helps to donate to Hillary Clinton, donate to Hillary Clinton. If it helps to donate to George Bush, donate to George Bush. As Trumps says, the system is corrupt and they’re all for sale, so why not play the game and use amoral politicians to help you accomplish your ends?

It took me many years of ideological and/or political frustration, to finally absorb the truth and utility of this rank pragmatism. One can simply ‘pay to play’ and concentrate on succeeding in life; or one can waste one’s life whining, complaining, and endlessly campaigning to try to correct a hopelessly corrupt system.

Read the rest of this entry »

I recall that some of you have a rather low opinion of Ann Coulter; but her latest column, “IT’S TIME FOR THE OTHER 13 CANDIDATES TO DROP OUT,” is well worth the read. For example:

At what point in Donald Trump’s inaugural address do you figure the GOP establishment will finally grasp what’s been happening?

The establishment — not “elites,” because they’re mostly bland functionaries who went to third-rate schools — have thrown absolutely everything they have at Trump. I’ve never seen so many Republicans featured on MSNBC.

At least no one will be able to say the Republican National Committee didn’t give it the old college try (and, again, that would be third-rate colleges).

Trump is a runaway hit with Americans for the simple reason that he’s the only candidate saying anything Americans care about.

It is pretty hard to argue with that…

After the San Bernardino terrorist attack, committed by Muslim immigrants — which followed the 1993 World Trade Center terrorist attack committed by Muslim immigrants; the 9/11 terrorist attacks committed by Muslim immigrants; the Fort Hood terrorist attack committed by a Muslim immigrant; the Boston Marathon terrorist attack committed by Muslim immigrants, and on and on — Trump suggested a temporary pause on Muslim immigration.

The other candidates responded by attacking him viciously. Now, the eunuchs are duking it out over who has the most aggressive approach to … fighting ISIS!

True…

Read the rest of this entry »

Well, well, well… Trump has issued a statement on Ryan’s budget deal:

(New York, NY) December 17, 2015 – “If anyone needed more evidence of why the American people are suffering at the hands of their own government, look no further than the budget deal announced by Speaker Ryan. In order to avoid a government shutdown, a cowardly threat from an incompetent President, the elected Republicans in Congress threw in the towel and showed absolutely no budget discipline.

The American people will have to absorb higher deficits, greater debt, less economic liberty and more corporate welfare. Congress cannot seem to help itself in bending to every whim of special interests. How can they face their constituents when they continue to burden our children and grandchildren with debts they will never be able to repay? Our government is failing us, so we must do something about it. Who knows how bad things will be when the next administration comes in and has to pick up the pieces?

The only special interest not being served by our government is the American people. It is time we imposed budget discipline by holding the line on spending, getting rid of waste, fraud and abuse, and by taking on our debt. To do these things, we need a President who can lead the fight to hold Congress and the rest of government accountable. Together, we can Make America Great Again.” – Donald J. Trump

I don’t know how anyone could describe the situation any clearer than that. Like Putin says, he is a smart guy… and I reckon he knows precisely what he is doing. Let’s see how well this gets reported, because it will go over very well indeed with the fed-up grass roots fiscal conservatives of either wing of the Incumbrepublocrat Party. â—„Daveâ–º

If you harbored even a slight hope for the future of our country, forget about it:

Yale? Really? …tell me again, why should we care about saving America for future generations? â—„Daveâ–º

I was searching the archives and stumbled upon this: I Quit

I think I had actually made it, until my thirst for some intelligent conversation caused me to allow you guys to drag me back into the stinking cesspool. More the pity… â—„Daveâ–º

At the risk of being boringly repetitive, I offer again my view of natural right, distilled down to its very essence:

Each and every individual human being has the unalienable right to do whatever they wish, whenever they wish – so long as, in doing so, they do not deny another human being that same right. Any human being that knowingly and intentionally limits the right of any other human being thereby forfeits whatever right the offender was otherwise heir to.

This seems to me a simple, all encompassing rule that any human being with the ability to think can clearly understand. An entire body of law condensed to two short sentences.

Disagreement or contrary opinions eagerly solicited.

Troy L Robinson

Imagine, if you will, that some new prophet suddenly appears with instructions direct from the deity for constructing a new religious sect (no, not me – I am a strictly non-prophet operation).

Let us assume the new sect is benevolent in every respect, that it respects other sects and non-believers, that it follows the Judeo-Christian tradition in every respect, including the ancient Jewish practice of human sacrifice.

After all, if the deity created all life, it seems only reasonable that it demand that some meager amount of said life be offered back as a sign of respect and acknowledgment. Let us say that a child of less than 5 years must be sacrificed on the eve of each new moon. Not all that extravagant is it? And maybe, for good measure, the sacrifice of a female virgin on each winter solstice to thank the deity for the return of the Sun. Again, not at all extravagant. Indeed, given current population growth rates, such modest sacrificial demands would hardly make a statistical difference in the population.

And, keep in mind that these sacrificial demands would not be optional. They would be mandatory for each congregation of practitioners. Period, no exceptions allowed.

Indeed, there is really nothing really new in the proposed sect and much to be admired. For sure, no jihad, no mass murder.

So, my question to all of you is this: Would any national government accept or allow the open and public practice of this “new” religion? For sake of argument, let us narrow the question to address only the United States. The first amendment to our Constitution says, in part:

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

Seems pretty clear to me. Government is not allowed to “prohibit the free exercise…”, so that is that. Light the fires and bring in the virgins. Or is it really that clear?

Read the rest of this entry »

Tomi’s clips usually run about two minutes apiece. Two parts on why America loves Trump, back in September:

Then, Part II:

However did Trump manage to resist her cute invitation for an interview? It would definitely have gone way past ‘viral.’ I’d call it his first serious blunder. :)  â—„Daveâ–º

In the “I Stand With Joe” post, Chris posted a link to a video by new conservative heart-throb, Tomi Lahren. No, you would have to be a lot younger, you old letch; she is only 23. You would also need to be a lot tougher; rumor has it that her boyfriend is a Navy Seal. If you read “Lone Survivor“, you will understand that he earned her; we didn’t. 🙂

Besides were she available and attracted to geezers, you would be way too late, Chris. I saw her first back in July, when she recorded this one after the Chattanooga terrorist attack:

So, Glenn Beck managed to outbid Roger Ailes for her! I assumed that Ailes already had her contract typed up and waiting for her gig on OAN to end. 🙂

BTW: I just subscribed to her YouTube channel, so expect to see more of her hereabouts. It looks like I have a lot of pleasant catching up to do. Thanks for the reminder, Chris. 🙂 â—„Daveâ–º

Well, Troy, in a comment to the “I Stand With Joe” post yesterday, you said:

Show me a large number of Muslims openly and loudly demanding an Islamic reformation, and I might be willing to listen. Until then, no way.

Fair enough, look what I just stumbled across… How’s this for a Muslim Reform Movement? Is the National Press Club open and loud enough for you? Start with their picture. No hijabs and only one suspicious beard. 🙂

Preamble

We are Muslims who live in the 21st century. We stand for a respectful, merciful and inclusive interpretation of Islam. We are in a battle for the soul of Islam, and an Islamic renewal must defeat the ideology of Islamism, or politicized Islam, which seeks to create Islamic states, as well as an Islamic caliphate. We seek to reclaim the progressive spirit with which Islam was born in the 7th century to fast forward it into the 21st century. We support the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was adopted by United Nations member states in 1948.

We reject interpretations of Islam that call for any violence, social injustice and politicized Islam. Facing the threat of terrorism, intolerance, and social injustice in the name of Islam, we have reflected on how we can transform our communities based on three principles: peace, human rights and secular governance. We are announcing today the formation of an international initiative: the Muslim Reform Movement.

We have courageous reformers from around the world who will outline our Declaration for Muslim Reform, a living document that we will continue to enhance as our journey continues. We invite our fellow Muslims and neighbors to join us.

 

DECLARATION

A. Peace: National Security, Counterterrorism and Foreign Policy

1. We stand for universal peace, love and compassion. We reject violent jihad. We believe we must target the ideology of violent Islamist extremism in order to liberate individuals from the scourge of oppression and terrorism both in Muslim-majority societies and the West.
2. We stand for the protection of all people of all faiths and non-faith who seek freedom from dictatorships, theocracies and Islamist extremists.
3. We reject bigotry, oppression and violence against all people based on any prejudice, including ethnicity, gender, language, belief, religion, sexual orientation and gender expression.

B. Human Rights: Women’s Rights and Minority Rights

1. We stand for human rights and justice. We support equal rights and dignity for all people, including minorities. We support the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights.
2. We reject tribalism, castes, monarchies and patriarchies and consider all people equal with no birth rights other than human rights. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. Muslims don’t have an exclusive right to “heaven.”
3. We support equal rights for women, including equal rights to inheritance, witness, work, mobility, personal law, education, and employment. Men and women have equal rights in mosques, boards, leadership and all spheres of society. We reject sexism and misogyny.

C. Secular Governance: Freedom of Speech and Religion

1. We are for secular governance, democracy and liberty. We are against political movements in the name of religion. We separate mosque and state. We are loyal to the nations in which we live. We reject the idea of the Islamic state. There is no need for an Islamic caliphate. We oppose institutionalized sharia. Sharia is manmade.
2. We believe in life, joy, free speech and the beauty all around us. Every individual has the right to publicly express criticism of Islam. Ideas do not have rights. Human beings have rights. We reject blasphemy laws. They are a cover for the restriction of freedom of speech and religion. We affirm every individual’s right to participate equally in ijtihad, or critical thinking, and we seek a revival of ijtihad.
3. We believe in freedom of religion and the right of all people to express and practice their faith, or non-faith, without threat of intimidation, persecution, discrimination or violence. Apostasy is not a crime. Our ummah–our community–is not just Muslims, but all of humanity.

We stand for peace, human rights and secular governance. Please stand with us!

Affirmed this Fourth Day of December, Two-Thousand and Fifteen By the founding authors who are signatories below

OK, I am impressed. I have seen Zuhdi Jasser (second from right in picture above) often over the years on Fox News, as a courageous outspoken voice of moderation, and believe him to be sincere in his desire to reform Islam. I certainly wish them well, and will be following their progress in a rather daunting quest. â—„Daveâ–º

While reading some of the White House’s spin to desperately try deflecting any responsibility for the San Bernardino Jihadist’s successful terrorist attack, meanwhile simultaneously railing about the need for more gun-control, it occurred to me that it was time to once again recycle a letter to the editor that I wrote over 20 years ago.

First let me make the point that their insistence that these Jihadists were ‘home grown’ and not members, or under the direction of ISIS or other Jihadist NGO, is to me a distinction without a difference. I suspect their 35 dead and injured victims, and their loved ones, don’t much care either. Puzzling over their ‘motive’ is patently ridiculous. They were Jihadists doing what most irrational Jihadists are anxious to do. Terrorizing and slaughtering infidels while dying for the glory of Allah, to earn the promised rewards for ‘martyrdom’ in their hereafter.  Those unable to immediately grasp that, are willfully blind, ignorant, stupid, or lying through their teeth.

LOL! I just had a wicked thought. I wonder what their sex life will be like in Heaven. Will they each have their own individual 73 person orgies, or would it be one big 146 person wife-swapping party? Then, it would seem that by now Allah should have a much larger supply of virgin men for his martyred bride Malik, than virgin women for her cuckold. Also, her virgins would obviously be young, virile, military aged men, while by now Allah is probably scraping the bottom of the virgin barrel and only has elderly nuns and wrinkled old maids left for him. I’m guessing by now Farooq realizes he made a huge mistake, and would have enjoyed better sex if he had stayed on Earth with his once-faithful young bride. 🙂

Anyway, there are a lot of politicians, sheriffs, and even an university president currently advocating Americans prudently arm themselves for self-defense against Jihadists. In “Urban Varmints,” I also advocated rational armed self-defense, rather than cowering in fear while waiting for the government to come to the rescue, from the scourge of urban gangs. I used the analogy of snakes as often harmless; but those displaying the ‘gang colors’ of a rattlesnake, were deadly and not to be trusted. Plug Muslims into the snakes category, and easily profiled Sharia compliant Jihadists into the rattlesnake variety of such, and my 20-year-old missive could be republished as current. â—„Daveâ–º

Why are contumacious politicians, actually willing to speak up with straight talk and unvarnished truths, too often ex-congressmen? Enjoy the brief rant:

Me too. I reckon the First Amendment guarantees my right to speak of my well-considered prejudices, and thoughtfully say aloud:

• Does advocating violence against savage Jihadists, who regularly decapitate or otherwise slaughter non-believers, offend you Ms. Lynch?
• Try this: Jihadists are low-life vermin and need to be summarily eradicated as such, without mercy, wherever found.
• I utterly despise them, and given the opportunity, I would gladly dispatch them into martyrdom myself, with unrestrained glee.
• Islam is much more than a religious faith; it is a rigid ideology and system of government.
• Islam by nature is unqualified evil, because it foments Sharia law and spawns barbaric Jihadists.
• Sharia law is incompatible with Western civilization, our Constitution, and our cultural values.
• Sharia law must never be permitted a legal foothold in America, and must never be given deference in our courts.
• All Jihadists are Muslims; but not all Muslims are Jihadists… yet.
• Those Muslims who give aid, comfort, and/or support to Jihadists, should themselves be considered and treated as Jihadists.
• All apologists for Jihadists, Muslim or not, are just as despicable and deserve the same fate as they do.
• So-called ‘moderate’ Muslims, honestly wishing to fully assimilate into our culture, should be welcomed.
• Those Muslims who practice and/or advocate Sharia law, however, are overtly irrational, illiberal, and likely to approve of Jihad.
• This makes them intrinsically suspect, as potential dangers to our safety and culture, now or in the future.
• Thus, any Muslim publicly proclaiming their adherence to Sharia law, should be ‘profiled’ and watched very closely.
• Muslim men sporting the odd combination of unkempt beards with short trimmed mustaches, are complying with Sharia law.
• Muslim women wearing a hijab (head scarf), or a burka (tent), are complying with Sharia law.

As a vigilant citizen, I will immediately report any suspicious behavior by these easily profiled suspects to your FBI, Ms. Lynch. The question is, will they have orders to then investigate them… or me? After all, as a patriotic, Liberty-loving, veteran, white male, I come much closer to fitting your profile of a threat to you elitists than they do.  You Federal fools disgust me… Regime change in D.C. can’t come fast enough. :(  â—„Daveâ–º

Most Americans were rather naïve regarding Jihad when we were blindsided by 9/11. Sure, we knew that Muslim Arabs hated Jewish Arabs to the point of irrational suicide bombers attacking Israel’s pizza parlors and such, but we had been taught to believe that conflict was essentially an ancient dispute over territory, which had essentially been going on since Moses led the first invasion of Palestine.

Yes, we would occasionally experience a terrorist attack in the region ourselves, and just assumed it was because we were allies and supporters of Israel. 9/11 changed everything in my mind. Not only was it a dastardly sneak attack on our homeland, I just couldn’t get my head around what could possibly motivate a score of well-educated Saudi Arabians (ostensibly our second-best ally in the region) to deliberately commit suicide, while flying four hijacked planes into our iconic buildings killing thousands of ‘innocent’ civilians. I remember immediately buying and reading Thomas Friedman’s “From Beirut to Jerusalem,” followed by “The Lexus and the Olive Tree,” to try to acquire a better understanding of Middle East politics and religion, and what their real grievance might be with us.

Like most red-blooded Jacksonian Americans, I was ready for some serious retribution against whoever was responsible, regardless of their motive. Our resident swaggering Texas cowboy in the White House, was more than willing to step up to the challenge, and initially won a lot of respect when he did. Yet, since it appeared that we were not attacked by another country; but by a shadowy international NGO of fundamentalist religious fanatics, who and where were they? Our smart bombs needed coordinates.

Read the rest of this entry »

If you have not encountered the Canadian philosopher Stefan Molyneux, it is time to get acquainted. This resonates with my current worldview on so many levels:

…let me know how his timely message strikes you. â—„Daveâ–º

I have lately been reviewing the writings of John Stuart Mill, particularly On Liberty.

Mill proposes that a primary purpose of government is to prevent individuals from harming other individuals, and, when prevention fails, to impose appropriate punishment.

IMHO, our founding documents are totally compatible with this notion, even though common implementation often falls short of the stated goals.

Stated simply, each individual should be allowed, indeed, has a natural right, to live their life as they personally see fit, doing (or not doing) whatever they think best for their own purposes – so long as they are not harming others in the process.

Do any of you disagree with this concept? Do any of you think that this should NOT be a central tenant of our laws?

Assuming that you agree, then please allow me to raise my “Interesting Question”.

When I mention the notion of “harming others”, our first instinct is to think of overt actions intended to cause harm. Yet, there are myriad ways of causing harm, many of them resulting from things that were not done, from actions that were not taken.

In particular, I am thinking of the harm done to the young by those who caused them to be born and/or established themselves as their “official caretaker” (parent).

We have a large and very vocal group among us who insist on certain rights for those who have been conceived but are not yet born (the so called “abortion issue”). But, what about those who have been born? Do not those who caused their conception and birth (or who have voluntarily assumed parental status over them) have some very clear legal responsibilities toward these young lives?

I imagine most of you will agree that the young have a right to be physically cared for: fed, clothed, housed, etc. I submit that these young have an equal right to be emotionally and mentally cared for as well. Is it not a harm to fail to provide these young with the basic skills and knowledge required to function, at least minimally, in the society in which they will live as supposedly free adult individuals?

It is my firm opinion that those who assume parental duties, especially through the act of reproduction, have a legal responsibility to provide the minimal physical, emotional and mental support necessary to produce an adult person who is able to enjoy the fruits of individual freedom (obviously baring some unavoidable disability).

To be more clear, I think society in general has a legal responsibility to demand that such parenting be done and such needs be met, with appropriate punishments inflicted when it is not.

Further, I think that the current policy of rewarding people for producing offspring that they have no intention of properly parenting makes criminals of us all because we are accessories to repeated criminal acts.

How about this instead: if you bring children into the world then neglect them, the children are put into foster care and you are forced to labor, the fruits of which are then seized and used in support of the children?

The notion that we humans have the right to reproduce willy-nilly then leave the results to be seen to by society in general – or not seen to at all – is beyond inhumane.

Think about it – then offer your own thoughts in response.

Troy L Robinson