Tag Archives: war

Technological Subjugation In Our Nuclear Age

Posted on by

Technological Subjugation - Header

Technological Subjugation In Our Nuclear Age

by Benjamin T. Moore, Jr.

Yes there is certainly validity to the argument that a nation who builds a nuclear reactor could also build a bomb. To be sure the by products of nuclear technology can be weaponized. These materials could also fall into the hands of terrorist. Although, given the relative paucity of security around some of our nuclear sites, one has to wonder if this really is a primary concern.

War – Incubator For Technology

Human beings are a twisted species. Wars often provide the blood soaked, fertile ground in which the seeds of advancement are sown. It seems throwing a party where we all agree to murder one another, certainly gets our creative juices flowing!

Advancements in metallurgy were a result of building better swords, knives and battle axes. The sharpest edge known to man is still the edge on a fractured piece of flint. That perfect edge goes down to one molecule of thickness which is far sharper than any metal blade can ever be. The problem of course is, stone blades while excellent at slicing and cutting, make poor weapons because they chip and break under impact. Hence metals.

Technological Subjugation - Composite Bow

Composite Bow

The simple bow and arrow, while more than adequate for hunting, when applied to war, caused us to learn about adhesives, the advantages of compressed fibers, the mechanical advantages of geometric shapes and the list goes on. Some of the early “composite bows” were simply works of art. They used backings of animal sinew – applied with natural adhesives – to allow them to store more energy when flexed. They used animal horn on their recurved tips to provide mechanical advantage. Some of these same principles – albeit using different materials – can be seen practically applied in the construction of skyscrapers today.

Technological Subjugation - Egyptian Chariot

Egyptian Chariot

Egyptian chariots employed highly sophisticated suspension systems. For the archer to hit his target, the ride needed to be as smooth as possible. Some of these same principles are in the suspension systems of the cars we enjoy today. The lightness of the spoked wheel that first appeared on war chariots can be seen on high performance sports cars today.

Technological Subjugation - German V2 Rocket

German V2 Rocket circa WWII

Hitler’s V-2 rockets designed to rain down terror and destruction on England and other Allied Nations, were the genesis of our space program. Without the V-2 rocket and the technologies developed making it and refining it, Neil Armstrong would never have left his footprints on our Lunar surface. The technologies we developed solving the problems of surviving the harsh vacuum of space, not only had their genesis in war, but they too spawned other technologies we take for granted today.

We ended WWII by dropping two atomic bombs on Japan. This was horrible, malicious, genocidal and brutal. In my opinion, there was no excuse for it other than the fact, we wanted to test out our new weapon on human guinea pigs. That said, out of our weaponization of nuclear physics, we have discovered technologies that have reshaped human existence on this planet and stretched the very concepts of what is and isn’t possible.

We’ve developed high flux components which are used in heavy duty electrical contacts. We’ve developed super-conductors that are used everyday in MRI machines. Microwave technology came about as a result of research into nuclear physics. Plasma physics was spawned with all its applications. The ability to create and use carbon fibers was yet another advancement that came out of our nuclear program.

Technological Subjugation - Microwave Oven

Microwave Oven

The vehicle you drive today, no doubt would not be possible were it not for the war that caused us to create the atomic bomb. That microwave oven sitting on your kitchen counter, would not be there had we not learned how to build atomic bombs.

Technological Subjugation

When we place a global embargo on nuclear technology what are we really doing? If you’ve been paying attention to “Political Speak,” by now you’ve no doubt learned, to really understand what they’re saying, it is often better to simply take the opposite meaning. For instance the whole “Right To Work” laws, really have nothing to do with anyone’s right to work and everything to do with giving employers carte blanche to abuse and oppress their employees.

Thus when you hear things like “nuclear non-proliferation,” what are they really saying? Are they saying that those nations who currently have nuclear capabilities will not build any more bombs? Bigger bombs? Of course not! Why is it that the European powers are so dead set against anyone other than them having nuclear capability? I suggest for two reasons and the second may be the most important.

  1. They don’t want any non-European nation with the power to use a nuclear weapon against them.
  2. They want to keep a monopoly on the the economic gold mine that comes out of spin off technologies spawned by nuclear development.

What would happen if say, Iran as a result of its nuclear program, cracked the secrets to anti-gravity? Suddenly Space exploration would open up and Iran would hold the keys. The biggest cost of Space exploration is lifting men and materials into Space. Anti-gravity would make that cost a non-factor.

If India or Pakistan solved the problems of fusion reactions, suddenly nuclear power plants capable of safely and cleanly running entire neighborhoods and cities or even vehicles would be small enough to fit on your kitchen table. The Oil cartels would become all but extinct within a decade.

Technological Subjugation - Star Gate Earth

Star Gate Earth

Then there are the exotic technologies. What if one of these so called “3rd World Nations” learned how to make “worm holes” through which people, goods and services could be transported instantly? The entire transportation industries would be overturned instantly. Think “Star Gates.” We could send robot probes to the moon and mars, set up gates on those planets and build bases and begin Terra-forming those planets. We could begin mining our asteroid belt.

Technological Subjugation - Piri Reis Map

Piri Reis Map showing Antarctica’s coastline 4,000 years ago before the ice.

All these things would be wonderful for humanity as a whole… but they would spell doom for the current power structures who exist to control and yes, enslave humanity. If there is a “New World” by definition, there must be an “Old World.” The Americas are called “The New World.” The European continent is referred to as “The Old World.” Interestingly enough, there is irrefutable evidence that knowledge of the Americas existed during the times of the Egyptian Pharaohs. Yet, there were myths that kept sailors from venturing too far out to sea. Stories of Sea Serpents, the Kracken, the belief that if you sailed too far you’d fall over the edge of our flat Earth. All these things were designed to inhibit exploration.

Yes, many of the sailors – simple men – believed these myths. However, there were a cadre of people who knew better yet continued to support and proliferate these myths. They feared a mass exodus of taxpayers to the New World where they would no longer be under their control. This nation – The United States – was founded on the principles of freedom. Why was freedom so important? The founders knew first hand what life under the despotic monarchies was like. They believed that a democratically elected, Constitutional Republic would protect them from the despots in the “Old World.” They underestimated the insidious nature of their resolve.

When you hear Israel screaming bloody murder about the possibility of Iran having a nuclear program, remember that Israel already has one. Iran is no more of a threat to Israel than any other nuclear power in the world today. With the exception of North Korea, all of them, any of them could deliver a nuclear payload to Israel if they wanted to. What prevents them from doing so? Simple! The rest of the nuclear powers would immediately exterminate any nation foolish enough to employ a nuclear weapon against another nation. Why would Iran be any different? If you’re worried about nuclear materials falling into terrorist hands, you need to be more concerned about Russia and the now independent members of the old Soviet Republic. Some of those countries pay the people guarding their nuclear stockpiles less than $20 per week.

GOP Shown To Be Keystone Cops By President Obama

Posted on by

Gallery - GOP Keystone Cops Memeby Benjamin T. Moore, Jr.

GOP Shown To Be Keystone Cops By President Obama

Somebody help me out here. Are the Republicans for war with Syria or against war with Syria? When it appeared that we might be dropping bombs on Syria all I heard from the Republican party was “Tyranny,” “Dictator,” “Impeachable Offense,” “Unconstitutional” and “Highly Illegal.”

Not surprising since they are functionally illiterate and don’t read their own resolutions… like the one the Congress signed stating that Syria’s possession and use of chemical weapons was against the “Interests of these United States.” Details, details, surely that was under a different President and it doesn’t matter now… Of course it does!

What A Difference A Day Makes

Now that President Obama’s pressure is forcing a diplomatic solution, Republicans again are outraged! They’re tripping all over themselves with no clear idea of what their stance should be. Did we drop the ball? Is Putin getting all the glory for brokering a peace? It would be simply hilarious if you didn’t stop and realize, these idiots are in a position where the safety and welfare of this nation depend on their having good judgement.

It’s a good thing they already have “Obama Care!” It will pay for the psychiatric help they need. What they’re suffering from is commonly known as Schizophrenia. They don’t know which of their multiple personalities to bring to the fore on this issue. You can see them moistening their fingers and putting them in the air to see which way the wind is blowing. When our children’s lives are at stake, whether I disagree with your ultimate conclusion or not… it would certainly be nice to know as an elected official, you made the best choice possible under the circumstance. Right now? Everything they do, they measure against their own personal political gain. That’s not putting country first.

Should We Stop Talking About Racism?

Posted on by

Should We Stop Talking About Racism?by Benjamin T. Moore, Jr.

Because Not Talking Has Worked So Well…

Should We Stop Talking About Racism? - Ted Nugent

Ted Nugent

It is always amusing to me when certain white people attempt to designate a Black person and suddenly make him the spokesman for all Black people in America. It is about as cheerful as Black people declaring Ted Nugent to be the spokesman for white people in America. Get the point?

Black people are no more monolithic than white people. This strategy of declaring “leaders” and then only dealing with those handpicked few is another form of racism. Who are the white leaders? Who speaks for ALL white people?

We are not aliens and neither are white people. Thus this whole “take me to your leader” shtick needs to be retired. Most recently it has reared its ugly head with a meme being circulated quoting something Morgan Freeman said during an interview. Morgan says that his policy is not to discuss racism. I think he should probably stick to that policy. On the day in question, he proffered a solution to the racial problems in this country as to simply stop talking about it.

What a novel idea? Of course, not talking about a problem has always been effective right? Following this logic, we could solve all the ills on this planet simply by not talking about them! World hunger? Stop talking about it! Global poverty? Stop talking about it. Violence against women? If we stop talking about it, it will go away! Our declining educational system. Don’t mention it and suddenly all our students will begin getting straight “A’s.”

Should We Stop Talking About Racism? - Fukushima

Radioactive Seawater

If we simply stop talking about the Fukushima melt down, all that radiation that is being continuously released into the ocean ecosystem and the environment will stop. Want terrorism to end? Simply stop talking about it! What about the economy? Out of work? Under water on your mortgage? Just stop talking about it and everything will be fine!

Of course this is utter nonsense! One of the keys to our successful survival on this planet has been our ability to communicate to solve problems. Talking about our problems has always been the preferred solution. Talking about our problems has prevented and ended wars. The Internet wasn’t invented so you could update your relationship status on Facebook or post happy pictures of your feline. It was originally invented as a way for scientist to collaborate and share their research with other scientist around the globe. The quickest path to progress is through talking. Never forget this simple truth! Should we stop talking about racism? Hell no!

Zimmerman Acquittal – Lessons Learned (Part I)

Posted on by

Zimmerman Acquittal - Lessons Learned Headerby Benjamin T. Moore, Jr.

The Diagnosis – Part I

We are at war! We are not at war against all white people. Thankfully, the vast majority of white people are enlightened and committed to the same goals as we are. They are committed to creating a better world, a better life for their children and grandchildren, opportunity to grow and become the best they can be. If it were not for these white people – of all ages and economic brackets – coming out and voting in mass, we would not have elected President Obama. I have not forgotten – nor should you – that white people marched with Dr. King, had fire hoses and police dogs turned on them and some were even murdered for the cause. The following is an older white man expressing his outrage over the verdict in the George Zimmerman trial. (Warning – strong language and probably not suitable for work)

Merely because there has not been an official declaration of war, doesn’t mean you are not in a fight for your very existence nor does it mean that the higher principles this nation aspired to when it was founded are not under attack. The attack on Pearl Harbor occurred before a war was officially declared. The men and women who died that day are not any less dead because of this fact. There was not an official declaration of war prior to the attacks of September 11, 2001.

“As long as we play by these bullshit rules and the killer doesn’t, we’re gonna lose!” _Marion Cobretti (Cobra – Sylvester Stallone)

Rules Of Engagement

Zimmerman - Knights In BattleThe war that is being waged has been going on for thousands of years. It is about the wealthy maintaining power over the poor. You no doubt are familiar with the term “chivalry?” Most people upon hearing that word have visions of Knights in shining armour riding forth on their trusty steeds doing good for those less fortunate, rescuing damsels in distress and slaying dragons. The reality was quite different.

First, remember that all the royal families were related. They were cousins. The King of England – or Queen – was related to the monarchs of France, Russia, Germany, Spain and Denmark. One big extended family controlling the world. They all had the same problem, namely peasant population control. Too much prosperity and the peasant population grew too fast. Most wars were to decrease the peasant populations. Hence the rules of Chivalry. Under Chivalry, a peasant could not strike or touch a nobleman or his horse.

Zimmerman - English LongbowmenWhen they lined up for battle, guess how they lined up. The Knights always lined up opposite the peasants on both sides. They would ride into them and mow them down. If a peasant struck a Knight or his horse, they would pause the battle and execute the peasant. Things didn’t change until the advent of the English Long Bow. Archers could strike from a distance and it was impossible to determine which archer had fired the arrow sticking out of a Knight’s chest. If you go back and study history, you will find that there was quite an uproar about the unfairness and lack of chivalry of this tactic.

This mentality has carried over to this day. Snipers are both loved and hated on the battlefield. Why? Because they target officers. Back during the revolutionary war, Officers were the favorite targets of Colonial sharpshooters. It was considered unsportsmanlike. Generals and officers used to be at the front of their lines commanding their troops into battle from horseback in perfect safety. War became real when the peasantry began fighting back. It is time we began fighting back again.

Casualties And Fallout

Currently Black people make up about 13% of the total population. We also make up about 60% of the prison population. These figures if nothing else should make it clear we are under attack.

“According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, one in three black men can expect to go to prison in their lifetime. Individuals of color have a disproportionate number of encounters with law enforcement, indicating that racial profiling continues to be a problem. A report by the Department of Justice found that blacks and Hispanics were approximately three times more likely to be searched during a traffic stop than white motorists. African Americans were twice as likely to be arrested and almost four times as likely to experience the use of force during encounters with the police.”

We have witnessed young Black males murdered by police while they were face down on the ground with their hands behind their backs.

As is always the case, the officers claim to be in fear for their lives. In the video you can see a compliant subject who puts his hands up, then two officers manhandle him face down on the hard concrete floor. One is sitting astride his back the other is kneeling on his neck and shoulders. Imagine two grown men sitting on you like that. Could you breathe? You might begin to squirm to relieve the pressure. Now ask yourself, why is it that Black people always decide to resist once there are two or more Cops on top of them and they’re being handcuffed? If you were going to resist, would you wait until then to make your move? Or would you put up a fight when you had a better chance of success? Zimmerman’s defense was the same defense used by these officers and every other officer who uses lethal force.

Zimmerman - Police Academy

Police Academy

“I was in fear for my life and the safety of others.” This is a phrase they hammer into all Cops at the law enforcement academy. Why? How do you measure fear? How do you prove that a person is not in fear? Notice, by focusing on the issue of whether or not a person is in fear and whether or not that fear is justified, just as in the Zimmerman trial, we ignore the choices and actions of that person leading up to the confrontation. Was he afraid or not? He was dealing with a Black male. Black males are scary! Get a predominately white jury and they find it very easy to imagine a fear that may not have actually existed. So immersed do they become in their imagining this spectre of fear, caused by interaction with a Black male, their latent racism causes them to forget the facts. If you invade my home at night, unannounced and uninvited, you should be afraid… be very afraid. However, let us not forget, that it was you who placed your life at peril.

The War On Drugs Is A War On Black People

“The study, which was published Monday in the Archives of General Psychiatry, controlled for variables like socioeconomic status because rates of severe drug problems tend to be greater amongst the poor. Despite this, Native American youth fared worst, with 15% having a substance use disorder, compared to 9.2% for people of mixed racial heritage, 9.0% for whites, 7.7% for Hispanics, 5% for African Americans and 3.5% for Asians and Pacific Islanders.”

When you view these statistics, it is important to bear in mind that Black people are only 13% of the population. White people compose over 70% of the population. So when you see that 5% of Black people are involved with narcotics, remember that’s 5% of the 13%. Yet we make up 60% of the prison population and the large majority are there for narcotics crimes. Roughly, this means that law enforcement officers have to walk past 6.3 white drug users to arrest the 1 Black user. Is there any wonder why we’re losing the war on drugs? This isn’t by accident, this is by design.

Rolling Back The Clock

If you need further proof that minorities and Black people in particular are under attack, consider the ridiculous lines at the polls. Governments cut the number of voting machines in minority districts and shortened the times that voting could occur. Meanwhile in the predominately white suburbs, there were plenty of voting machines. Just recently, after watching all of this, the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act. Although there has not nor will there be a “formal declaration of war,” ask yourself what they would do differently? They’re jailing us, murdering us and doing everything within their power to roll this nation back to the 30’s and 40’s.

If you find this objectionable and wonder what to do about it or what can be done about it, stay tuned for Part II wherein I offer a prescription.

Understanding The Second Amendment Correctly

Posted on by

Understanding The Second Amendment Correctly Headerby Benjamin T. Moore, Jr.

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

Of all the Amendments to our Constitution, this Amendment comprised of a single sentence has caused more debate and confusion of late than any other. Understanding the Second Amendment correctly is crucial before we can have any meaningful debate on the subject of firearms in our society.

Understanding The Second Amendment

I am sorry to report, it has become increasingly apparent that literacy has gone down since the Constitution and Bill of Rights were penned. I have simply been stunned by what I’ve heard come out of the mouths of supposedly educated people in their efforts to discount the relevancy of the Second Amendment. I’m sure you’ve probably heard some of these arguments too. I will list generic forms of two of these arguments.

  • The word “regulated” means that the State can regulate what firearms you can have.
  • The Amendment applies to the State militia – or National Guard – not individual citizens.

The insipidness of these puerile arguments is the hallmark of a poor grasp of grammar, a lack of scholarship and often an indication that the person making such statements is merely parroting some other fool who probably knows even less on this subject than he or she does.

Understanding The Second Amendment - House SectionsLets parse the four clauses of the sentence. It is helpful to think of a house. The first clause; “A well regulated militia” could be considered the roof of the house. When the roof is complete the house is protected from the elements. What does the roof rest atop? The upper floor. The upper floor tells us the reason for the roof on the house. “Being necessary to the security of a free State.” Thus, it is the well regulated militia that is necessary to the security of a free State. This is the end product. However, right now, the upper floor and the roof are floating on thin air. Let’s add the ground floor. “The right of the people to keep and bear arms.” Note, it doesn’t say the right of the State to keep and bear arms. It is the right of the people to keep and bear arms. If it were the right of the State, we would have no need to even mention the people. Let’s add the foundation. “Shall not be infringed.”  

Working back up from the bottom, if the people’s right to keep and bear arms is infringed, they can never come together to form a militia. If there is no militia, it cannot be regulated, well or otherwise. The end result is that the the security of the free State is at risk.

Why The Second Amendment Came To Be

You must remember the experiences of the men whom we call the “Founding Fathers.” Most people seem to think that the “Declaration of Independence” and our “United States Constitution” were all put together at the same time. The Declaration of Independence was issued July 4th 1776. the Constitution was adopted September 17, 1787 and went into effect, March 4, 1789. The first 10 Amendments, which we call the “Bill of Rights” was ratified by three-fourths of the States in 1791. Thus between the Declaration of Independence, and our Constitution with its Bill of Rights, was a period of 15 years. That’s a decade and a half.

Understanding The Second Amendment - Minute Man StatueThis wasn’t some slipshod, slapped together process. It was based on reasoned debate with the lessons of a recent history that very nearly ended in disaster. The Revolutionary War was not supported by the majority of Americans. There were only 50% at best who supported becoming independent from England. Around 15 – 20% were “loyalist” and the rest were neutral. We were a colony without an organised army – at the time of the Declaration of Independence – fighting a “Super Power” for our right to exist autonomously. Had it not been for citizens forming militias, fighting and dying, these United States would not exist. We would still be British subjects. The “Founders” realized this and thus they made sure that we would always have an armed citizenry by encoding the right of the people to keep and bear arms within the United States Constitution.

The Difference Between The Militia And The Army

Understanding The Second Amendment - Military HaircutThe Army is an organ of the State. The Army is paid, equipped and totally supported by the State. The focus is on “uniformity.”  This is why you are issued a “uniform” when you’re inducted into the Army. Everybody gets the same buzz cut haircut. You’re issued the same firearms. They all shoot the same ammunition. Everyone receives the same basic training. If your rifle becomes non-functional, you can pick up the rifle of a fallen comrade and you don’t have to figure it out. If you run out of ammunition, a comrade can share his ammunition with you.

The Militia is entirely different. In the Militia, everyone – all able bodied males between the ages of 16 and 45… unless you’ve been “mustered” out you’re still in – brings whatever they’ve got at home. They bring their own rifles, ammunition, clothes and supplies. They’re not paid. They’re donating their services, their resources and often their lives for a cause they believe in. When the Second Amendment speaks of regulating them, it’s talking about organizing and making sure that their weapons are functional. Making sure that everyone brings the needed supplies, ammunition, food, tents and camping equipment. Tactics are taught and practiced. Strengths and weaknesses are noted and squads are organized. Marksmanship is taught and refined. This is what “Well Regulated” means. The establishment of regulations to ensure that everyone shows up with the proper resources.

Dispelling Some Oft Recited Myths

Understanding The Second Amendment - It's Not About Hunting

It’s Not About Hunting!

A lot of sophistry is employed by the “anti-gun” movement. When talking about the Second Amendment. Inevitably you’ll hear someone ask, “who needs an assault rifle with a 30 round magazine to hunt deer?” The person generally sits back smugly as though they’ve nailed some profound point. Clearly they haven’t got a clue that the Second Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with protecting one’s right to hunt. Hunting was a foregone conclusion. At the time the Second Amendment was enacted, everybody hunted, if they expected to eat. If there is any hunting involved with the Second Amendment, it provides the Citizens with the means to hunt enemies of our Constitution both foreign and domestic. I’m sure some find this troubling because some of the people most interested in subverting the Second Amendment are also interested in subverting the rest of the Constitution. Yes we still have tyrants and would be tyrants in our Government today.

Another popular argument which I’m sure you’ve heard bandied about by people you would think would have the education to know better is, “at the time the Second Amendment was written, they had muskets.” The gist of their point is, the Founders never could have conceived of the fire power available today. Again a specious argument. The facts are at the time the Second Amendment was written, all the armies of the world – those using firearms – also only had muskets. Thus, the Founders intended that the citizens be armed equivalent to whatever military force they were likely to face.

I’m sure you’ve heard this argument as well. “What about people owning tanks, grenades, or missiles?” The simple facts are, there are people who do own fully functional tanks, live grenades and missiles. To own a grenade requires a federal background check and a $200 tax stamp per grenade. As far as missiles are concerned, there are hobbyist who build and launch their own rockets. If you can build a rocket that will carry 3 people into space – it’s already been done – you sure as Hell can build an explosive payload and fire that rocket along a ballistic trajectory.

Understanding The Second Amendment - Revolutionary War Plantation Cannon

Revolutionary War era, Plantation cannon.

Moreover, private citizens owned cannons before and after the Second Amendment was enacted. These were not little celebratory salute cannons. These were fully functional war cannons, equivalent to anything the military had at that time and they were used to protect plantations. My neighbors notwithstanding, I’m sure that I would be discussed on CNN, MSNBC and several other national news shows if I set up a brace of fully functional Revolutionary War period cannons on either side of my front door. The fact that they too function like the muskets they’re so fond of would make no never mind. They would be beating the drum beat of panic for all they’re worth.

 Is The Second Amendment Still Relevant?

Another popular argument, usually made by those who do not understand  the Second Amendment correctly is, that it has been rendered irrelevant. Their reasoning is, our military has become so technologically advanced that a citizenry equipped with small arms would be quickly put down by the likes of “Predator Drones,” super sonic jets dropping smart bombs, attack helicopters firing “mini-guns,” basically all the high-tech toys of today’s modern warfare.

Understanding The Second Amendment - Wounded WarriorThat does sound daunting to be sure. Probably as daunting as a ragtag group of colonist going up against the most powerful army at that time back in 1776. However, we do have some “real world” experiences to look at. We’ve been in Afghanistan for over 12 years now. Afghanistan doesn’t have any organized army. They don’t have a navy or an air force, yet the most powerful military known to man has been fighting and dying there for over 12 years. During our adventures in Vietnam, we lost over 57,000 soldiers. Fortunately our medical science has advanced to the point that wounds which would have meant certain death during the Vietnam era, are now survivable. A last count, we’ve got over 32,000 casualties of the Afghan and Iraq wars. Most of them are in hospitals overseas in places like Germany. The actual death toll is around 3,000.

Not all the Afghans are fighting us. Much like our own Revolutionary War, there is only a percentage of Afghans who are hostile. Yet, that percentage, equipped only with “small arms” and improvised explosives are giving us one helluva time. Now consider the fact that there are more armed Americans with better weapons than the Afghans have. Further, factor into your thinking that a percentage of these are combat veterans. They’ve been trained in our strategies, tactics and techniques. Yes, I think the Founders set in place a very effective system to prevent tyranny.

We’ve Evolved Beyond The Need For The Second Amendment

“Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” _George Santayana (The Life of Reason) 1905

If only that were true! Human evolution is a long, slow, laborious process. We often believe that because our technology has evolved, we have evolved. The truth is, we are the same human beings who produced “Alexander the Great,” Genghis Khan, Pol Pot, Joseph Stalin and Adolph Hitler. Don’t get me wrong, we’ve also produced Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, Clara Barton, Abraham Lincoln and many other great and good people as well.

Understanding The Second Amendment - You Were WarnedTo believe that we’ve come so far that our citizenry now has nothing to fear from our Government is like deluding one’s self into believing that you’ve managed to tame a rattlesnake. You can let it sleep on your bed, but it’s going to end poorly. I’m told that when President Richard Nixon met with Chairman Mao of Red China, he asked him what he thought of American democracy. Chairman Mao is supposed to have replied, “it’s an interesting experiment. Let’s see how it turns out.”

We forget that there are buildings in Europe, still in use today, that are older than our nation. We really haven’t been around all that long. There are Japanese Americans living today and some who’s parents were rounded up and put into internment camps during WWII. They were born here and were American citizens in the fullest sense of the word. Yet, they received none of the protections they were guaranteed under our Constitution.

Understanding The Second Amendment - Guantanamo Bay Prison Camp

Prisoners In A Permanent State Of Limbo at Guantanamo Bay.

To those who seem eager to operate on our Constitution and strip out the Second Amendment, beware there are Republicans who are equally eager to do away with “due process.” They are quite comfortable with people being designated an “Enemy Combatant,” tortured and held indefinitely without ever seeing a judge. They have no problem with the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay remaining open indefinitely. They have no problem with the Government invading your privacy or inserting itself between you and your doctor. The only thing putting the breaks on these people is the Constitution. Any time a person is ushered into a surgical suite to be cut open, there is a chance the patient will die. While those who object to the Second Amendment are making their cuts, these Republicans will get to make their cuts as well.

Understanding The Second Amendment - Michael Bloomberg

Michael Bloomberg – Mr. 64oz.

Yes, we do have tyrants in government today. Mayor Michael Bloomberg outlawed 64oz soft drinks. Think about that for a moment. With all the other things that were certainly on his plate, he threw his weight behind telling the citizens of New York City, what size drinks they could have. Personally? I find that terrifying! Why? Because it proves to me that he is interested in micro-managing peoples individual choices at a level heretofore unseen. The question is, what all wouldn’t he do if he thought he could get away with it. Now consider that he only accepts $1.00 in salary for the year. Thus, it’s not about the money, it’s about power and control. It has been my experience that those who crave power desperately are usually the last ones you want to have it.

A Tale Of Two Dorners

Posted on by

A Tale Of Two Dorners Headerby Benjamin T. Moore, Jr.

There are a number of things I find profoundly disturbing regarding the Christopher Dorner case. They simply do not add up. On the one hand, in the lead up to Chris Dorner’s death by a self-inflicted gunshot and subsequent cremation, which strangely enough, seems to follow a pattern repeated time and again, two mutually exclusive pictures of Christopher Dorner have emerged.

A Tale Of Two Dorners

William J. Bratton

Ex-LAPD Chief William J. Bratton

On the one hand, we have a man whom passed the psych evaluations of both the United States Military and the LAPD. According to William J. Bratton, previous chief of the LAPD, the LAPD psych evaluation is one of the most stringent in the nation. Thus, to characterize Christopher Dorner as psychologically impaired seems a bit suspicious.

If he “snapped,” when did he snap? What was the “straw that broke the camel’s back” so to speak? Since we never got to actually hear from Christopher Dorner – his supposed “manifesto” notwithstanding – we have been forced to rely upon the characterizations by the LAPD, their spokespeople and the “talking head” shills, touting their credentials as having been FBI profilers. The stories they’ve told describe a large, dangerous, motivated man, who had been trained by the US military in survival, marksmanship, demolitions and a host of other rather nasty anti-social skills. On top of this training, he also received the best training the LAPD had to offer as well. This supposedly gave him knowledge above and beyond any ordinary fugitive. He knew LAPD tactics and procedures.

Clint Van Zandt

Talking Head Shill, Clint Van Zandt

To make things worse, to believe these media accounts, Chris Dorner had been planning this since 2008. Take a man with these skills, resources, the time to plan and prepare, you have an extremely dangerous foe indeed. This wasn’t a wasp stinging a buffalo, this was a Ninja striking from the shadows at night causing all of us to remember why we fear the dark. LAPD with the help of the United States military had created a “Frankenstein Monster” who was now stalking them. One might imagine that every Law Enforcement Officer in the area, was hearing the theme music from “Jaws” every time they stepped out of their door. The shark was out there. They were like swimmers praying they would make it back to the boat with all their limbs intact.

If one was attempting to orchestrate the media coverage to strike fear into the hearts of anyone in the area wearing a Law Enforcement uniform, they couldn’t have done it any better. However, the reality of the events as they unfolded, not only did not fit the trailer for the movie, they didn’t even follow the script.

The Manifesto

First of all, anyone trained in tactics and certainly anyone who knows the methods of the LAPD, would know better than to post on Facebook, a “be advised, I’m coming to kill you” heads up, complete with a list of targets. The first problem is, once people start dying it identifies you as the number 1 suspect. The 2nd problem is, all your targets become harder to hit. They go into lock down. They get a security detail, much like exactly what happened.

If 3 or 4 officers get shot, for no apparent reason, the panic you would cause would be multiplied because they would have no context to place the murders in, no suspect and no apparent motive for the crimes. If you’re going to wait from 2008 until now – 5 years – you’re not impulsive. You’re not even likely to be considered a suspect. LAPD would have been like a dog chasing it’s tail.

Christopher DornerThis brings us to the next problem. Christopher Dorner was accused of going to war with LAPD. Wars require planning, logistics, staging areas, tactics and strategy. Christopher Dorner would have learned this and practiced this during his time in the military. Yet, we saw no evidence of any of this as events unfolded. Give me 5 years to plan a campaign, and I’m going to have several “safe houses,” some hideouts, various caches of arms, ammunition and supplies, several vehicles, and an escape route all planned out. I am not going to be running, gunning and shooting it out with Law Enforcement. No high speed chases. No having to car jack civilians, no breaking into homes. I would be staying in one of my safe houses watching the news reports. Yet we are asked to believe that Christopher Dorner, with all his LAPD and military training, posted a manifesto with a list of targets, went on a shooting rampage, began with the lowest hanging fruit, the daughter of the attorney that defended him and then went on the run with no apparent backup plan? Does any of this seem suspicious to you?

Curiouser and Curiouser

One of the oft repeated explanations by Law Enforcement to explain the extreme difference in response when one of their own is shot as opposed to an ordinary citizen is, a person who will shoot a Cop poses and extreme threat to society. When a police officer is shot, they will throw every resource at their disposal into catching – and usually killing – the person accused of having done the shooting. When an ordinary citizen is the victim of a violent crime, their response is much more pedestrian.

Torrance Pic

The truck was shot up AFTER it had passed. Clearly not a threat.

The LAPD and its media shills, spared no expense in painting Christopher Dorner as a crazed madman. They told us ahead of time that he probably would not surrender and that he would probably go out in a “BLAZE of glory.” Their reasons for these predictions became clear early on if you were paying attention. They shot up two civilian vehicles shooting two women delivering papers and the truck of another man who happened to be White. Witnesses say that at no time did the Police give the people in these vehicles the opportunity to surrender. No attempt was made to arrest the occupants of these suspected vehicles. Let alone any efforts to determine whether or not Christopher Dorner was actually in the vehicles.

If you were Christopher Dorner and you were aware of these incidents, what would your response be upon being approached by Cops? The message was clear. Arrest, surrender is not an option! Under these circumstances, what would you do?

Monica Quan and Keith Lawrence

Monica Quan and Keith Lawrence

Yes, Christopher Dorner was depicted as a crazed madman, but was he? Remember, there were no witnesses and no physical evidence of Christopher Dorner having shot anyone. All we have is the alleged “manifesto” he is supposed to have posted. If we are to believe that he murdered the daughter of the attorney who defended him, as well as her fiancé who was unrelated and not involved, then why did he not murder the two women he held hostage? Tying someone up is much more problematic than simply shooting them. In point of fact, they managed to release themselves and call the police.

Same question with the fellow he “car jacked.” Leaving witnesses behind who could reveal your demeanour, details of any conversations, what equipment you had with you and of course, describe the vehicle you took, would not be a sound strategy. Wouldn’t a “crazed madman,” a person on a rampage simply shoot these people?

Dorner Cabin

They’re awfully close to that cabin aren’t they?

Then of course there is the conclusion. Christopher Dorner holed up in a mountain cabin. Helicopters circling. A gun battle raging ending up with the cabin being destroyed by fire. The official police version was that Christopher Dorner took his own life in the end and they stress that they did not intentionally set the fire. Unfortunately, there is a YouTube video where you can hear the police plainly state, “get the gas and burn it down.”

Why burn it down? Fire does an exceptional job of destroying evidence. If he had any documents on him, if he had a USB thumb drive with evidence, fire would have destroyed them. Of course, saying that he committed suicide also absolves the police in the minds of the public for his murder. Isn’t it funny that all these types of cases seem to end with the person saving the police the trouble of shooting them?

Burned Out Cabin

But the driver’s license survived… Yeah right!

Then there’s the curious nature of the fire. We watched that fire burn that cabin all the way to the ground. The fire burned so hot the police couldn’t go in and search the rubble until the next day after the fire department hosed it down. The body was so charred that it could not be positively identified… however, they did find his wallet with his driver’s license which miracle of miracles did not burn up in the fire. Does this seem suspicious to you?

When you add it all up, according to the police accounts, Christopher Dorner could not steal a boat even though he was in the Navy. He drops his LAPD badge on the dock and next turns up almost 200 miles away. His truck breaks an axle and he sets it on fire which is guaranteed to draw attention to it. Takes two women hostage and holds up for a few days before one of them escapes and calls the police. He then steals their vehicle, dumps that and car jacks another vehicle, gets into a gun fight with a couple of fish and game officers and then flees into the woods and holds up in a vacant cabin where he ends it all in flames. It is possible all these things happened just as reported. The problem is, none of this fits the original description of the highly competent trained killer depicted by the media.

How About An Alternative Possibility?

Man Hunt Map

Man Hunt Map

Everything hinges on this “manifesto” supposedly published by Christopher Dorner. But what if he had nothing to do with it? I’m sure the first question that may occur to you, if you’ve taken the time to read it might be, how could he not have published it since it contains so much personal information? Information about his childhood. School experiences. Time in the military etc? Where would anyone get that information? Simple. Remember his psychological evaluation performed by the LAPD? The personal information contained within the “manifesto” could well have been covered, disclosed and in his files.

Suppose tomorrow you went to log into your Facebook page and discovered something on your wall, presumably from you, that you had not posted. Suppose it contained threats and a “hit list?” What would you do? We know that Christopher Dorner was a “whistle-blower.” He had broken the “Code of Silence” and been fired for doing so. Would he have sat quietly for 5 years? Or perhaps he would have continued to collect information. What if he had come across some extremely damaging information on some people in power in the LAPD hierarchy?

What would someone in power do? They would have to discredit him and silence him. Notice that the only person remotely attached to his hit list that was murdered, was the daughter of an attorney who made a career of defending Cops against the LAPD. Not a high ranking LAPD officer. The other Cops that were “ambushed” were low ranking patrol officers. Again, not high value targets on his “hit list.” It seems peculiar to me that one would put a paramilitary organization – that’s what the LAPD is – on notice and then for your opening bid, not go for a high value target, but pick off some relative peons on the force and the daughter of an attorney whom the LAPD probably doesn’t care for to begin with.

This is a tale of two Dorners that simply doesn’t fit. When things do not fit, we should pay attention and bring to bear the most critical examination possible. We owe it to ourselves to not only ask hard questions but demand the answers to those questions. If Christopher Dorner was the threat he was built up to be, why then did the officers who encountered him open fire immediately rather than call for backup? It’s a job not an adventure. The objective is to go home to your family at the end of your shift. The only thing you would have to do is maintain visual contact at a safe distance until reinforcements arrived. Initiating a gun battle was unnecessary and cost one officer his life. I am convinced there is much more to this story than we have as yet been told.

How Many More Like Him Are Out There?

If he is crazy, clearly psych screenings are a waste of time…

Abortion Myth-Direction. Playing the Pro-Life Movement for Political Gain.

Posted on by

Abortion Myth-Direction

by Benjamin T. Moore, Jr.

Ebers Papyus - Ancient Egyptian instructions for inducing abortions.

Ebers Papyrus. Ancient Egyptian Medical Text on how to induce abortions.

A brief history of abortion

Believe it or not, abortion is not new. It has been around for thousands of years. It was practiced in ancient Rome and the earliest reference comes from ancient Egypt. For those who’s views are informed by their religious faith, particularly the Christian faith, this is something to think about. Jesus would have of been familiar with the practice of abortions, yet he is not recorded as saying anything about it. As a matter of fact, Abortions do not even merit an honorable mention in the Bible.

We often believe that abortion is the result of modern medical advancement. Nothing could be further from the truth. Surprisingly enough, unwanted pregnancies have been occurring since people first began to make babies. Not long afterwards, they began discovering how to terminate those pregnancies. The irony is, some of the methods practiced in “Ancient Egypt” and other places, employed the exact same approach used today. They used certain plant based suppositories to cause a hormonal reaction which would end the pregnancy.

When does life begin?

When life begins depends on one's point of view

When life begins is largely dependent on the person answering the question.

The answer to this question depends on one’s subjective point of view. Does life begin at conception? Does it begin when the brain becomes active in the fetus? Does it begin when the baby takes it’s first breath? Does life begin before conception? Some people believe we live many lives. It might even be prudent to ask, “what exactly is human life?” The answer to this question truly depends upon the person being asked and the person asking the question. It could be argued in a variety of ways, with each position able to defend their points of view.

The problem is, it really comes down to the belief of the person asking the question and doing the answering. From the perspective of the Christian Bible, it is interesting to note, Adam did not become a “living soul” until he took his first breath from God. He was fully formed – presumably an adult – with all his limbs, organs, vital system etc., but he was not alive until the moment of that first breath. Thus, based on that passage in the Bible, I could sustain the argument that life does not begin until the moment a baby takes its first breath. I’m sure many will find this unsatisfactory because it goes against what they’ve been led to believe.

Of course, one could also use the Bible to argue that life begins before conception.

[KJV] Jeremiah 1:5
Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations

Note the the part about being known before being formed in the womb. This could support those who believe that we live many lives. To be known, one must exist. Actually there are numerous Biblical passages which suggest reincarnation and multiple lifetimes. However, dealing with that topic is for another day. It does raise an interesting question. To wit: If one is known prior to coming here and God is intimately involved in whom comes here and why, does it seem logical that God would send someone into a body that was going to be aborted? It is a question of faith, and it is worthy of thoughtful contemplation.

Abortions in the Bible

The Holy Bible

The Holy Bible

While the Bible does not mention abortion by name or seem to take issue with people practicing abortions, oddly enough there are passages in which either God causes an unnatural termination of pregnancy or authorizes a ritual to accomplish much the same thing. In the book of Hosea a curse is placed upon Ephraim. A part of that curse involves God causing miscarriages. This is without a doubt the ending of a pregnancy unnaturally. An abortion by any other name… except that the abortion provider in this case is God.

There are numerous passages where God demands the murder of pregnant women. If you murder the pregnant mother, you’re effectively aborting the fetus as well. Thus this notion of God being against abortions is actually unsustainable when one actually examines the Bible. Those who identify as Christian and oppose abortion for religious reasons, clearly have not read their Bibles.

Hypocrisy that knows no bounds

“Don’t tell me what you value. Show me your budget and I’ll tell you what you value.” __Joe Biden

Fertilizing of the egg. 9 months then you're on your own

Enjoy it while it lasts

It is high time someone called the “Pro-Life” movement on their blatant hypocrisy. Some of the same people who are out picketing Abortion Clinics will leave that protest, head cross town and join up with a TEA Party rally. Some of the same people protesting abortions, on the basis of being “Pro-Life,” believe in and support the “Death Penalty.” Where were they when we invaded Iraq? This sovereign nation had nothing to do with the attacks on September 11, 2001. They did not have any “Weapons of Mass Destruction.” Hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians, men, women and children lost their lives, where were these “Pro-Life” protesters?

Chart of cuts to education under Republican run States

Notice the difference between the Red and Blue States?

Life is more than just conception. It is more than just giving birth. It is providing shelter for your child, food, clothing, medical care, education, all those things Republicans are hell bent on cutting. They know the words, but they don’t know the music. They speak the “Pro-Life” language, but when you look at their actual policies, their words ring hollow.

Inigo Montoya

Pro-Life? I do not think it means what you think it means.

The same people who are marching under the “Pro-Life” banner are some of the same people who are in the TEA Party. They complain about taxes they aren’t even paying. These are the same TEA Party Republicans who want to cut funding for education, want to do away with the “Affordable Care Act” which gives health care to millions of children who did not have it before. These are the same people who are against school teachers being given a raise. These are the same people who will vote for a candidate who has as much as promised a war with Iran if he’s elected. Yet they claim to be “Pro-Life.”

Oil Company Subsidies and the Congress

This shows what they value and it’s not Pro-Life

Make no mistake. Although resources are always limited and choices have to be made, when you vote to give $4 billion dollars in subsidies to the most profitable corporations on this planet – the Oil Industry – while at the same time cutting spending for “Head Start,” “School Lunch Programs,” “Pell Grants,” “Education,” “Health Care” and a host of other programs that provide quality of life and opportunity, don’t pretend to be “Pro-Life.” As Joe Biden says, “don’t tell me what you value, show me your budget and I’ll tell you what you value.”

The harsh realities of an Abortion decision

Surgical Suite

Surgical Suite – Most people tend to avoid these if at all possible

I am puzzled by those who have convinced themselves that getting an abortion is the equivalent – if not easier – of going to their dentist for a teeth cleaning. An abortion is an invasive medical procedure. It’s an operation. I know of few people if any who look forward to being operated on. You can die from an abortion and people have died. An abortion is not a woman’s first choice. There is a recovery period following an abortion. Complications, both physical and psychological are common.

Pregnant Teenager

It can and does happen

Consider your average 14 year old. Remember when you were 14? You had all the answers didn’t you? You were as good as grown, just waiting for the rest of the world to catch up with your epiphany. Yet, at 14 years of age, if your parents had put you out of their home, they would have been charged with child neglect. The State won’t give you a driver’s license because at 14? They know you don’t have good judgement. At 14, you may have thought you knew everything you needed to know. Yet, going to school was still mandatory. Even if you were industrious and got a job, your parents have to sign off on it. During the school year your employer, by law had to limit your hours.

At 14 you cannot vote, you cannot buy liquor, you cannot smoke and you cannot enter into a legally binding contract. The State understands this and protects the 14 year old from his or herself. Unfortunately, at 14 you can get pregnant. Rarely does a 14 year old get pregnant by following her parent’s instructions or advice. It was because of her lack of judgement that she got pregnant. A 14 year old doesn’t have the requisite judgement to drive, vote, end their educational career or work a full time job, but suddenly we’re going to pretend that she’s got the judgement to become a mother? This is insanity on a whole new level.

If she carries the baby to term now what? She cannot get a job because she cannot drop out of school. If she lives in poverty, her parent(s) may both be working. Which of them should quit their job to stay at home and care for their grandchild? They cannot afford child care costs and the cost for infant care is even higher. Currently? There are programs in place to offer some assistance. However, Republicans are going after those programs hammer and tong to dismantle and de-fund them. Many of these Republicans fly under the “Pro-Life” moniker. But are they?

What about giving the child up for adoption? That is a shotgun solution usually put forth by people whom have no idea what they’re talking about. First of all, it’s not that easy. It’s not that cut and dried. Even if it were, by the time that 14 year old carries her child to term, holds her baby just one time, there’s no letting go. It’s that whole judgement thing again. Guess what! The same courts who in their infinite wisdom have determined that a 14 year old cannot drive, vote, smoke, drop out of school, or drink beer… those same courts will suddenly determine that this same 14 year old who is too young to enter into a legally binding contract, has the right to keep her baby. Not only is she now condemned to poverty, but her child is as well. The thing about poverty? It becomes an endlessly repeating cycle. Children raising children. Like the sign over the gate to Hell, “Abandon All Hope Ye Who Enter Here.”

Often the pressures of parenting at such an early age cause young parents to become abusive. Thus we now add abuse to the poverty stew. Abuse begets abuse and often a child born under such conditions winds up in jail, a ward of the State or worse.

Understanding the statistics

At some point in the Abortion debate, the subject of acceptable exemptions comes up. Usually those who are moderate agree that Abortions should be available in cases of rape, incest or to protect the health of the mother. A disturbing trend has developed of late. Now, certain people are even discounting these as legitimate reasons to perform abortions.

Under Reporting Rape

Most rapes are never reported

According to The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, 1% of abortions are due to rape or incest and 6% involve the health of the mother. There is a problem with that first statistic. Rape is one of the most under reported crimes there is. This comes from the Department of Justice and FBI studies. Out of 100 rapes only 46 are ever reported. 54% go unreported. There are many reasons for this. Oft times the rapist is someone the victim knows. It may be the boyfriend of her mother, it may be a brother-in-law and uncle or cousin. The fear of what would happen to family relationships should the victim go public is often enough to keep the victim silent.

This is the dirty little secret that resides in the dark, dank fetid corners of our culture. We do not want to talk about it. We pretend that if we do not acknowledge it, it will cease to exist. Question: If most women don’t report their rapes to the police, what are the odds they’re going to report it to the doctor performing the abortion? Would the doctor be required to report it? If a 16 or 17 year old gets raped by say her mother’s boyfriend, most will never tell their mother what really happened. They’re not going to tell the police and should they get pregnant, they’re not going to tell the doctor. Thus that 1% figure is an error. What should it actually be? I have no idea and I’m not sure anyone can accurately determine the true figure. All we know is that it is higher. Rape by it’s very nature is not a planned sexual encounter. I don’t think a rapist acting on the spur of the moment, stops to put on a condom. Thus because the sex is unprotected, there is a much higher chance of an unwanted pregnancy occurring.

Ramifications of reversing Rowe v. Wade

Reversing Rowe is not going to end abortions. Abortions have been going on since the time of the Ancient Egyptians. They will continue. What will happen is, they will go underground. No laws or regulations. No one to prevent late term abortions from occurring. No licensing agency. Think about it like the war on drugs. We all know how well that’s turned out.

RU-486 Pill

“The morning after pill”

In fact, there would be an immediate black market created for the RU-486 pills. If you cannot keep cocaine, meth or an assortment of other narcotics off our streets and – dirty little secret – out of our prisons, do you think you’ll have better success with RU-486? Once that market is created, all sorts of people will rush in to fill that void. Some will produce fakes, others, lacking the technology or quality control will be pushing pills that are dangerous and in some cases deadly. Not a problem for you? Actually it may be. As parents, try as we might, we often do not know when our children become sexually active. Should a pregnancy occur, what might a daughter do to keep from disappointing her parents?

Something else to consider, what if a woman has a legitimate miscarriage? A woman discovers herself to be pregnant. The pregnancy is unplanned and she’s dealing with the ramifications of bringing a new life into this world. She begins seeing her doctor for pre-natal care. She shares her reservations with her doctor. So he knows she’s having some anxiety. One day while she’s at work, she begins having cramps. She runs to the bathroom and miscarries into the toilet. Does that toilet now become a crime scene?

Crime Scene Toilet Seat

Could this become a crime scene?

With Abortions becoming illegal it would also be illegal for her to have taken RU-486 or some other abortion inducing compound. If she’d taken something to cause a miscarriage, under the law she would have committed feticide. Would she be required to try and recover the fetal mass for analysis? Should she call the police so their crime team can come and recover the evidence? When she returns to her doctor, he’s going to know she’s no longer pregnant, will he be required to report her? Would this have a chilling effect on women seeking pre-natal care? These are things that must be considered.

Picking a place to be

Paying lip service to being “Pro-Life” does not make one “Pro-Life.” To be “Pro-Life” you must be supportive of all the systems that make life possible. Pre-natal care, post-natal care, health care for the child and the mother, nutritional support such as WIC programs, early learning, “Head Start” and other programs which aid parents and children, must be supported.

When you cut public assistance programs, you’re not just cutting adults, you’re also cutting the children that depend on those adults. When you do not support “A Living Wage” for people at the low end of the income scale, you’re not supporting the children they are responsible for.

Array of contraceptive devices

Various contraceptive methods

When you refuse to support access to contraception for women or sex education in the schools, you’re increasing the number of unwanted pregnancies. Abstinence? Works great… right up until it doesn’t. When it comes to sex, we’re like a person with a carbohydrate addiction in a bakery. Eventually we’re going to eat something sweet. We are hard wired for sex from millions of years of evolution. The survival of our species depends on it.

“Agent Smith: I’d like to share a revelation that I’ve had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species, and I realised that humans are not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment; but you humans do not. Instead you multiply, and multiply, until every resource is consumed. The only way for you to survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern… a virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer on this planet, you are a plague, and we… are the cure.”

We’re so good at it, we now have over 300 million living here in the United States and over 7 billion populating the entire planet. We are in the middle of a population explosion. The global population is growing exponentially. The resources on our planet are not. We have seen what happens in nature when a population of creatures becomes unbalanced. Their population explodes until they consume all available resources and then they die slowly, painfully from disease and starvation.

Farmers Inspect their withered crop

Farmers inspecting their withered crops

The reality is, we’re already beginning to see the signs of this happening to us already. When you see those commercials at night showing you starving and impoverished children, they live in places where the populations grew beyond the resources required to sustain them. Could anything like that happen here? What makes you think it couldn’t? This past year we had one of the worst and widest droughts since the “dust bowl” of the 30’s. It hit in our main agricultural belts. We will not fully understand the impact of this drought until this spring. It will take that long for whatever crops we were able to harvest to be turned into the staples we rely on for sustenance.

Marie Antoinette

“Let them eat cake.” __Marie Antoinette

We no longer understand our relationship with the land. We go to grocery stores and super markets without ever stopping to ask “where does that produce come from?” We are living out the “let them eat cake” mentality that caused Marie Antoinette to lose her head. Her inability to realize that her people were starving was no doubt exacerbated by the largess she enjoyed. Her pantry was full. The supermarkets and grocery stores have become our pantries. It won’t hit home for us until we go to the store and find those shelves bare. What will we do?

Every choice, every decision carries consequences. If you want to decrease the number of abortions, but you object to providing access to contraceptions and sex education, you’re not “Pro-Life.” If you want to decrease the number of abortions but you’re against having your tax dollars go to support the programs and agencies that provide support and make it possible for struggling people to care for their children, you’re not “Pro-Life.” If you’re not concerned about planetary resources, preserving our environment and repairing our fragile ecosystems, you’re not “Pro-Life.”

If your concern for human life begins at conception and ends at birth, you’re not “Pro-Life,” you’re Pro-Fetus and that is something entirely different. Don’t get it twisted.