gototopgototop
" Most people live, whether physically, intellectually, or morally, in a very restricted circle of their being…. Great emergencies and crises show us how much greater our vital resources are than we had supposed. "
—William James


keithbeach2

…that measures its sanity by the percentage of its people who know they are free. People with unshakeable clarity that their most fundamental rights — to think for themselves and speak their minds without fear of jail, to form voluntary associations of their choosing, to enjoy the fruits of their labor, to acquire private property and protect it at gunpoint if necessary — are not given by government, or society, or any person.

A nation whose vitality and resilience depend on individuals who consider those rights intrinsic to their very being: the spiritual equivalent of DNA. Such that when any aspect of the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness is assaulted — they feel it like a punch in the gut. Patriotism gets personal. Conversations begin around the office water cooler, over back yard fences, at diners, gas stations and softball fields. In this way diverse people find out they’ve got something crucial in common. Born free and mean to stay that way.

America’s Founders were that kind of people. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison risked the gallows when they declared government has no power except those voluntarily granted it by the people. When they insisted that the fundamental duty of government is to secure (read: safeguard) our inherent and “unalienable” natural rights. They brought forth a republic with the Constitution of the United States as supreme law of the land. No better instrument has been devised for protecting personal liberty by establishing a limited and defined role for government.

Now this great achievement is threatened by a worldview that contradicts the principles of America’s Founding at every turn. By an ideology that promotes the psychology of victimization and rage against imaginary villains, infantile claims to entitlement and compensation, primitive feelings of envy and inferiority. Marxist in fact though seldom in name, this movement demands guaranteed rewards regardless of talent, skill, motivation or effort. This militant crusade vows to meet the needs of “The People” from cradle to grave, betting that a majority can be seduced to support candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury.

Fortunately the politics of perennial preschool is free — or seems so — only at first. Tuition day eventually comes. The same government that offers to absolve us from responsibility for our lives gets to determine what we can own, eat and drive; how we manage our businesses; how much of our money we can keep; the number of guns — if any — they will let us own; what we are allowed to say.  Even what we are permitted to think (thanks to the advent of “hate crimes”).

Good news: more and more Americans are figuring out that annexing the core functions of adulthood to the state involves unacceptable trade-offs. A recent CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey found that 56 percent of Americans believe that the government has become so powerful it constitutes an immediate threat to the freedom and rights of citizens. When only 21 percent of Americans say that Washington operates with the consent of the governed, we face an alarming crisis.

And a remarkable opportunity.

The Founders knew it was up to each successive generation to keep the Spirit of 1776 alive. “Don’t blow it.” That’s what I imagine the 56 signers of the Declaration Of Independence telling us. Their mission was to create a government where the primacy of constitutional authority is basic to liberty, opportunity, prosperity and the social contract. Where personal responsibility, voluntary cooperation, fiscal integrity and abiding respect for life all are crucial to the foundation of culture.

A society where the first requisite of a good citizen, in Theodore Roosevelt’s words, “is that he shall be able and willing to pull his own weight.” A country that supports America’s national interest in advancing freedom and opposing tyranny in the world, and prudently considers what we can and should do to that end.

That’s also the mission of Sane Nation. Welcome.

Abortion

"There's A Little Person Living Inside You. Have A Look."

Keith Thompson Wednesday, 28 April 2010 09:23

Oklahoma's legislature has overriden Gov. Brad Henry's veto of two abortion bills, one requiring pregnant women to undergo an ultrasound and listen to a detailed description of the fetus before getting an abortion. "The person who performs the ultrasound must describe the dimensions of the fetus, whether arms, legs and internal organs are visible and whether the physician can detect cardiac activity. He or she must also turn a screen depicting the images toward the woman so she can see them" (Tim Talley, Associated Press).

Outraged pro-abortion activist Jennifer Mondino says the ultrasound requirement intrudes upon a patient's privacy. "The constitutional issues are very serious," she adds.

Agreed: serious constitutional issues here. Let's figure this out.

First things first. Neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution that enshrines its core ideas establishes a two-tiered legal policy on human beings defining a superior class as persons with rights and an inferior class without rights. Humans per se are understood as possessed of inherent rights, such as the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. The Fourth Amendment starts with: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons." The right not to be summarily executed at any stage of life might be considered a reasonable extension of this intrinsic right.

OK, let's move on to a biological fact. The human embryonic organism formed at fertilization is not a potential or a possible human being, but rather an an actual human being with the potential to grow bigger and develop its capacities. Which leaves a crucial question not yet answered: Whose life are we talking about? Or more to the point: When abortion is the subject, how many lives are in play? (Hint: more than one. Extra credit if it occurs to you that an ultrasound image offers a glimpse of the most vulnerable one. This is noted because not everybody cares about that — by their own words, Sen. Barbara Boxer and Sen. Russ Feingold among them.)

Consider: During a Senate debate a while back, Sen. Rick Santorum tried to get Sen. Boxer to clarify at what point during a late-term abortion it would be permissable to kill the newborn. This exchange actually took place on the floor of the U.S. Senate:

Boxer: You asked me a question, in essence, when the baby is born.
Santorum: I am asking you again. Can you answer that?
Boxer: I will answer the question when the baby is born. The baby is born when the baby is outside the mother's body. The baby is born.
Santorum: I am not going to put words in your mouth –
Boxer: I hope not.
Santorum: But, again, what you are suggesting is if the baby's toe is inside the mother, you can, in fact, kill that baby.
Boxer: Absolutely not.
Santorum: OK. So if the baby's toe is in, you can't kill the baby. How about if the baby's foot is in?
Boxer: You are the one who is making these statements.
Santorum: We are trying to draw a line here.
Boxer: I am not answering these questions! I am not answering these questions.

Thus Sen. Boxer asserted her right to keep her views private as to the precise moment, during an actual live birth which started out as an intended abortion, it is OK to execute the newborn. (Just so we're clear: One toe out ... the baby stands a good chance of making it to an wetnurse, and eventually to adoptive parents.) Sen. Feingold had his own thoughts on the privacy issue:

Santorum: "If that baby were delivered breech style and everything was delivered except for the head, and for some reason that that baby's head would slip out - that the baby was completely delivered - would it then still be up to the doctor and the mother to decide?"
Feingold: "The standard of saying it has to be a determination, by a doctor, of health of the mother, is a sufficient standard that would apply to that situation."
Santorum: "That doesn't answer the question. Let's assume the head is accidentally delivered. Would you allow the doctor to kill the baby?"
Feingold: "That is a question that should be answered by a doctor, and by the woman who received the advice from the doctor."

Sometimes words really do speak for themselves.