As children we learn about right and wrong, good, bad etc. We learn these things from our parents, then from clerics, teachers and finally, perhaps most importantly, our peers.
When we played games with our pals we learned there were rules which usually coincided with what we already learned at home/school/church but they quickly took on more meaning since not playing by the rules had immediate consequences. This gave instant relevance to the axiom do to others as you want them to do to you or something like.
Not everyone went to church or even the same church, but somehow the ethics, standards and moral codes we developed became universal, all of us coming to the same understanding of what constituted good and bad etc. You could say these teachings/beliefs were universal since we shared their understanding and as we grew they held their sway/utility as we moved thru life. I would venture to say they were axiomatic, bordering on absolute.
Honesty is the best policy; lying about anything is almost always wrong! In daily routines if our behavior/demeanor is honest and truthful we tend to get along better than if we of-
ten or even sometimes lie. To make friends people have to trust you and trust is built on dependability, which in turn depends on telling the truth.
Can we therefore say lying can never be good or come to a good result? Philosophically or abstractly I think we can, but pragmatically in our daily life we can expect that, in some ex-treme situations, lying is actually good. For instance, a criminal enters your home, confronts you and asks if there is any-body else on the premises? You say no, even though your lit-tle brother is upstairs in his room. You act to achieve a best result, which is protecting your brother, though you must lie to achieve it.
Does this prove The Golden Rule or Honesty is the Best Policy are not workable absolutes in our daily life? I think not. In an overwhelming majority of times, telling the truth serves us best. Now, how about truth itself? Can it be objective and provable, or is it almost always variable/relevant to the situation at hand, meaning different people see it differently?
The OJ Simpson trial was supposed to prove one thing: did he kill his wife and her lover or not? The jury decided no. Given the evidence and circumstance, I believed he did, and considered their verdict a travesty of justice. They apparently believed he was a widely loved celebrity, a wronged husband and a Black man, giving them license to view everything from his perspective; benefit of any doubt, sympathy for his rage at her infidelity, deciding it was high time to get payback for Blacks! As for truth, only OJ knows. It’s lurking there in all the opportunity, motive, evidence, circumstantiality. Most reasonable unbiased people saw it in the absence of an air-tight alibi . . but as a person I know likes to say, he was found not guilty, even if truth found him guilty, and that’s what counts.
Many saw this verdict looming ahead and were OK with it. Does that make it right? Should emotions/prejudices/vindictiveness carry our hunt for truth? What about elections? Our country works based on consent of the governed and elections shout out that voice. If those in minority are fed up with this reality and decide the only way they can be heard is by shouting louder, over-stepping/cheating does that make it right? Why do many people think so? Why are so many not able to see this truth?
There are literally mountains of evidence proving, state by state, the elections were rigged. Where’s the outrage! In one state they actually caught an individual who was responsible for tampering with procedures/machines causing a shift of over 600,000 votes from Trump to Biden, giving Biden the victory. For some reason, authorities reduced the charge from vote tampering/treason to gov’t trespass and let him go. This was treason in its simplest form, denying consent of the governed in their majority! A minority has rights and can air them in a variety of ways but, bottom line, if they don’t convince enough people they’re being mistreated/disen franchised or how their way is best, they must accept the voting majority has final say over the destiny of a republic.
Take Socialism. Many people believe in it, think they can make it work, wish that America would move closer to the socialist model. Most people/most Americans believe our democratic republic is the best form of government and continue to vote in support to this. A socialist-minded person who was born/raised in America and exposed to the same teachings/learnings as the rest of us consequently shares the same values/ethics about right and wrong. If they actively participate in election fraud they know it’s wrong, it’s breaking the law and can’t be thought of as their constitutional right. No matter what they believe or how dedicated they are, that rationale can never be justified.
Regular rank and file citizens who vote without study or re-view, who don’t listen to the candidate and simply vote red or blue, count on their Party’s loyalty to America in terms of current diligence and future trajectory. If the Party hierarchy has been taken over by radicals/ideologues and candidates project those ideas, hapless voters think they’re voting for traditional blue/red but in reality may be voting to overthrow the government!
This is not hypothetical! It’s happening right now in many states where the Democrat Party is endorsing candidates who are radical left socialists and/or Islamists. Both hold and represent anti-American ideas and concepts and will pose a political threat should they ever get traction with the electorate. If a person willfully or ignorantly votes for such a candidate they are aiding and abetting a seditious effort to start a revolutionary movement whose sole purpose is to destroy our republic!
Does one/should one have a right to be a socialist, globalist or communist? The Declaration states we have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Bill of Rights under the Constitution, 1st Amendment, states we have the right to Free Speech. Some if not many look at this and interpret it to mean YES!, we can think and believe anything we want and the Constitution guarantees our right to do it!
The 2nd Amendment also guarantees our right to own a gun, but doesn’t say we have the right to use the gun to kill someone or commit a crime. Isn’t this the crux of the issue? The founders gave us a dozen rights thinking we would use those rights to better enjoy life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. They never dreamed a growing element over time would try
using these same rights to tear down government itself! Why would they, when they felt they had crafted the best government ever known to man, which eventually would make it the happiest place on earth. Why would they constitutionally insert steps/procedures/actions that could lead to if not precipitate nation-cide?
The first time we let a Muslim swear into office on the Koran we were inviting this outcome. The Koran contains mandates which are anti-American and incompatible with American ideals and way of life. The Declaration and Koran can’t work together; Socialism-Communism-Globalism the same! One who loves America and its values/freedoms cannot look for betterment in these radical, unfair, unholy systems!
Under Biden we allowed virtually anyone to come into our country, no questions asked: Obama almost the same. The twelve years of those administrations resulted in virtually tens of millions of illegals coming in, setting up house in ethnic/theocratic enclaves and started the process of diluting our polity. Anti-American activists began running for office locally/nationally and winning! If there are ten million interlopers living here that send their proportionate number to congress and they all vote Democrat on top of the rank and file voters who vote Democrat no matter what it’s a recipe for disaster! If these millions are spread across many states, each state sends 1 or 2 to the federal house and 1 or 2 more to the state house. Next thing you know, there are dozens or more in DC and who knows how many more in states?
Consider: illegals are being counted in the census; they’re being added to voting rolls; elections are being rigged by partisan ideologues of the left who wish to bring down America! The controlling supervisory mechanisms policing elections including police, lawyers, judges, courts and state/ federal officials are all infused with moles, saboteurs/leftist radicals who allow this to happen and look the other way. That’s the inside picture; foreign countries add their intrigue/expertise to further this along, from the outside. We begin to see how slowly but surely this becomes a real problem!
So again, is it OK to call yourself a leftist in America? If so, how far can you go promoting your ideology and still be OK? Can you lie about your intentions? Can you swear to be true and loyal to this country on a book that supercedes the civil authority of our constitution with its theocratic authority and ideology? Can an orthodox Muslim be loyal to both?
Should noncitizens or illegals be allowed to legally march and protest anything about America, openly brandishing the flags of their homeland? Should their voices be heard in our state houses and federal government? Should any of our tax dollars, even down to 1 penny, be used to fund and support their activities? Are they really entitled to the same rights and privileges of citizens and if so, what are their duties and responsibilities and accountabilities?
I believe our fundamental rights are natural or God given, meaning we exist, therefore we have a right to live; we were free in our antecedent state of nature so should remain free under the yoke of a man-made society; we pursued activities that helped us thrive and be happy, so we should be able to continue pursuing any such activities that will contribute to our happiness.
I temper all this, of course, with the rights of others in mind. We cannot intrude into their paths to happiness, or impose our beliefs on them to the detriment of their own beliefs. As a society we mutually agree, by majority, to abide by our laws and constitution, to respect each other’s rights, and to give our loyalty and patriotism to our country.
One is not an American who believes we need a new or re-vised constitution or radical change of any kind. We can all exhibit shades of conservatism or progressivism, so long as these comport with our founder’s plan and we conduct ourselves ethically/legally as we try to change things: a periodic vote offers the possibility for change; the amendment process offers another path to change; Convention of States is a process whereby states unhappy with federal lawmakers can in majority override the federal congress/senate and ignore their law and/or adopt new law as they see fit. Finally, we have a Supreme Court that hears complaints of unfairness/unconstitutionality that can render decisions/verdicts resulting in change.
If we’re brought up and educated here, if we learn how our American government/society is equal or superior to others of equal size and complexity, we come to respect and revere what we have and, although we know it isn’t perfect, we get how its better than most and satisfy ourselves with trying to change things using the methods/actions cited above and by staying within bounds of ethicalness, propriety and legality.
I believe we must act honestly, truthfully, legally, righteously. We cannot promote/support any plan, law, system or person who is interested in overthrowing our government. No matter how persuasive, charismatic, credible or insistent it might be if we are born/raised American we know it’s wrong! Any who come to settle here, assimilate and thrive must believe same and not try to instigate/implement societal, cultural or legal change even on a limited or localized basis. They came presumably for a better life. Why bring their old ways with them?
Most people coming here should be prescreened/vetted for minimum health standards, criminality, political activism
and self-reliance, such that they will not become a burden to society. Having a minimum net worth or a sponsor willing to take responsibility might also make sense. The only exceptions should be persons seeking political asylum or safe refuge from immediate harm or endangerment.
A final point is the wrong and illegal use of sanctuary zones, be they cities, counties or states. Under our law there can be no such thing, let alone a politically sanctioned area, what-ever the size. It’s been long understood a hunted person for whatever reason could take temporary refuge in a church and find sanctuary from their pursuers, whoever they might be. But this was temporary to give calmer more reasonable heads time to prevail. The person/persons availing themselves of this safe haven knew it wouldn’t last and, ultimately, they’d be turned over to authorities and held accountable.
What we have today and for the past 30yrs are lower level political units openly defying federal authority, offering shel-ter and sustenance to all manner of illegal, undocumented persons and, candidly, virtually anyone running from federal authority in an effort to remain in America, including convict-ed criminals. This must not be allowed to continue! I believe any political entity defying federal authority should be cut-off from all federal funding, immediately placed under an effect-ive legally instituted siege and the leaders, managers and of-ficers of that entity be held personally accountable for all costs and liabilities associated with said action.
It wasn’t that long ago most of what I’ve described here and stated wouldn’t have been necessary. It was a time when most were on the same page, felt lucky to be Americans and more than happy to play by the rules and abide the law. We were a mostly happy, contented people. Those coming here kissed the ground on arrival and thanked God for their good fortune. They wanted to join in, assimilate and become fully Americanized and knew there was no other place like this that could offer them this opportunity.
Let’s stop playing games, ignoring the truth and face reality. America is in trouble, too many people have lost their way, too many others are blind to their peril. We need to begin a process of discovery, revealment and recognition. We need to help our friends and families open their eyes to the tragic and absurd state of affairs we find ourselves in. We need to apply corrective actions to fix our house, before it topples into its own footprint and becomes lost in the debris field of history. There’s still time. The world holds bated breath . . .
You’ve Been Reading Shaneview
I’m Al Shane
Leave a Reply