A Dollar for My Thoughts

... because a penny just isn't worth what it used to be.

[adollarformythoughts]

A Recap of “Nolte: Democrats Just Had Their Worst Week in 47 Years”

Read the entire story for some major points, but in a nutshell...

1. The Fake News Media Is the Only Shrinking Institution in America’s Booming Economy 2. Democrats Lost “The Sane One” Joe Biden 3. Democrats Handed the 4th of July to Trump 4. Democrats Came Out Against the American Flag 5. Democrats are Campaigning for Votes in … Mexico 6. Democrat Presidential Candidates are Documented Extremists 7. Jobs, Jobs, Jobs 8. Stock Market Go Boom 9. Cherokee Warren and Kamala ‘Forced Busing’ Harris Are Now Presidential Frontrunners

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/07/06/democrats-had-worst-week-47-years/?fbclid=IwAR1q_2nBO8ZY2CV-TP1dIndaoIUDYLe2JBNQkbQKmIu-ECPKvracd0qkEuQ

[adollarformythoughts]

Recap of Nolte: 2020 Democrat Candidates’ 21 Most Insanely Scary Proposals

Another amazing recap by Nolte... (The Democratic party apparently hates Americans, babies, and freedom... just in case you hadn't noticed.)

1. Government Gun Confiscation 2. Ban All Guns Except Guns No One Wants 3. Jail People or False Advertising 4. Legalizing the Murder of a Baby After It’s Born 5. Slavery Reparations 6. Gay Reparations 7. No One Has to Pay Their Student Loans 8. Taxpayers Paying for Abortions 9. Eliminating Every Americans Private Insurance 10. Health Insurance Coverage for Illegal Aliens 11. Forced Busing 12. Abolish the Electoral College 13. Pack the Supreme Court with Left-Wing Judges 14. Decriminalizing Illegal Border Crossing 15. End Deportations of Illegal Immigrants 16. Taxpayers Fund Abortions for Biological Men Who Believe They are Women 17. Guaranteed Income 18. Tax Increases for All Americans 19. Tax Rates as High as 77 Percent 20. Allowing the Son of Sam and Boston Marathon Bomber to vote 21. Lower Voting Age to 16

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/07/02/nolte-2020-democrat-candidates-21-most-insanely-scary-proposals/#_=_

[adollarformythoughts]

Gender Bias in Parenting

We have reached a time in American society where men have to fight harder and longer for custody and visitation of their children.  Many years ago men typically agreed that a child is better with their mother.  The man was working more extended hours, spent less time with the children, and usually did not assist with the child’s education. At the turn of the century, men realized that they have just as much, if not more, to offer their children.  Men began fighting back in the courts to have custody and visitation of their children.

Society seems to believe that men aren’t necessary for child rearing and some think that they are inherently toxic for being manly.  Men are currently just as active in their children’s education and upbringing as the mother.  Children need fathers, no matter the child’s age or gender.  A father teaches life lessons that a mother isn’t capable of teaching. Men and women are neurologically and psychologically different in their capacities of nurturing and educating.   No matter how many claims there are that a woman can do whatever a man can do, they are wrong – and vice versa.

Our family courts claim to have disestablished the Tender Years Doctrine which preferred mothers over fathers.  However, courts grant custody to 6 times as many women as men (https://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p60-240.pdf).   The courts claim that the current laws establish care based on the best interests of the child, but for a child who is not of legally sufficient age, the court relies on the stories of the mother and the father and their arguments about why they are the better choice.  Courts are always more willing to side with women based on gender bias (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/04/180419141541.htm).

Society must realize that a father is just as vital to a child as a mother.  Fathers provide security, values, discipline, and honesty. That is not to say that a mother cannot, but a man is must less emotional in his doing so.  A child without a father is more likely to commit suicide, run away, commit sexual crimes, drop out of school, and abuse drugs and alcohol (https://thefatherlessgeneration.wordpress.com/statistics/).  These are statistics, not opinions.  They are facts, and as Ben Shapiro says, “facts don’t care about your feelings.”  Woman up and stop thinking that your child is better off without a father, that you can do it on your own, or whatever line you are feeding yourself – because it’s not true.

  ©  Doc Ward, DPA

[adollarformythoughts]

Mistreating Minors over MAGA Hats?

There has been a string of hateful circumstances following young boys who proudly wear MAGA hats in public.  We’ve seen the man who pulled the MAGA hat off of the boy’s head and poured cola on him. There was recently a rather significant incident involving the Covington Catholic boys wearing MAGA hats.  Now we have the story of the employee at a Vans store telling a fourteen-year-old boy “(eff) you” because he was wearing a MAGA hat.  This event happened in front of the mother who understandably became upset.  The employee at the Vans store was fired, so it’s good that Vans is backing up their customer service ideology.  But at the same time, how have we moved to a point where people’s choices in political representation are causing them to be verbally mistreated?  Not only that, but these are children that everyone is so keen on attacking.  If someone has a differing opinion, the worst way to change someone’s opinion is by yelling at them or assaulting them. You catch more bees with honey than you do vinegar.

As a society, we cannot continue to harm each other over our political and personal preferences without inciting riot and war.  If the hard left continues to fight with the hard right, and vice versa, we will have witnessed the making of another Civil War.  And frankly, the right has more guns.

©   Doc Ward, DPA

[adollarformythoughts]

Trump’s Authority to Build the Wall Without Congress

A lot of people don’t want to accept it, but the truth is that Trump has the authority to build a border wall without the approval of Congress.  Congress thought that adding $1.3 billion to the budget would suffice and instead Trump is moving forward without them.  Democrats and the ACLU, among other groups, are now threatening legal action.  Trump’s administration advised before declaring a national emergency that they are preparing for litigation and it seems that they have already done their homework.  

The big question here is the actual emergency sited by the Trump administration. The president and his administration have provided many statistics and supporting information as to the claim of an emergency.  Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, responded to the speaker of the national security meeting in early January by saying that she “reject(s) your facts.” Unfortunately, unless the potential litigators can provide contrary evidence, the facts are viable and not up for debate.  Trump’s data came directly from the administrative databases which anyone can see online.  Therefore, under applicable law, the President is given leave to declare an emergency should the need arise.  The courts will typically defer to the President on national security matters, so prompted with litigation claiming that the situation is not an emergency will more than likely be dismissed.

Here is why Trump didn’t need Congressional approval for the wall:

The National Emergencies Act gives the president the authority to declare emergencies without defining “emergency.”  

Several sections of the U.S. Code allows the president to use unallocated funding set aside in the budget for military purposes or military construction projects as he sees fit for the protection of the country.

The President has full authority over the armed forces (which he is using for building the wall).

©   Doc Ward, DPA

[adollarformythoughts]

Virginia’s Troubles

Governor Ralph Northam was in a yearbook photo dressed up as what is referred to as “blackface” (a black person).  The Governor claims that he was in costume as Kurtis Blow, now a minister.  Blow was signed by Mercury Records in 1979 and reached the top five in 1985.  Northam has declined to resign while also admitting that this was not a one-time affair (he later dressed as Michael Jackson). Attorney General Mark Herring was also sucked into the turmoil when it was discovered that he was also seen dressing as a black in 1980.  

I can’t comprehend how dressing as a famous star or a fictitious character that is a different race could cause such an extreme response.  I would be proud to have someone think so highly of me that for a single night they wanted to be me – even if it consisted of painting their face a different color.  These situations don’t appear to be making fun or putting down African Americans, but rather celebrating their accomplishments.  If the person dressed up with harmful intentions, then I do agree that it is wrong.  Northam dressing up as Kurtis Blow and Michael Jackson for costumes?  There were no ill intentions in doing so of which has been reported.  His only purpose was to dress as a famous musician of the time, the same as someone would dress up as Elsa.

I understand that the historical use of “blackface” was often to display slaves and inferior African-Americans in theatrical shows. My inability to comprehend the negative feelings surrounding the current day use of blackface is not based on a lack of factual information or history.  My point is that just because things were done for a negative reason once upon a time, does not mean that every time it is done after that it is wrong or also done for a negative reason.  We, as a people, need to stop looking for reasons to be offended about everything. We need to look to the future and stop living in past transgressions.  We are so stuck on all of the things that went wrong that we are overcompensating and living miserable lives in the present. Bad things happen.  America was a very different place just 50 years ago. America itself is still a new country with a lot of things to learn.

©   Doc Ward, DPA

[adollarformythoughts]

Key Takeaways from New York’s Reproductive Health Act

The Reproductive Health Act, which was signed into law this past week, set landmark decisions for women’s choices in abortion.  These landmark decisions are not a positive move for the welfare of women or children. Section 2599-BB specifies not a doctor is no longer required to perform an abortion.  A physician’s assistant, nurse practitioner, or mid-wife constitutes a medical professional and is now a viable option to perform this surgical procedure.  While these professionals are required to become certified by the state and are usually required to have a Master’s or higher, their education is still substantially less than a Medical Doctor’s, especially regarding internships and surgical requirements before licensure.

The second, and larger, concern is the ability to terminate a pregnancy as late as the 24th week, a few weeks shy of the third trimester.  During the 24th week, a woman would be six months pregnant.  The fetus had the potential for life outside of the womb (and has for a couple of weeks at this point) if given intensive care in a NICU and provided necessary treatment. When a fetus is 24 weeks the mother can feel the baby move and have hiccups, the baby’s eyes formed and they start to blink, they have their very own fingerprints, eyelashes, and hair.  More concerning of all, the nervous system has completed its formation by the end of the second trimester, so the baby has pain receptors.

Each person is welcome to their perceptions of abortion, whether pro-life or pro-choice, but our standards for gauging an appropriate time should be far earlier in a pregnancy than when the child has a functioning brain and nerve system.  Most abortions take place within six weeks of gestation.  It makes one consider the circumstances that made someone wait until the 24th week of pregnancy and their motives for deciding to terminate the pregnancy at such a late stage.

https://legislation.nysenate.gov/pdf/bills/2019/S240

SECTION 2599-AA. POLICY AND PURPOSE.

§ 2599-BB. ABORTION. 1. A HEALTH CARE PRACTITIONER LICENSED, CERTI- 43 FIED, OR AUTHORIZED UNDER TITLE EIGHT OF THE EDUCATION LAW, ACTING WITH-IN HIS OR HER LAWFUL SCOPE OF PRACTICE, MAY PERFORM AN ABORTION WHEN, ACCORDING TO THE PRACTITIONER'S REASONABLE AND GOOD FAITH PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT BASED ON THE FACTS OF THE PATIENT'S CASE: THE PATIENT IS WITHIN TWENTY-FOUR WEEKS FROM THE COMMENCEMENT OF PREGNANCY, OR THERE IS AN ABSENCE OF FETAL VIABILITY, OR THE ABORTION IS NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE PATIENT'S LIFE OR HEALTH.

©   Doc Ward, DPA

[adollarformythoughts]

Ethical Considerations in Public Administration

Successful Public Administration runs on the trust of the constituents. Behavior that is seen as immoral, or unethical, creates public distrust and hurts the agency’s reputation. Too many administrators are forcing change based on their own perception of reality, no matter how unconstitutional or uncommon that perception may be. In effect, a corrupt atmosphere is formed based on that administrator’s actions and decisions. As administrator’s, we must be unbiased in our decisions and actions in an effort to focus on the voice of the populace, not on what we believe to be ideal for that populace.

Ethics refers to a person’s moral character. Often morals and ethics are used interchangeably due to the similarity in scope. A person’s character is upheld as ethical when their behaviors are seen as socially acceptable and positive in relation to the populace. One major problem with proving ethical behavior is the lack of agreement among groups, especially in our current partisan-driven administration. This is why basic rules of conduct are put in place for the major items of concern. However, those rules of conduct are often gray, such as the common rule stating that an administrator cannot accept a “gift” as a result of their position.

An unethical decision based on an idea is a form of Structural Idealism. Structural Idealism is one of three facets of a theory of corruption which focuses on social context and culture. Structural Idealism is best defined as the philosophical notion that there is an ideal way for a community to behave and live. A structural idealist believes certain things are attainable and “he would indeed, in most cases, actually shape the policy of his country, and even compromise its interests because he believes in the prospects which he indicates.”

The structural idealist becomes unethical when they stop considering the wants and needs of the people and work towards the society that they view as the ideal society for the people. In today’s tumultuous political environment, many constituents have extreme viewpoints on right or wrong. Unfortunately, those viewpoints follow extremes at each end of the spectrum, often on party lines. An ethical violation by a structural idealist may not be in an effort to harm the people, but to better take care of those who can’t care for themselves.

Ethics, in a psychological setting, is often a matter of opinion. Public Administrators with firm beliefs regarding a matter of interest (i.e. a border wall, immigration policy, welfare opportunities) often toe the line of ethical integrity and perform many duties behind the scenes in an effort to attain the ideal community. The differing opinions of each side are why a requirement exists for an ethics board, rather than a single person, to make a determination of questionable behavior. Like the Supreme Court of the United States, the board is preferably populated by a range of diverse people.

Why then do our Congressional leaders rarely, if ever, have their actions questioned by a board of ethics?  The answer lies in the method of our democratic republic. The people chose each representative with a seat in Congress to represent their interests. It is important to note that politicians often achieve office based on their main policy ideas. Most of the American voters lack the knowledge and political experience required to deduce a policy to a long-term political goal. When a constituent hears a policy based opinion, they routinely agree or disagree, and said agreements and disagreements form the basis for their vote. However, the methods of accountability for those in public office often lack truly reformative effects, as the sole accountability of elected officials is their re-election in two, four or six years. In addition, these same congressional members are those that often act as the overseeing board of ethics for the bureaucratic agencies in which the people have no control.

Ethical concerns in government continue to be a rising issue in the United States. Heavy government intervention and restrictions only create a stronger atmosphere for underhanded dealings and an increase in corruption due to the added “red tape” to any process or procedure. Ethical accountability remains a matter which can be controlled by greater transparency of Public Administrators.

In conclusion, for public administration to regain much of the lost respect and trust, administrators must shy away from structural idealism as a basis for their decisionmaking and ensure a strong ethical outlook. Administrators must ensure that their actions and decisions are transparent and ensure that they are based on the promises to the people, and to the wants of the people. Unethical choices are not solely based on the traditional methods of corruption (i.e. bribery, extortion, embezzlement, etc.), but also on the underhanded decisions made when an administrator is working towards their own personal ideal society.

©   Doc Ward, DPA

[adollarformythoughts]

What is Toxic Masculinity?

There is no such thing as toxic masculinity.  This is why.

Masculinity is a character trait which describes a person, typically a man, who takes care of their family and property and is strong, stoic, and honest. Within the past decade, masculinity has come to be defined as aggressive, violent, or risk-taking.  You could say all of these things encompass masculinity, but being routinely or randomly aggressive does not mean that someone is masculine, nor does being aggressive for the right reasons mean that they are toxic. Overly aggressive behaviors are caused by hormones, not masculine tendencies.  

Circa the early 2000s (the earliest time that I can find references) and “toxic masculinity” was discussed by psychologists to define men who were dominant, homophobic, misogynistic, aggressive, violent or any other adjective which was negative.  The phrase was adopted by feministic groups and became more popular and known from 2016 to present.  Like “sexual harassment” or “rape,” the term “toxic masculinity” is thrown around without a true understanding of what toxicity of masculinity means.

When something is toxic it is poisoned, deadly, or contagious.  Since any masculine behavior now justifies the accusation of “toxic masculinity,” it makes one wonder what do psychologists and feminists want as a result of this attack on manly men?  Do they want men who are easier to control and patronize?  Do they want men who do not build things and fix things?  Do they not care if the trash is picked up every week or if someone is pulled out of a burning building?  Let’s face it, these masculine men make up over 95% of the workforce who do the dirty jobs.

Not only will there be a severe economic impact in the loss of masculine men, but procreation will ultimately cease to exist.  Whether women want to admit it or not, they are naturally and instinctively drawn to the manly men.  Unless of course men aren’t their cup of tea but let’s face it, there is only 10% of the American population who identify as lesbian.  Therefore, they don’t really change the variables by much.  Anyhow, mammals are naturally drawn to extravagance and excessive behaviors.  That's why male birds have beautiful colors, why male crabs have bigger claws, why elk, deer, and seals win the female by winning a fight.  Humans are no different than any other mammal.  Women are attracted to men who will fight for them, show they care by not allowing other men to venture into their territory and protect their young.

In short, masculinity is not a toxic condition.  If a man happens to be overly aggressive, the same as any woman can be, they simply have aggressive tendencies.  I don’t think that the media or feminist groups who are throwing the term “toxic masculinity” realize the flaw in their argument.  All they have shown is that they do not like manly men, so they attack them with a phrase meant to cause harm and shame.  Perhaps we consider a phrase to identify women with behaviors which we don’t like which will be meant to ostracize and shame them: Pestilent Femininity. It’s catchy.

©   Doc Ward, DPA

[adollarformythoughts]

Gillette: The Best Men Can Be

Gillette released a new commercial entitled The Best Men Can Be.  The commercial takes a sleazy look at boys and men as bullies, sexist, and controlling. The commercial even has a cameo for Leftist political commentator Ana Kasparian.

The beginning of the ad does close-ups on men of varying ages and races.  There is a lot of background phrases, but below are the main ones.

“Bullying.  The Me Too Movement against sexual harassment. Toxic  Masculinity. Is this the best a man can get? Is it?”

The screen goes to a theater screen where a group of teenage boys rip through the screen and run through a theater.  Then shows a boy hugging his crying mother.

The narrator says, “You can’t hide from it.  It’s been going on for way too long.”  Then switches to cartoon characters cat-calling, men on oldies television shows making sexual gestures at the back side of women.  Boys watching sleazy party girls in a spring break type of video. My favorite is the clip of Ana Kasparian on her YouTube show talking about sexual allegations.  Many will know Ana Kasparian as the Armenian Feminist who takes out her country’s culture of controlling women and arranging marriages on American men.  She is far left and very big on equality of output.

Anyhow, if this commercial has shown anything to the people, it is that Procter and Gamble have obviously aired their side in the current political turmoil.  The commercial on YouTube has, as of now, received about 10k likes and 100k dislikes.  For those of you like me, you might need this list to know what not to buy on your next trip to the grocery store: Luvs, Pampers, Tide, Bounce, Ariel, Cheer, Downy, Dreft, Era, Gain, Ace, Rindex, Bounty, Charmin, Puffs, Always, Tampax, Head and Shoulders, Aussie, Herbal Essences, Old Spice, Pantene, Cascade, Dawn, Febreze, Joy, Mr. Clean, Swiffer, Salvo, Braun, Gillette, Art of Shaving, Align, Clearblue, Meta Mucil, Pepto, Prilosec, Vicks, ZzzQuil, Crest, Fixodent, Oral-B, Scope, Ivory, Olay, Safeguard, Secret, Native, and Snowberry.

P & G sure does have a good hold on the hygiene lineup, and I’m sure going to miss Always, and Head and Shoulders, and even Dawn.  But, good old capitalism has ensured that I have many more brands to choose from.

©   Doc Ward, DPA

[adollarformythoughts]

APA Guidelines for Psychological Practice with Boys and Men AUGUST 2018

The American Psychiatric Association has released their APA GUIDELINES for Psychological Practice with Boys and Men as of August of 2018.  Their recent tweet brought the guidelines front and center.  The tweet said, “Our recently published Guidelines for Psychological Practice with Boys and Men are designed for psychologists to use in treating patients & encouraging the beneficial aspects of masculinity among their clients.”

I took the time to review these guidelines after seeing several headlines stating that the guidelines are dismissing masculinity.  The beginning of the article states that “boys and men, as a group, tend to hold privilege and power based on gender.”  However, in the same sentence they go on to say “they also demonstrate disproportionate rates of receiving harsh discipline (e.g., suspension and expulsion), academic challenges (e.g., dropping out of high school, particularly among African American and Latino boys), mental health issues (e.g., completed suicide), physical health problems (e.g., cardiovascular problems), public health concerns (e.g., violence, substance abuse, incarceration, and early mortality), and a wide variety of other quality-of-life issues (e.g., relational problems, family well-being; for comprehensive reviews, see Levant & Richmond, 2007; Moore & Stuart, 2005; O’Neil, 2015).” So the American Psychiatric Association at the beginning of the sentence says that men are privileged, and then says that men suffer from all of these issues that they are not receiving help for.  So, are they privileged or not?  This single sentence is an oxymoron.

The article then proceeds to specify that “these guidelines provide general recommendations for psychologists who seek to increase their awareness, knowledge, and skills in psychological practice with boys and men.” All these guidelines are doing so far, is turning men off from seeking any help from anyone.  Not only are they being attacked by politics and #metoo, but now by the American Psychological Association?  Further, the article states that “many men report experiencing gender bias in therapy (Mahalik et al., 2012).”  Did the APA think that this article was going to make this better? If anything, I can only imagine this article is going to make it worse. 

“In Western culture, the dominant ideal of masculinity has moved from an upper-class aristocratic image to a more rugged and self-sufficient ideal (Kimmel, 2012).”  Why is it a bad thing for men to be self-sufficient?  Because “research suggests that socialization practices that teach boys from an early age to be self-reliant, strong, and to minimize and manage their problems on their own (Pollack, 1995) yield adult men who are less willing to seek mental health treatment (Addis & Mahalik, 2003; Wong, Ho, Wang, & Miller, 2017).” This goes two ways.  First, men take a more personal role in their lives and try to take care of things themselves.  Women are more willing to (A) ask someone else to fix their problems, and (B) take prescription drugs.   

The article then goes further to claim that masculinity is taking away from the gay community because men’s masculinity is keeping them from diversity. Further, the article claims that boys and men should learn to navigate restrictions of masculinity and psychologists should reteach gendered social learning.  Apparently, boys are choosing “to conform to these [masculine] norms rather than face disapproval.”  Have the extreme influx of transgender and LGBTQ groups not disproved this?  Gay men, out of any gay person, are the least worried about coming out of the closet.  They fly out of that closet with a mini skirt and a boa these days. 

Let’s help make men feel more hated and ostracized than before by saying “sexism exists as a byproduct, reinforcer, and justification of male privilege.” So, all men are sexist because of their privilege? 

Masculinity causes the following:

“Encourages men to adopt an approach to sexuality that emphasizes promiscuity” (this person has apparently not read the most recent statistics showing that women have three times the sexual partners than men do)

“Discourages men from being intimate with others and is the primary reason men tend to have fewer close friends than women” ( I don’t see this having much to do with friendships.  Men are capable of having friendships just as, if not more, easily).  Oh wait, they forgot this part: “However, the majority of boys and men indicate that they have close male friends with whom they share secrets, are emotionally intimate, and view as a brother (Baumeister & Sommer, 1997; Cross & Madson, 1997; Way, 2011).”  Why was that even included as a symptom of masculinity if they just proved themselves wrong?

In short, this article does a very efficient job to shun the behavior or most men.  The entire guideline is written in a biased manner against men.  Some of the facts and statistics about suicide and mental health treatment are accurate, but I don’t feel that men were accurately represented.  Each section points out the problems with being a man and how psychiatrists can help them be less manly.  Publications which I normally don’t agree with had headlines such as Traditional Masculinity Can Hurt Boys and Traditional Masculinity Deemed Harmful.  I think the big issue here is that the problem with boys and men has nothing to do with their masculinity, but the way they are treated in society and expected to act more feminine.  The problem with boys and men is that every time they try to open a non-profit or group to express themselves with like-minded males, they get shut down by Title IX claims.  The problem with boys and men is that education is geared towards teaching females, as well as being taught by females.  Masculinity isn’t the problem.

Feel free to read and form your own opinion:

https://www.apa.org/about/policy/boys-men-practice-guidelines.pdf

©   Doc Ward, DPA

[adollarformythoughts]

The Removal of the Electoral College

Democratic Representative Cohen introduced a bill to amend the United States Constitution to remove the Electoral College and open a completely Democratic forum for Presidential voting.  The intent of the Constitution was to give all states an equal say in their vote and the removal of the Electoral College will take away the voice of multiple states with lower populations than that of states such as California and New York. California has the largest population in America at 12% of the total population, with Texas the second largest at about 8%.

Removal of the Electoral College is essentially a removal of the Republican type of government which is the foundation of the United States’ government.  The lowest number of electoral votes that a state has is 3, thus allowing the least populated states, such as North Dakota and Wyoming, to have an equal voice in the choice of the President.  If the vote is based on population rather than the Electoral College, the residents of farming and agriculture states will be at the mercy of suburban and city residents who do not understand their geographical or economical needs.  The largest populations are maintained by coastal and southern regions of the United States.

If the Electoral College is removed it removes the requirements of fairness that requires candidates to appeal to smaller populations.  The framers of the Constitution used examples of Democratic states in their decision to formulate a Republican government.  James Madison argues that the Democratic state is a “tyranny by a majority.”  He was absolutely right.  What happens when electors are removed and 50+% of the populace has chosen an inhuman way of life (i.e. lack of restrictions on abortion, free reign of puppy mills, dissemination of regulations on dumping, etc.) and the electors are not there to ensure the choice by way of the Republican style of government?

No one states it better than Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper number 68: The electoral college ensures that the President is chosen “by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.”

©   Doc Ward, DPA

[realtalkingpoints]

President Trump’s Oval office address transcribed (from CBS news website)

Read Trump’s full remarks

Here are the president’s full remarks from his Tuesday evening Oval Office address:

“My fellow Americans: Tonight, I am speaking to you because there is a growing humanitarian and security crisis at our southern border.Every day, Customs and Border Patrol agents encounter thousands of illegal immigrants trying to enter our country.  We are out of space to hold them, and we have no way to promptly return them back home to their country.America proudly welcomes millions of lawful immigrants who enrich our society and contribute to our nation.  But all Americans are hurt by uncontrolled, illegal migration.  It strains public resources and drives down jobs and wages.  Among those hardest hit are African Americans and Hispanic Americans.”

“Our southern border is a pipeline for vast quantities of illegal drugs, including meth, heroin, cocaine, and fentanyl. Every week, 300 of our citizens are killed by heroin alone, 90 percent of which floods across from our southern border.  More Americans will die from drugs this year than were killed in the entire Vietnam War. In the last two years, ICE officers made 266,000 arrests of aliens with criminal records, including those charged or convicted of 100,000 assaults, 30,000 sex crimes, and 4,000 violent killings.  Over the years, thousands of Americans have been brutally killed by those who illegally entered our country, and thousands more lives will be lost if we don’t act right now.”

“This is a humanitarian crisis – a crisis of the heart and a crisis of the soul. Last month, 20,000 migrant children were illegally brought into the United States – a dramatic increase.  These children are used as human pawns by vicious coyotes and ruthless gangs.  One in three women are sexually assaulted on the dangerous trek up through Mexico.  Women and children are the biggest victims, by far, of our broken system.This is the tragic reality of illegal immigration on our southern border.  This is the cycle of human suffering that I am determined to end.My administration has presented Congress with a detailed proposal to secure the border and stop the criminal gangs, drug smugglers, and human traffickers.  It’s a tremendous problem. ”

“Our proposal was developed by law enforcement professionals and border agents at the Department of Homeland Security.  These are the resources they have requested to properly perform their mission and keep America safe.  In fact, safer than ever before.The proposal from Homeland Security includes cutting-edge technology for detecting drugs, weapons, illegal contraband, and many other things.  We have requested more agents, immigration judges, and bed space to process the sharp rise in unlawful migration fueled by our very strong economy.  Our plan also contains an urgent request for humanitarian assistance and medical support.Furthermore, we have asked Congress to close border security loopholes so that illegal immigrant children can be safely and humanely returned back home.Finally, as part of an overall approach to border security, law enforcement professionals have requested $5.7 billion for a physical barrier.”

“At the request of Democrats, it will be a steel barrier rather than a concrete wall.  This barrier is absolutely critical to border security.  It’s also what our professionals at the border want and need.  This is just common sense.The border wall would very quickly pay for itself.  The cost of illegal drugs exceeds $500 billion a year – vastly more than the $5.7 billion we have requested from Congress.  The wall will also be paid for, indirectly, by the great new trade deal we have made with Mexico.Senator Chuck Schumer – who you will be hearing from later tonight – has repeatedly supported a physical barrier in the past, along with many other Democrats.  They changed their mind only after I was elected president.”

“Democrats in Congress have refused to acknowledge the crisis.  And they have refused to provide our brave border agents with the tools they desperately need to protect our families and our nation.The federal government remains shut down for one reason and one reason only: because Democrats will not fund border security. My administration is doing everything in our power to help those impacted by the situation.  But the only solution is for Democrats to pass a spending bill that defends our borders and re-opens the government.”

“This situation could be solved in a 45-minute meeting.  I have invited congressional leadership to the White House tomorrow to get this done.  Hopefully, we can rise above partisan politics in order to support national security.Some have suggested a barrier is immoral.  Then why do wealthy politicians build walls, fences, and gates around their homes?  They don’t build walls because they hate the people on the outside, but because they love the people on the inside.  The only thing that is immoral is the politicians to do nothing and continue to allow more innocent people to be so horribly victimized.”

“America’s heart broke the day after Christmas when a young police officer in California was savagely murdered in cold blood by an illegal alien, who just came across the border.  The life of an American hero was stolen by someone who had no right to be in our country.Day after day, precious lives are cut short by those who have violated our borders.  In California, an Air Force veteran was raped, murdered, and beaten to death with a hammer by an illegal alien with a long criminal history.  In Georgia, an illegal alien was recently charged with murder for killing, beheading, and dismembering his neighbor.  In Maryland, MS-13 gang members who arrived in the United States as unaccompanied minors were arrested and charged last year after viciously stabbing and beating a 16-year-old girl.Over the last several years, I’ve met with dozens of families whose loved ones were stolen by illegal immigration.  I’ve held the hands of the weeping mothers and embraced the grief-stricken fathers.  So sad.  So terrible.  I will never forget the pain in their eyes, the tremble in their voices, and the sadness gripping their souls.”

“How much more American blood must we shed before Congress does its job? To those who refuse to compromise in the name of border security, I would ask: Imagine if it was your child, your husband, or your wife whose life was so cruelly shattered and totally broken?To every member of Congress: Pass a bill that ends this crisis. To every citizen: Call Congress and tell them to finally, after all of these decades, secure our border.This is a choice between right and wrong, justice and injustice.  This is about whether we fulfill our sacred duty to the American citizens we serve. When I took the Oath of Office, I swore to protect our country.  And that is what I will always do, so help me God. Thank you and goodnight.”

They also posted Schumer and Pelosi’s rebuttal, but its mostly just attacks on Trump.  I didn’t see the live presentation of either (Trump or Pelosi/Schumer) but judging by the transcript, I’d say Trump owned them…

[adollarformythoughts]

I think Trump nailed the nail on the head and gave a good analysis of what he stands for and why.

[adollarformythoughts]

Tax Refunds

It's a little ironic that the democrats are upset that their tax refunds are being held up, when it's the democrats who are purposefully holding out. Their bill had over 12 billion in funding for immigration, but they refuse to split those billions for the wall? Trump ran his presidency on the promise of a wall. It's what the people want. Democrats need to let this one go.

[adollarformythoughts]

A little disturbing. Apparently the woman Democrats look up to will "cut off your head." I realize this isn't true, but more of a comparison. I wonder if it's based on her temper or on her underhanded ways of getting what she wants.

[adollarformythoughts]

Warren in 2020

So Elizabeth Warren is now set up to run for the Presidency in 2020.  As a reminder, here are some of the remarkable things that Warren has done:

She claimed to be Native American to advance her career;

After people argues that she was not Native American, she publicized a DNA test claiming she was actually 1/1024 Native American.  So she isn’t Native American.  She’s an average white person.  But she still claims that she is Native American.   

Warren wants to create the  Accountable Capitalism Act.  This act would require large corporations to give up 40% of their board seats to the workers, thus crippling innovation and making business angle themselves into sister corporations to remain below the threshold that would make them a “large corporation.”

Warren also wants to establish the Anti-Corruption and Public Integrity Act.  Which sounds good, but I don’t think her thought process delved deep enough into what this is actually going to do to our government.  Rule number one of corruption, the more regulation the government has, the more corruption breeds.

©  Doc Ward, DPA  

[adollarformythoughts]

Government Shut-Down

The government shutdown is well underway this Christmas week. The effect will probably not be clearly felt until after the New Year when non-essential personnel doesn’t return to work from their Holiday vacations.  Most employees receive back pay once the government reopens with the signing of whatever bill is being pushed through, but once personnel reaches the first missed paycheck, they may begin to feel the pain in their budgets.

The government shutdown was a hardball trick played by Trump where he is essentially refusing to sign any bill which does not contain the $5 billion wall provision.  The wall will be built along the Mexican border to stop border jumping and illegal immigration.  Trump is not, by any means, outside of the norm.  Every President in recent history has pulled this same card when things weren’t going their way.

The border wall is something that many Americans are backing, some even donating their own hard-earned dollars towards a viral GoFundMe (https://www.gofundme.com/TheTrumpWall) campaign which has already raised nearly $18 million of the $1 billion goals. Within the first few days, it had already reached around $10 million but has slowly lost steam.  Even if the goal is very far away, $17 million says a lot about the wants of the people, especially considering the average donation is calculated to be around $60.

©   Doc Ward, DPA