Our nation has a system of constitutional law in effect, a system that would work well if only the laws already on the books were enforced.  Immigration is a current issue only because those laws were not and are not enforced; politics being the reason.  This is the fault of the federal government—not the border states (the problem being at its worst along the Mexican border).  If politicians did their job and truly represented those who voted them in, things would be better.  Politics is the problem, because politics is largely unethical.  That’s the way it is.  That’s the way we’ve made it.  That’s not the way it should be.

Citizenship is not a civil right.  It must be earned and there are enabling rules in place.  The system had worked for well over 100 years; millions of Americans have earned their citizenship and contributed to the Nation under existing law.  The border was never a major problem.  Most of those who slipped over  were apprehended and deported.  Some, mostly in California, were welcomed as farm laborers, their illegal entry largely overlooked.  This action has grown from an accommodation to a disaster.

Prior to recently, immigrants were expected to, and did, assimilate.  The concept was that of a ‘melting pot’ of cultures into the American way of life, enriching as well as being enriched.  Now the metaphor is more of a soup bowl (alphabet soup comes to mind) with cultures adding to, but changing rather than adapting to the culture, benefiting from the system without adding to it.  We have ceased Americanizing and are now being diluted by accommodating some of the worst, and on their terms.

It’s been estimated that it would cost more than $6-trillion to legitimize the 11-million illegals at large in the country.  There’s no way to round them up and deport them, nor is there a reason to send them all home; however, there is a way to stem the tide.  The federal government is responsible for securing our borders; this must be done at once, no excuses.  The federal government is not doing its job, and the reasons are largely political.

Current illegals should be offered a way to citizenship by adhering to the law.  They must agree to pay a fine, forgo government benefits available to citizens, and work toward citizenship from the back of the line of those who are and have been following the rules.  This may take years—some estimate as many as 20—but so what?  The rules must be enforced.  Those not choosing the legal route must be denied any benefits or employment—employers must verify employees’ eligibility and the government must crack down on overstayed visas.

IT IS WITHOUT QUESTION THAT EVERY NON-CITIZEN BE DENIED THE RIGHT TO VOTE.  Proof of citizenship must be required to vote in ANY election, the “Motor-Voter” law notwithstanding.

There are a lot of ‘musts’ here, but SOMETHING MUST BE DONE, IT MUST BE DONE AT ONCE, AND IT IS THE FUNCTION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO DO IT.

What do YOU think?

The secularization of America has been underway since about 1930, when the Frankfurt School came to America (see:  www.extremeethics.org/?p=216).  The current administration is clearly progressive and secular, although the country as a whole is not and never has been.

The Founders, not all Christian but religious to a man, agreed in principle that the law of God precedes and overrules the laws of man.  This is clearly written into the Declaration, to wit: “(the) people…to assume among the Powers of the Earth the separate and equal Station to which the laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them…” and “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights…” and alluded to in the Constitution: “the Blessings of Liberty…”.  Moreover, the Constitution prohibits laws that would establish a national religion, thereby negating any effort for a particular religion to use political power to the subjugation of others; and prohibits laws that would limit free exercise of religion. Their intent appears innumerable times in documents and letters leading up to and following the Constitution.  In fact, they embraced a Christian God, and promulgated use of the Christian Bible when swearing-in the various officers of State (www.extremeethics.org/?p=886) .  These facts are indisputable.  Others follow:

Secular progressives would limit the influence of religion by denying the Christian God written into the Law of the Land and, if that doesn’t work, to remove all evidence of that God and religiosity from public places, even limiting the influence of religion (read: Christianity) in government by changing the Constitution.  They would limit the free exercise and influence of religion in public debate and public life generally, and would have the establishment disenfranchise religiously-motivated voters to achieve their ends.

Their agenda includes moving to pass laws based on ‘public reason’ (rather than on the individual rights guaranteed by the purportedly out-of-date Constitution),  place the economy  under full control of government, and generally limit religious influence over public life.

How can less than 25-percent of those who claim no religious affiliation (20-percent), or only about five percent of the nation’s voters, exert so much political clout?  Because they include a preponderance of wealthy and socially-dominant elites including academics, the press, and Hollywood luminaries who have a strong ideological agenda embracing a so-called ‘fairness principle’ and the fallacy of political correctness.

On the other hand, thirty percent of the nation claims to attend church weekly.  Of the remaining fifty percent–the uncommitted population—we  can safely assume that a large number—probably most–are those with no particular political agenda, that ‘silent majority’ who just want to be left to themselves to “cling to their guns and religion”.  These people are seen by progressives as troublesome folks bent on limiting progressives’ ‘social  progress’ by opposing diversity, gay marriage,  abortion and euthanasia while favoring ‘discrimination’ (which, along with outright racism, in fact is practiced by progressives themselves in favoring certain select voting minorities).

How is it that a small minority of boors can savage our Constitution in the name of ‘public reason’ and seek redress from government in the name of ‘fairness’ (neither concept appearing in our founding documents)?  Why do we permit five percent of the population to dictate to at least sixty percent of our largely law-abiding (and quietly religious) citizenry?

How indeed… passivity.  After all, Christianity advises us to ‘turn the other cheek.’

All we have to do is nothing–let others do it.  That’s not the American way, and unless we get back to basics (the American way, the Constitution and spirituality), we’re going to lose 200-years of progress along with our hard-earned freedoms and world-leading status.

The Progressive Ethic is anti-religion (particularly anti-Christian) and, make no mistake, would remove religion from the public sector.  It is also seriously anti-Constitution, particularly anti-individual.  That would seem to make ‘progressives’ anti-American, considering our hallowed roots.

The founders warned against faction; this is clear in their writings of the time.  We now have a faction that has assumed virtual control over our government while trashing the very bases of that government.  Political correctness, abortion rights and changing the whole meaning of marriage and other secular (anti-religious) pursuits are evidence of their influence, and no wonder—political correctness has its roots in the communism of the early 20^th Century (proof at www.extremeethics.org/?p=216).   Liberty is being sacrificed in the name of what a small but strident minority consider the common good, with their socialistic government defining what is good.

The fact is that spiritual faith has been the most powerful and enduring force in the course of human events;  faith is characteristically individual and faith tends to foster ethics.  Spiritualty, individualism and ethics are  anathema to the Progressive Ethic. http://www.extremeethics.org/insight

Faith doesn’t require church-going, or even an organized religion.  It just requires that you believe what you already know (knowledge requires truth) and TRUST IN IT.   If you have doubts, read To Tell The Truth… (see sidebar) and act on it.  Make the world a better place.  YOU can make a difference—trust yourself.

Ethics is one of several fields of philosophy, the thinking rationally and critically about fundamental questions.  A basic tool of philosophy is, famously, logic—the process of right reasoning.

Maybe the most basic philosophical question of all is: why is there anything?  This question is best answered by another: Who knows? which is enough to put philosophy on the shelf, a position often exacerbated by philosophers themselves—especially those with an agenda.  Philosophers love arguing with other philosophers, scaring off others who might make sense of it all.  The next few paragraphs illustrate why.  Stay with me here…

Philosophy incorporates three laws of thought, to wit: 1) Nothing can be and not be at the same time; 2) Something either is or is not; and 3) A thing is what it is (such as words, which simply describe what is). The alert reader will recognize these as saying pretty much the same thing in different ways and illustrate the validity of absolutes (there are absolutes—get used to it).

Another factoid: Fundamental principles cannot be proved to be true; these are the principles by which other claims may be proved true.  If you’ve been paying attention to past blogs, you’ll recognize this as describing First Principles.  These are the anchors for our thinking and are themselves anchored in what I consider to be the first of first principles, TRUTH.  Without truth, there can be no knowledge, and therefore nothing at all.

You are urged not to take too much issue with the foregoing, or you will be among whom Aristotle famously described as the wrongheaded who refuse to realize that some things cannot be proved (if this were not true, then nothing could be proved).

Are we having fun yet?

Well, for respite we can always fall back upon science, the favored daughter of philosophy.  Science, like its parent, has to do with our origins, reality and the physical universe generally.  Science provides a safe haven for those who must put things in the context of what’s solid, those who like to observe and experiment.

But science is really no more solid than philosophy because it too is founded upon speculation.  Science is based on a few postulates that are assumed, NOT PROVEN.  The problem is that even many scientists do not acknowledge that…

Which brings us to that other daughter of philosophy, spiritualty (the term ‘religion’ is too opinionated and limiting). This offspring deals with the spiritual world rather than the physical world of science.  It too has to do with our origins, ultimate reality as well as such intangibles as the meaning of life, human nature, good and evil, immortality (and mortality), right and wrong, and, taDA!, ethics.

Ethics is not a child of religion, as many of ‘The Enlightened’ would have you believe.  It’s an integral part of the substance of philosophy, the parent.  As such it supersedes even science, which often does not recognize religion as a function of spirituality.  There IS spirituality, just as there is the physical world.  This is fact, but as a First Principle can’t be proven any more than the EM (electromagnetic) Field can be proven (but we know exists) by science.  It may even provide the answer to the question “why is there anything?”  Don’t sell it short.  That science can’t prove it means nothing because science itself is an offspring, and an effect can’t prove its cause (see paragraph 4, above, any number of past blogs, and the book (To Tell The Truth…).

Ethics is founded in TRUTH, the first of first principles and, as such may be classified as a given. Now THAT’s extreme…

…and what ExtremeEthics is all about:  saving the world, one truth at a time.

Reads: “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.” Simple enough. It’s about First Principles—the right of the individual to security. http://www.extremeethics.org/?p=183

Note the preface which explains the reason for the protected individual right (the entire Bill of Rights is about individual rights). The militia is necessary to the security of a free (meaning non-authoritarian) state. It’s a free country, after all.  The militia is composed of individuals for their mutual protection (“We, the people”) of their individual rights. “Well-regulated” does not mean government-controlled; this would be self-defeating. It means “of the (responsible) people.” Nor does government determine who is responsible.  Government exists for the purpose of securing equal protection of individual rights. The whole people constitute the Militia. It has the right of revolution and therefore the right to the means of revolution. This may be daunting, but it’s true nonetheless. Government “of the people, by the people and for the people” is the law of the land, and not to be taken lightly. Just responsibly.  http://www.extremeethics.org/?p=582

ISSUE: “…keep and bear Arms.”  Define ‘Arms.’  In the good old days, ‘Arms’ included swords, muskets, pistols, knives, bayonets, cannon, bombs.  If the term were meant to include only what could be carried in one’s arms, it would not include cannon or bombs, but that definition appears nowhere. And, by the way, ‘keep’ means own…

Not said being not meant, the fact that they are not specifically defined leaves the definition inclusive of whatever arms are available at whatever time. “Arms is (sic) arms.”  Got a nuke?  Hang onto it…

But wouldn’t that be overdoing it? Wouldn’t that threaten the powers-that-be?  After all, that would make “a well-regulated militia” capable of virtually anything.  Well…  Let government beware. The individual people are in charge. The Constitution says so.  The Second Amendment confirms it.

Not said is not meant. But what is said is that “a…Militia (is) necessary to the security of a free state.” This says that those capable of constituting a ‘well-regulated militia’ have a right to whatever methods of destruction are generally available. Where’s the line? Well, there really is none. The “right to keep and bear arms” is inclusive—all arms.

Those not capable of constituting a ‘well-regulated’ militia—this would include criminals, the insane and others who could not be well-regulated—do not.

After all, were it necessary for a ‘well-regulated militia’ to challenge a standing government army, why should it be limited to pistols and knives with blades less than 2-1/2 inches in length?

It is the right and duty of the responsible citizen to protect himself and his family. From anyone–anyone who would violate his family’s sanctity, which might include the police or government agents, and his right (duty) to protect is not given by government, but is a First Principle before government. The government secures rights, it does not dole them out. That means that it protects equally the equal rights of each individual. Power is delegated to the government (by the people) for the benefit of the people. The people have in fact reserved the right to revolution—make no mistake about it.  It is that right which guarantees every other, and while it may seem frightening, it’s guaranteed by the Constitution and therefore is the law.

There’s a lot here to think about, but that does not include the right of government to violate the second amendment. The Constitution may be amended (at peril) by the several states, but any such move should be very carefully thought out. The Second Amendment is clear; the People have the right to keep (own) and bear arms for their individual protection as well as protecting those rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

Don’t jeopardize those formidable rights.  We, the people are in charge, and don’t forget it.  Let government  get used to it…

The First Amendment to the Constitution protects religion from government but not the reverse, and in no way demeans religion or its effects.

Freedom of religion is ensured by the First Amendment, as are other freedoms as well. But in cases where a religion conflicts with our Constitution or its protections, the Law must prevail. This is the case with Islam, which along with its (Muslim) religion includes an ideology (embracing Sharia Law) that does not recognize the freedoms ensured by the Constitution but is instead in opposition to them. The Qu’ran is in direct conflict with our inalienable rights among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and human rights generally. It  does not tolerate any religion other than Islam (further evidence of our Judeo-Christian roots—Islam was not in any way a factor in our founding and is not supported by our laws—killing infidels is not part of our heritage). Even a cursory reading of the Qu’ran will support this statement.

The current world situation (Islamic terrorism) is testing our nation and its resolve. The concept of Political Correctness has manufactured an artificial tolerance of Islam in the name of religion rather than upholding the law of the land.  But this is unconstitutional as well as unethical.

Political Correctness is false and therefore unethical; we need not tolerate terrorism in the name of ‘fairness.’  (Feel free to find any reference to ‘fair’ or ‘fairness’ in either of our founding documents.) Our Constitution is clear if we will take the time to read and understand it and its supporting documents, and our Constitution is the law of the land. It has helped to make us the envy of world cultures. There is no need to lower the bar to mollify those who do not realize its benefits.

Article V of the Constitution provides for amendment should that be deemed necessary. There are currently 27 amendments, duly processed and permanent parts of the current document.  You are encouraged to read the entire document. It’s short and understandable—not at all like our Tax Code. And don’t forget the Declaration—it’s even shorter but equally instructive. Even more information is available in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers as well as other documents of the time. The intentions of the Founders are quite clear, should we care to investigate them.

Freedoms of speech or peaceful assembly are not limited.  This would seem to mean that anything may be voiced, including profanity or ‘hate speech.’  Not said is not meant.

“Hate speech’ is a function of political correctness, which has no constitutional support whatsoever.  Feelings are not considered by either the Declaration or Constitution.  Common courtesy and decorum were assumed by the Founders and would seem to limit what may be voiced, but the Constitution does not.  There exists a built-in concession to ethics and morality but there’s no code of ethics written into it.   http://www.extremeethics.org/home/code-of-ethics This would normally not constitute a major problem in a world of an objective press, which would itself compensate for flagrant bad-mouthing.  However, this is not the case in our society currently.

Somewhere along the societal line it has become common for those offended and/or insulted to seek redress from government.  This phenomenon tends to be one-sided; it’s OK for one to trash others but not to be insulted.  It is also not supported by the Constitution.

This is one reason for the current Progressive drive to change the Constitution in the name of modernity.  Feelings have become more important than objectivity.

But the Constitution is nothing if not objective.  It assumes that individuals will handle these problems themselves, without the intervention of government.  This is as it should be—not said is not meant.

Fairness is not a stated function of our Constitutional law, which may not and does not favor one special interest over another.  Such issues are left to propriety, individual action and the courts, which may not make law.   This is as it should be.  Deal with it, but mind the words of Blaise Pascal: “The first rule of morality (ethics) is to think clearly.”  Thinking clearly requires an accurate understanding of the language. Read the Constitution. You may disagree with what I say here, but make certain that we’re talking about the same thing should you challenge my statements. http://www.extremeethics.org/?p=565

Questions? Comments? Concerns?  Feel free!