for U.S. Senate


Solutions?  Now, there's a concept
not often heard from any political
campaign.  Our two-party system
offers you "more of the same" or
"less of the same", but always...the same.
FRED brings actual solutions to the, sound ideas that solve many of the problems that frustrate and aggrivate Americans.

FRED Ryman's Senate campaign is "SOLUTIONS-ORIENTED".
It is a "political tactic" when politicians say, "I have a plan..." but then you never really hear any details on their plan.  Politicians use this strategy because, once their plan is public, it can be torn down.  FRED is not a politician; he is a problem solver who thinks outside the box.  The two major parties are hampered by their loyalty to ideas that have never worked well because they don't SOLVE anything.
FRED's solutions take a new, fresh look at the root causes of our issues rather than just treating the surface symptoms.  We will look at solutions to each of the following issues:
EVERYBODY has a tax plan!  The Flat Tax, the Fair tax, the 9-9-9 plan... Whatever!  My Decentralized Tax Plan is the best tax plan you have never heard of because it is not a single, one-size-fits-all tax plan.
My Decentralized Tax Plan would abolish all direct taxation by the federal government (such as income tax) on every US citizen and on every corporation that is wholly-owned by US citizens through a partial constitutional repeal of the 16th Amendment.  It would preserve the possibility of an income tax on non-citizens and on corporations partly or wholly-owned by non-citizens.  Federal revenues would, instead, be gathered through a per capita tax upon the states.  Each state, then, would decide the best manner of taxing its own people and companies to meet their federal obligation.  To ensure timely payments, states being in default would temporarily lose all voting representation at the federal level (in the House and the Senate) until their tax payments were brought current, at which point their voting rights would be restored.  Quorums and majorities would be adjusted during these periods accordingly.  These measures would, of course, be part of the aforementioned constitutional amendment repealing the 16th Amendment.
The advantages of such a plan are numerous:
- State tax plans would remain under the control of a more-local,
    more-answerable state government.
- the states would be able to adapt their tax plans to the unique
    characteristics of their state.  For example, Hawaii might tax its
    tourism industry more heavily; New York might raise its
    income taxes; California might tax property more; Florida
    might hike inheritance taxes; other states might increase sales
    taxes.  The point is that each state could decide how to best
    raise revenue to meet their federal obligation.
- citizens and companies would be able to vote with their feet, re-
    locating to states where the tax plans are most "fair" for them.
-  businesses would not have to move overseas to shop for the
    best tax plan, preserving American jobs, bringing home others.
- states which proved incapable of managing their own state
    revenues and meeting their federal obligations would lose the
    power to control the rest of us from D.C.
- the IRS could no longer be used by Federal Administrations as a
    tool of tyranny, squelching the voices of free citizens through
    the threat of financial ruin, frivolous prosecution, and choosing
    to delay tax exempt status for conservative groups.
- disputes over tax burdens would be addressed between federal
    and state entities, instead of oppressed or ill-equipped citizens.
- over-counting of population would result in higher tax burdens
     but under-counting would result in a loss of representatives in
     the U.S. House, creating a disincentive for either.
Several natural and important tensions would also be preserved:
- states could not radically raise taxes on businesses or those
    businesses would relocate to other states, taking jobs with
- states could not radically raise taxes on the labor force or those
    workers would seek employment in other states, forcing the
    original employers to raise worker pay to maintain staffing.
- states could not overspend or they would have to raise taxes
    which could cause a mass exodus of businesses and workers.
- and yet, states could not cut necessary spending or the negative
    impact on quality of life would drive out those same workers
    and/or businesses.

Thus, the most important tension created would be a coercive demand for fiscal responsibility at the state levels, which those states would demand from the federal level to lighten their load. This Decentralized Tax Plan would move taxes to a more local level where tax-payers should have a greater voice.

Overall, this Decentralized Tax Plan should produce lower taxes, smaller federal government, and would certainly preserve American jobs by allowing our industries to find lower taxes WITHIN the United States.
Tax Plan
The best tax plan you've never heard about.
Every Old Guard Republican and every Democrat who claims that they want immigration reform is a flat-out liar.  Democrats have always advocated for heavy immigration (legal or otherwise) because they see immigrants with indifference toward our culture and our constitutional principles as their future voting base.  Republicans, historically the party of big business, continue to cater to the need of those businesses for cheap, illegal labor in order to suppress all salaries.  The flow of illegal immigrants works in favor of both parties' objectives.  And yet…
The openness of our borders poses a clear and present danger to the security of our nation and the two parties who allow it to continue are, plainly, subversive of the Constitution they swore to defend.  We have no idea who might be crossing our border and the sheer numbers of that migration makes detection of those with hostile motivations all the more difficult.
The American people are fed up with politicians who speak of the need for "comprehensive immigration reform", because they are perfectly willing to create paths toward citizenship for those who have already proven themselves willing to cheat the system and ignore our immigration laws.  And yet, those two parties never, ever, EVER secure the border.  The foolishness of it all is almost cartoonish, like a man continuing to bail out his little fishing boat with his little bucket without first plugging the geyser that just continues to flood the boat.  And yet again…
We are NOT going to build a big, beautiful wall!   Building a wall is something a politician would do to make it LOOK as though he were doing something when he's really just wasting our money.  Let’s put this notion of a wall (or a fence) to the test through a simple exercise in logic…
Question:  How far are you willing to go in order to protect your wall?  More to the point...  If someone is trying to cut through, climb over, or dig under your wall, are you willing to shoot that invader?
If your answer is, “Yes!  Shoot him…” then why have the wall?  Bullets are cheaper.  Just put boots on the ground, armed with technology and the authorization to defend our border, and our border will be protected.  However...
If your answer is, “No, that’s inhumane…” then, again, what is the point in building a wall?  It would be full of holes, covered with ladders, and undermined with tunnels in short order.
Building a wall is not even a part of the answer.  You must cut off the magnet…that thing that continues to draw immigrants across the border in droves, illegally.  You must cut off the social programs, the financial aid, and the public education at tax-payer expense that give comfort to those who are not even supposed to be here.  But more importantly, you must cut off the jobs and housing that encourages and enables those who have already broken our laws and jumped in line ahead of those who ARE law-abiding.  And MOST of all, you must cut off even the hope that a path to citizenship might eventually be obtained by their illegal entry if they stay here long enough.
We're NOT against immigration, but the privilege to immigrate is ours to give to those we deem worthy.  It is not some right that law-breakers can be allowed to grab away from us.  Similarly, to allow the flood of immigrants from Central America any path to legal status or citizenship is, on its face, discriminatory against those who might wish to immigrate from Asia or Europe or elsewhere.
Working Toward a Solution:
In battling the illegal drug industry, we implemented a drug kingpin law (the Continuing Criminal Enterprise Statute) which allowed for the confiscation of the property of those who had profited through their illegal activity.  Those businesses which profit by breaking immigration laws need a taste of the same punishment…a forfeiture of their assets.  Any business which knowingly hires or continues to employ an illegal immigrant as well as any landlord who rents or continues to rent to an illegal immigrant due to a lack of due diligence, such as using e-verify, should suffer crippling fines on their first offense, but should suffer a total forfeiture of their related assets on any subsequent offense as a de facto corporate death sentence..
A landlord who rents to illegal immigrants more than once would lose their rental property, whether it be a small shack in the woods or an apartment building in a sanctuary city.  A factory or plant that hires illegal aliens a second time would have their entire plant seized.  In all such cases, these assets would, then, be auctioned publically, with assets going into a debt-servicing account, which could transition into funding infrastructure needs if our national debt were paid off.  This measure would penalize the true law-breakers, those who profit from illegal immigration and cynically prey upon their hopes, creating a costly, dangerous border security issue for all of us.
Once this plan has been implemented, there would be no need to deport the reported 11 million illegal immigrants who are already here.  If they couldn't find jobs, and they couldn't find housing, they would find their own way out of our country.  They would leave on their own to follow the jobs elsewhere or leave so they could apply to return legally.  The issue of sanctuary cities would be rendered mute, because the assets of those hiring or harboring illegal immigrants would be seized.  The issue of “anchor babies” would become a mute point as well because, when parents leave voluntarily, most of them would choose to keep their family together when they leave.
Like others, I do also contend that it is constitutionally-questionable as to whether those born to parents here illegally are even citizens and a constitutional decision or amendment clarifying the legitimacy of that point would be welcomed.
Working Toward a More-Ideal Future:
Having said all this, the simple departure of illegal immigrants would be a wasted opportunity.  We should not just send these immigrants “away”.  We should, instead, send them "forth" as ambassadors for the American dream!  We should offer immigrants willing to leave a short training program that might equip them to make a difference back in their home countries.  By preparing them to become successful in business and political activism in their home country, we could help them transform their own homelands into more free and prosperous countries, which would also tend to stem the tide of immigration at its source.
When these plans have been completely implemented then, and only then, we can talk about creating a better process for allowing migrant workers to come into the United States, as our own unemployment rates allow.  Under no circumstances, however, should there be any path to citizenship other than their return to their home country and the normal immigration and citizenship process.  No man, woman, or child can be allowed to jump in line just because they made it across the border ahead of others who are abiding by the rules.  To reward lawlessness with any hope of future citizenship simply creates yet another magnet, drawing greater multitudes across the border.
We shall be secure in our borders or we shall be no more…  Our border shall be secured through a wall of technology and boots on the ground and a willingness to use deadly force when necessary against those who will no longer be able to claim that they are "only seeking a better life", because that life would no longer be available to those who attempt to come here in violation of our sovereignty.
Illegal Immigration and Immigration Reform
The best immigration
   plan you've never
I support the repeal of the 17th Amendment which allowed U.S. Senators to be elected by popular vote rather than by the State legislature.
I remember thinking, when I was a history student in Junior High, that direct election was, surely, a more democratic and more representative manner of choosing a Senator...and it is.  The problem is that our founding fathers had intended the Senate to be a voice for the State, itself...not just another voice for the people.  States have interests that extend beyond what most individual voters might concern themselves with.
The duty of U.S. Senators, as much as anything, is to be a check on the power of the federal government.  Their job is to say "No" when the federal government decides to overstep and usurp the rights which are reserved to the states.
I, personally, first realized the federal government's over-reach back in the 1970's during the days of the gasoline shortages and the 55 mile per hour "national" speed limit, imposed upon us by Washington.  Did the feds have any right whatsoever to impose a national speed limit?  No...and even they knew it.  That fact is proven by the manner in which they approached this small step toward tyranny.
Instead of just passing a law directly as they would if they had the authority, they simply told states that their state would not receive any highway funding unless that state passed a 55mph speed limit.  So, by coercion, 55mph became the "50 state" (i.e. national) speed limit.
Having succeeded in this tactic, the federal government now employs that same "denial of funds" tactic with virtually all matters which should, constitutionally, fall under States' Rights...and there is no longer a body of representatives in Washington that are charged with the duty of speaking for the states.  We see this especially with education, an issue that is clearly reserved to state control.  Every time someone at the federal level claims they are "pro-education" and promise money to fund education, they are flat out lying!  That "money" STARTED OUT in the local economy.  They took it and now offer only a portion of it back to us...with strings attached that, again, requires that we accept their federal tyranny on issues like Common Core and school restroom policies.
The effect upon a state is that a refusal to "play along" drains the economy of that state.  The Feds drain money out of the state through tax revenues which are not returned in funds or services.  When the Feds then refuse to release even a portion of that money back into the state unless they agree to the tyranny of the Feds they are being blatantly unconstitutional, although no one currently serving in Washington seems to understand or care that they, themselves, are thereby subversives.
Art.1, §8, ¶1 of the Constitution says:  "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States..."
Art.1, §9, ¶6 says:  "No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another."
The point of these two paragraphs, especially taken together, is to say that the federal government cannot pick winners or losers between the states.  The federal government cannot show any favoritism (neither through taxation nor regulation nor grants nor highway funding nor education funding nor through any other means) toward any state(s) at the expense of another.  In other words, the federal government cannot strip the economy of a state through taxation to fund the failing leadership of another.
If Senators were more answerable to their states’ governments, then they would fight for their states’ interests rather than pander to the electorate and be bought by campaign contributions and special interests.  That is the job of Representatives.  (*sarcasm*)
States' Rights
and the 17th
Who speaks for our
        State's interests?  Who is answerable
        to our State
and Militant
Islamic Jihad
Of all the solutions addressed, herein, this is the one solution that must remain somewhat hidden, because it would be utter foolishness to announce a strategy and expect the enemy to simply allow it to proceed as planned.  So, in this instance, I must break my own rule of "providing solutions" and say, "I have a plan.  It is a sound military plan that will effectually end the ability of ISIS to function in fairly short order."
I will, however, take the opportunity to make a point...or two.  We will not "solve" the problems of the Middle East...ever.  I proclaim this from a historical perspective and from an informed faith.  We must stand with allies and stand against aggressors, but it is not our place to meddle in the internal politics of other sovereign nations.  And...we have serious issues even here at home...
There are, conservatively, about 6 million Muslims living in the United States.  We are constantly reminded by the media that most of them are peaceful; they always show a few who feel like victims of American hatred.  So, first of all... I bear no ill will, nor paranoia, concerning any man of any race or religion.  However...
In a Pew poll positively cited by an MSNBC story in the Fall of 2015 belittling Trump's proposed temporary Muslim immigration, only American Muslims were surveyed.  Of those in the survey, 81% said that suicide bombings were not acceptable and about that same percentage denounced the Militant Islamic Jihadist movement.
That sounds like a very positive sign until you consider that 19% of these fellow Americans were unwilling to denounce Jihadists and suicide bombings.  Doing the math, this comes to over one million American Muslims who are "open" to the notion of using barbaric methods to attack innocent fellow Americans, just like those in San Bernadino, CA.
I do not bring this point up to create fear among non-Muslims.  I bring this up in order to address Muslims in Missouri and across this county:  You, as an American, have an obligation to your fellow citizens.  If you are sincere in your faith and these Jihadists have, indeed, twisted your faith as we are so often told, then you must rid your faith of them...and you must help our country rid itself of their threat.  This is YOUR obligation above all ours.
To those tempted to act on behalf of such thugs:  It is the cry of the Jihadist, "Allahu Akbar!" (God is Great!)  Really?!!  If your God were, indeed, great, he would not need your help!  He would not have to force people to "love" him at the barrel of a gun.  He would not have to force people to follow his path under threat of death.  He would not condone the rape of women.  He would not send armed cowards to slaughter unarmed civilians; he would, instead, give unarmed warriors victory over mighty armies, because THAT would prove the "greatness" of your god.  No "great god" would force himself upon anyone, because that very tactic would suggest to all that he is "not so great".
To those of my own Christian faith, I would offer only this:  Our God does not need help either.  Our role in this life is that of our Savior, to love, to guide, to reprove, to forgive, and to live our faith in faithfulness.  If condemnation must come for any man, it should come at the hands of God alone. 
Adapting to a different kind of warfare...
Gun Control
and the 2nd
Some people misunderstand the nature of rights.  A "right" is not granted to us by our laws, or Constitution, or Bill of Rights.  A right is granted to us by our Creator.  The founding fathers saw fit to enumerate many of these rights in our Constitution and the Bill of Rights to ensure that we, the people, understood them to be rights that could not be taken away by any tyrant, foreign or domestic.
Let me be abundantly clear…  The 2nd Amendment is an individual's right enumerated in our Bill of Rights in order to help us secure all other rights against the threat of tyranny at home and abroad.  The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting, nor sport.  Federalist Paper #46 stressed the logic that a fully-armed militia (which, in our founding fathers’ eyes included EVERY able-bodied man of age) would be an overwhelming force against any national army, including our own.
While it might seem “reasonable” to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, or those on a no-fly or terrorist watch list, or those who might fit some other suspicion of being potentially dangerous, no basic right can or should be infringed without due process.  For example, one can be put on a no-fly list by complete accident.  One can be put on a terrorist watch list with no due process whatsoever.  And what of "mental illness"...?
There was actually a minor movement back in the 80’s and 90’s by those who believe there is no God to view ALL religious folks as mentally ill.  “All believers of all faiths are crazy!”  How short the path to such a view could be, given the barbaric fervor of militant Islam!  That attitude could, then, be turned into a prohibition upon all men of faith to bear arms due to this “mental illness”.  Think it could never happen?  Trusting in the good nature of politicians and the bureaucrats they appoint is the ultimate foolishness.
I could support instant background checks to ensure guns are not sold to felons.  Those checks, however, must be against lists which have resulted from some action of due process against the would-be gun owner, not against some arbitrary list from some unelected bureaucrat.
The fact is that murders occur because of the sinfulness of mankind, not because of the weapon of choice.  There was violence and murder long before there were guns.  Guns make the taking of life easier, but also make the defending of life easier.  Those who blame guns for gun violence instead the holder of that gun prove themselves utterly foolish and they reveal their own ignorance of the very nature of mankind, both the criminal AND the tyrant who prospers when the oppressed are disarmed.
If, however, we understand that there is an “end game” for those who wish to control us, then we must take a long view and fight against every incremental infringement of our right to bear arms.  If we allow ourselves to gradually lose an ability to defend ourselves by just one small “reasonable” step at a time, then we will eventually become that proverbial boiled frog.
Gun ownership is a God-given "right" because it is akin to the right of a person to defend himself, whether against individuals or against governments who mean him harm.  Would slavery have existed in a world where every African owned a gun and knew how to use it?  Would slavery have continued in a world where every slave owned a gun?  Many of the quotes that people attribute to groups like the NRA, such as "When owning a gun becomes a crime, only criminals will own guns...", are actually paraphrases of comments made by our founding this case, a citation from Cesare Beccaria that Thomas Jefferson included in his own writings.
Let's be frank and put an end to the farce...because evil motives are surely at the heart of it all.  If our President actually believes that a gun-free zone provides the safest possible environment, then I would invite him to remove guns from every guard, and every Secret Service agent in or near the White House.  The D.C. capital cops have guns; just wait on them to arrive if you have some emergency.  Let his own family stand unprotected.  The foolishness of gun control advocates should become almost instantly self-evident.  Our founding fathers understood that an armed public is a safer public, safer from the aggressions of overly-ambitious men from without and within.
Why is gun ownership considered a God-given "right"?
We are caretakers of a wondrous planet, full of diverse life and beauty.  We must continue to demand that both, industry and individuals assume responsibility (both, financially & criminally) for harm they cause to various ecosystems.  Having said this, those holding to the so-called near-consensus opinion regarding the long-term effects of man-made global warming have crossed the line of intellectual honesty into the territory of international conspiracy and political correctness.
As Christmas of 2015 approached, Presidential Candidate Bernie Sanders tied the unusually warm weather pattern on the East coast to global warming.  Never mind that it was, on that same day, snowing in El Paso on the Texas-Mexican border.  Tying a temporary, localized weather pattern caused largely by the naturally-recurring el niño cycle to global warming rivals the ignorance shown by U.S. Congressman Hank Johnson who expressed fears during a congressional committee meeting that the island of Guam might "capsize" due to overpopulation.  (In fairness, after reviewing the YouTube video , the Congressman did appear to be somehow "impaired" at the time.)
While the media and various politicians attempt to stifle any dissenting discussion of climate change and would have us believe that the matter is a proven fact within the scientific community, their dogmatism does not make it so.  Senator Cruz recently dismantled the Sierra Club President in Senate hearings on this question of simply "accepting concensus" vs. "discussing facts" because the facts do not back up this supposed scientific consensus. ( see YouTube video  of that testimony)

I recently heard a climatologist flat out lie about this fact on a morning news program, implying that the oft-mentioned 97% consensus was some survey of only climate experts.  Non-sense!  The 97% number is not a survey of climate scientists at all.  The 97% figure is from an online survey of 10,000 scientists to which only 3,000-4.000 responded, which was then further reduced by the surveyer to a selected 79 responses.  This entire "survey" process (and thus the results) have been completely discredited as bogus and, yet, the results have taken on a politically-correct life of their own.

You may also hear about "peer-reviewed" published articles which is a way of saying that these articles were, themselves, censored by those who insist on a "man-made global warming" theme (i.e. the number is entirely a politically correct deception).  In the world of science and academia, if you hope to receive grants (which is the source of your paycheck), you are wise to publish in agreement with the politically correct conclusions.

On the contrary, many scientists whose expertise does lie in the field of climatology are much more skeptical of the speed, cause, and impact of climate change.  For example…
Judith Curry is an American climatologist and former chair of the School of Earth & Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.  Her areas of expertise include polar climates, air-sea interactions, atmospheric modeling, hurricanes, remote sensing, and using unmanned aerial vehicles for atmospheric research.  She is a member of the National Research Council's Climate Research Committee.  She greatly disputes predicted speeds of temperature rise as well as the ability of mankind to have any significant impact upon that speed, positively or negatively.  She also stated plainly that “Efforts to link dangerous impacts of extreme weather events to human-caused warming are misleading and unsupported by evidence.”  [Wikipedia]
The fact is, as stated above, we live on a wondrous planet…a planet that self-regulates its temperature very effectively, as is evidenced by the fact that the earth has undergone a multitude of significant climate variations through the millennia caused, in some cases, by cataclismic terrestrial events and, yet, it has continually self-corrected.  The planet has been through ice ages and warm-ups and millions of smaller changes through the ages.
Climate change advocates are quick to point out some of the more immediate impacts of global warming – the melting of the ice caps and mountain glaciers, the warming of the oceans, the rise in sea level.  What these alarmists fail to mention is the subsequent results of those changes.  For example, the rise in sea level covers a greater percentage of the earth’s surface which has a cooling effect on the atmosphere.  The rise in global temperature also raises the vapor pressure, allowing greater evaporation, which also has a cooling effect.  The greater evaporation creates greater cloud cover which again has a cooling effect.
Storms would increase and while an increase in storms might have a negative impact on man-made structures, atmospheric churning also promotes greater cooling at the surface by drawing down cold air from the upper atmosphere and sending warm air into the upper atmosphere where it radiates its heat out into space.  The end result of all of these effects is that a cooling cycle would again cause ice caps and glaciers to grow until equilibrium is attained.
The dark truth, here, is that there is an ulterior motive behind this fear mongering.  There are those who believe in global citizenry and seek a one world government.  The United Nations' Agenda 21 is but one documented endeavor in that direction.  The claim of man-made global climate change has become their weapon of choice in establishing choking regulatory controls and bringing decline to the powerful economy of the United States.  Theirs is a strategy of humbling America to the point that it would accept its equal status to every other nation in this global community, whether it be China or Nepal or Haiti.  If one accepts the truth of human nature – that men will always seek power over other men – then one should look beyond the scientific issues which are, indeed, refuted by reputable scientists in the field of climatology.  One should consider the political schemes of those who might seek power over us.
I do not suggest that we should tolerate any intentional abuse of our environment, especially chemical contamination which is a far greater danger, but only that fears over climate change is a weapon of those who seek to subvert the U.S. government and bring it under the control of a one-world government.  It is no coincidence that this is the same crowd who wishes to disarm the American public…this is the same crowd who wishes to control the educational content at the federal level for the next generation of citizens…this is the same crowd who censors or ridicules those who dare offer a dissenting view…indeed, this is the same crowd which does its best to restrict ballot access and multiple-party debate for fear that an opposing view might, perchance, gain public favor.  If one does not understand the political end game behind environmental concerns, one could easily think they are saving the world when they are, in truth, only condemning their nation.
When other developed nations and the developing world meet the standards the we already exceed as regards climate change and environmental responsibility, then and ONLY THEN we can move forward in leading further change, but we will not cripple the United States’ economy under the deception that our unilateral sacrifice will save the world, despite the continuing abuses of other nations.
Environmental Issues and Global Warming
The Greater Danger
   of the Political
I am fairly certain that most adults understand the difference between wants and needs...and when there's not enough money to go around, we must meet our needs and our wants must be laid aside for a time.
We have two possibilities...  Either our leaders are so stupid that they cannot balance our national wants and needs against our revenue ...or... They believe we are finally ignorant and powerless enough that they can successfully enslave us, economically.
Instead of funding what is necessary to keep our government operating, laying aside other funding issues until we can afford them, they offer us "all or nothing" budgets, pointing fingers of blame across the aisle when the government shuts down.  This is a subversive scare tactic which offers false choices.
Instead of ZERO-based budgeting, Congress uses continuing funding with false language.  A "cut" is not a cut at all, but only a lessening of the increase.  A ZERO-based budget begins at $0 and insists that any spending must be justified.  But Washington rightly judges that zero-based budgeting is "too hard".  It IS hard, and it SHOULD BE hard to justify taking hard-earned money out of the pockets of the American tax-payer.
"Well, that's not the way Washington works..."  Seriously?!!  You think  If I am elected, I will vote "NO" for every budget that spends more than the incoming revenue!  I will vote "NO" on every budget that includes grants to private individuals or organizations.  I will vote "NO" on every budget that includes research grants, unless those recipients forfeit the rights of patent.  No patent should ever be granted to any person or company when the public is already funding that research.  You can obtain public funding or you can receive patents; you should never receive both.
A sign will hang on my door for all special interest lobbyists to see as they enter, "The public feeding trough is hereby closed!"
The National Debt and Government Spending
The impossibly
difficult ZERO-Based
Budget...?  Yes!
it SHOULD be
impossibly difficult
to spend
YOUR money!
Slavery is surely the greatest stain upon our American heritage.  The very notion of one man owning another in the nation that would hold itself out as a beacon of freedom, a singular shining light upon the earth, proclaiming the God-given rights of the unquenchable human spirit is detestable.  Thankfully, slavery is but a vanquished embarrassment in our distant past…or is it?
Do you know the best kind of slaves?  The best slaves are the slaves that don’t even know they are slaves.  With each passing hour, we all become more and more enslaved...enslaved to debt, oppressed by regulations run amuck, under threat of becoming completely socialistic...  In a way, this election is about slavery... economic slavery...  We have lost our way as a free nation.
Even now, the Democrats and the Republicans are fighting tooth and nail, not for our freedom, but rather to determine who gets to be the slave masters of modern America – big government or big business.  But modern day slavery is not like the slavery of old…  Modern slavery bears no relation whatsoever to race; it impacts us all.
Modern slavery is a “soft” slavery, an economic slavery:
The modern-day masters don’t need to put chains on our ankles in order to shackle our hopes and dreams.
They don’t need to “own” us outright in order to sell us down the river; and sell us down the river they have!  So far South of debt-free that we may never escape.
They don’t need to scar our backs with a thousand lashes; they need only to subdue our entrepreneurial spirit through the lashes of a thousand regulations… and suppress our political endeavors through Super-PAC economics… and use the IRS, or the EPA, or whatever agency to hamper or impoverish us if we dare seek freedom from their tyranny.
Silly talk, you think…?  Let’s pretend, for a moment, that this is 200 years ago and that you are a slave owner…  How would you treat your slaves?  Would you not put a roof over their heads?  …but not a nice roof…not like the main house.  You would give them a shack or a small flat…just enough to shelter them so they could stay healthy enough to serve you.  And would you not put food on their table? …but not a lot of food…not good food.  You would give them just enough to keep strength enough to serve you.  And would you not give them an education?  …but not an exceptional education.  You would give them enough of a mediocre education to serve you but not so much that they might become too "uppity".
The Democratic brand of slavery consists of subsidized housing, food stamps, enough health care to keep you reasonably healthy, and now…a so-called “free” college education.  Oh, by the way… I want to go to Stanford for my “free” college education…or MIT or Harvard.  Do you think this is an option for my “free” education? …or will it be a mediocre education?  You’ve seen what they’ve done with the “free” public educational system so far, right?  …dumbing-down the curriculum to the point that you could barely call it “education”…and now they want to just extend that same idea out a couple of more years…  And when you get out of school, they will tell you how much you can earn by taking away any “excess” earnings through taxation, while spending so much of the money you have earned (or will earn) that you are certain to live in debt slavery forever. After all, it's for your "Massah", a socialistic federal government, that you are laboring.
But the Republican brand of slavery is equally as bad.  Have you ever heard the term “company town”?  In the old “company town”, one major employer, like a coal mining operation or a steel mill, might move into an area and buy up all of the housing, all of the stores, all of the…everything.  They would attract workers to their company with the promise of “good jobs”, and they would rent those workers company housing, and let those workers shop in the company stores, and so...all of the salaries of those workers somehow found their way back into the pockets of those companies.
Some of those companies even took it a step further.  They paid these workers with something called “script”.  Script is like money except it only spends in company-owned businesses.  The only real value it had was the value that someone told you it had, you know, sort of like those unbacked Federal Reserve Notes.  The thing is... since script could only be spent at all of those company stores and for all of that company housing, it was worthless anywhere else.  So, that worker couldn’t really even save up money to leave that company town, because all he could save up was script which was worthless anywhere else.  He was trapped.
And, funny thing…  The cost of that housing and that food kept going up, but their wages didn’t.  So, not only did everything the company paid out in wages find its way back into the company’s pockets…but their workers actually found themselves in debt to their own companies.  They were trapped, not by chains, but by their debt and poverty.
Now…  Think of that “company town”, but on a national scale!  Our nation is not owned by just one company (not yet anyway) but with merger after merger after take-over after sale, there are fewer and fewer businesses/banks holding more and more of the wealth.  And… The fewer businesses there are, the greater the control they have over that shared slave-labor force.  The old "company town" is a microcosm of what has been evolving on a national scale (or even international) over the past few decades.
As the middle class is destroyed by this crushing of competition, there becomes only 2 classes:  the slaves and the owners.  If you are willing to see the bigger picture and the party ideals and the loyalties within those parties and the end game of each party, then you will begin to understand why everything happens the way it does in Washington.  It’s all pretty straight forward, once you realize that it’s all about slavery and the oppression of men.
Why do we have an illegal immigration problem?
Democrats want new voters, new voters who have no real loyalty to our constitutional form of government, new voters that are more than willing to soak up the social assistance with which we provide them.  But the Republicans are also complicit!
Republicans want more cheap labor in the work force.  That allows big business to suppress the wages of all workers.  More competition for a given job means that people will accept less and less just to get a job.  Both parties further their true goals and benefit from illegal immigration, so neither of them will ever solve the problem.
What about over-regulation?  Why we do have over-regulation that almost completely stifles small business?  Three young ladies in Georgia couldn't even open a lemonade stand on the curb of their street without permits and certificates and licenses.
The voter base of the Democratic Party consists largely of those who depend on the government (either for their jobs or for free handouts); they want you, also, to depend on government.  As long as you depend on the government for your job, for your housing, for your food, for your health care, for your education, for your transportation, for your unemployment payments, for your grants/funding, for your child care, for your loan guarantees, for your retirement… As long as you are dependent on government, you are not independent… You are not free!  They hold influence over you…and you are going to tend to vote for those same people who give you all of that "free stuff".  You're going to vote for the very Slavers that are “selling you down the river”.
Never mind that your job is for an agency that is finding new ways to oppress others.  Never mind that their housing is sub-standard.  Never mind that their free education system is more about brainwashing the next generation than about preparing young people with skills for life.  Never mind that even our Congress doesn’t know what it's funding.  Never mind that a socialized national health care system creates a whole new breed of slaves called doctors.  What else can you call it when the government demands, “You WILL provide services, and we will pay you what little we chose to pay you, if we so chose.”
Ronald Reagan warned us of this as far back as 1961.  His speech on “socialized medicine” (available on YouTube) more than 50 years ago predicted exactly where we are now, and where it would go from here.  And now we have a Presidential candidate who openly claims loyalty to the socialism that would make slaves of us all.
But, again, Old Guard Republicans want oppressive regulation, too.  Their big business buddies certainly don’t want more small businesses competing for their limited labor force because that increased demand for labor would drive up their own labor costs.
This is not some kind of “conspiracy” between politicians.  It is a natural tension between economic philosophies that both have adverse aspects.  The politicians are simply being loyal to their differing ideologies, but the end effect is the same…economic slavery.  We must break the chains of these two parties and work our way back toward freedom.  Every “freebie” enslaves us!  Every social program and every regulation that is “for our own good” is just a fancy shackle upon our liberties.
America is at the edge…  If we listen to the 2 parties and continue to cower under the fear mongering of the politically elite, who play the role of our masters, then we deserve to continue in our slavery…we deserve to continue losing ground…we deserve to LOSE our nation…
NOW is the time to say “NO MORE”.  NOW is the time to RISE UP!
NOW is the time for an electoral revolution!  NOW is the time to say "NEVER AGAIN will I vote for evil! ...not even the lesser of two evils!”  But...only you can vote to free yourself!  Vote for freedom!  Vote FOR FRED!
National Identity ...and...
From Within
Just when you thought slavery was a thing of the past.
The Economy 
 So-called "Jobs"
A statistic was reported on the news awhile back:  48% of all jobs in America are part-time jobs.  Let that sink in...nearly half of all jobs carry no benefits, no health care, no vacation time... Part-time positions are generally low-paying, requiring employees to find second jobs.  But...we are told that the unemployment rate is low.  
However, if we look at under-employment, not just part-timers but also those who are working jobs that are well below their capabilities and skills, then it is staggering at how America's labor force is going to waste.  And... It becomes easier to see how our middle class is dwindling away.
The answer is NOT more government!  ...not more government spending!  ...not more government jobs!  More government means more economy-killing taxes to support that bigger government.  The answer is not more big business taking over competitors and reducing competition in the marketplace.  We have reached a point where Anti-Trust laws are virtually ignored.
The answer is to untether the American people to compete in the marketplace, to empower them to create and grow new businesses...  Indeed, if our government "must" favor any business over another, it is small businesses that should be favored.  Small business provides more jobs, more competition, and more diversity in the marketplace.
Similarly, if our government policies are going to encourage either part-time or full-time employment, it should encourage more full-time employment.  Businesses hire part-timers because they don't have to provide benefits to part-time employees and because it gives them greater scheduling flexibility, but that is generally bad news for the worker seeking a full-time job.
Minimum wage increases are pointless.  The inflation caused by minimum wage increases offsets any benefit.  But... As a "temporary" solution to this "part-time" employment epidemic, I would suggest leveling the artificial free market forces through a higher "Part-Time Minimum Wage".  If the minimum wage were, say, $10/hr. then there should be a $14/hr minimum wage for part-time workers.  This would offset the cost of health care for part-time workers and would de-incentivise the shift toward hiring all part-time workers without benefits.

The better and more permanent solution would be Proportion Wage Controls, discussed in the "Fair Wages" segment.
the plague of part-time
and under-employment
Trade Imbalance
Donald Trump is partly right on the issue of trade imbalance, although even he doesn't "get it", because he doesn't see the "end game".  Our leaders have done a terrible job of negotiating trade deals, but the "why" is the problem.

The Democrats' "global citizen" world-view hamstrings their ability (or their desire) to negotiate in good faith on behalf of American workers.  The Republicans' loyalty to big business causes them to ignore the plight of American workers.  (Yes, I am saying they are both traitors and subversives whose primary interests do not rest with Americans' best interests.)

While strict Free Market / Free Trade advocates talk about isolationism and fear-monger about starting trade wars if we were to raise protectionistic tariffs, those who believe that open trade is the most mutually-beneficial policy are giving away our strength and our cash through a false argument.

Never mind that the playing field between U.S. and foreign labor is not level to begin with, due to the "slave labor" conditions in some of these nations.  Free Traders argue that our workers must compete in the "global market" and that our labor costs are artificially high due to influences of labor unions.  This back-door manner of union-busting is one of the many things that are destroying our middle class.  But...

It is our larger middle class and a higher wage to cost of living ratio that creates greater disposable income which, in turn, creates a more vibrant marketplace.  The strength of our position in any trade negotiation lies in our nation's disposable income.  We have an exceedingly-profitable marketplace that other nations would and should pay to get into.  By comparison, China's marketplace is huge but almost completely devoid of disposable income.

Open trade with a nation is only of benefit to the U.S. if that nation has disposable income with which to purchase our products.  So, while free trade with Japan "might" be of some benefit, free trade with China or Mexico or Viet Nam most certainly is not in our best interests. A nation of slaves has no means by which they can purchase our product.  The United States, on the other hand, has generally offered an awesome market for any product of value, which is why most foreign companies, despite their objections, would give almost anything to have access to our marketplace.

And... Which U.S. companies most want free trade?  To some extent, it is those very companies (mega-companies) that are exporting jobs to other nations to take advantage of cheap labor (costing American jobs) who are wanting, then, to send products back into the U.S. market without the penalty of tariffs.  And, generally speaking, it is big business that benefits more from free trade than small business, hurting American big company workers who are terminated by big business and the American small company workers who are impacted by the unfair competition of those imported products.

Then, there is the other dimension of foreign trade that no one ever seems to get to.  China, for example, is very good at reverse engineering products that are patented here in the U.S.  Even if we punish China with heavy tariffs on such items to discourage the practice, this has no impact upon their exports of those same products to other nations.  In order to protect our R&D or intellectual property, we must pursue a more comprehensive trade policy with every nation that might receive such imports from countries that will not respect our patent laws.

Finally, there is the impact upon our money supply.  Every foreign product purchased in our nation basically ships cash to that foreign nation and OUT of our economy.  This is why trade imbalances are such an issue.  Our trade imbalance with China ($500 Billion +) is sending those billions OUT of our economy and into the Chinese economy, making cash more and more scarce in our country, unless the FED decides to print more fake money, which de-values every dollar you have in your own bank account.  It is a vicious, cynical game that they are playing and our own leaders are playing us for fools.

So, again, our marketplace is the strength of our negotiating position.  Other nations need access to our marketplace far worse than we need access to their products...or to their markets.  If we use tariffs and other nations do engage in a trade war, I am fairly certain that our nation will prove self-sustaining and will provide sufficient products to our own people.  Their economies, on the other hand, would collapse in short order.  Either the trade imbalance must end or the free trade must or the other...and, maybe, both!

I mentioned the two parties' "end game" earlier...  Sending cash out of our robust economy is the "one-worlders" way of redistributing the wealth internationally, making our nations all "more equal".  They have a loyalty to "global politics" that has supplanted their loyalty to our Constitution and the interests of a sovereign United States.

The bottom line is that both, the Democratic leadership and the Republican leadership, want free trade (although for vastly differing reasons) but their impoverishing of these United States of America must stop...and it will stop.
Our trade strength lies in disposable income.
Most Missourians I talk to believe in a freedom of Religion, but we would never accept child sacrifice in the name of religion.  We believe in a freedom of speech, but we do not allow someone to yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre.  We believe in Free Enterprise, and a free market economy, and the law of supply and demand, but we do not allow child labor nor do we tolerate slave labor.

Freedoms must be exercised with some sense of responsibility.   However, as we watch our middle class losing ground, and wages being held artificially low through free trade with nations using slave labor conditions, and wages being further suppressed through the illegal hiring of illegal immigrants, we must come to recognize that American families are being impacted.  Then, too, there is the blight which is part-time employment which now constitutes 48% of all American jobs!  At some point, surely the toad must awaken to the aroma of the toad stew that he has become.

We have to recognize that economic slavery is being imposed upon us, incrementally.  At some point, we must recognize that our nation is in trouble.  At some point, we must recognize that this is not a partisan issue, not a union issue, not a trade issue, not an immigration is a moral issue.  At some point, we must awaken to the immorality of the oppression of our labor force by the forces of big government and big business.

Granted, this is strictly a value judgment on my part but I do not believe that ANY employee is worth more than 100 times any other employee in a successful company, much less a thousand times any other employee in that company.  Unfortunately, the only solutions our two major parties can think of involves higher taxes upon the rich and raising the minimum wage.  Neither of these failed strategies will solve the problem and they both create even greater problems.  So...  We need NEW ideas!

How can we address all of these issues with a system that allows for the free market to influence salaries, yet also creates a more "responsible freedom", discouraging companies from oppressing their laborers?  My solution is both, unusual and elegant, and far more constitutional than either, minimum wages or Socialism.

Proportional Wage Control:

My Proportional Wage Control formula does not control how little the lowest paid unskilled worker in a company might earn, nor does it control how much the CEO might earn.  It does, however, link the wages of that highest paid employee to the wages of the lowest paid employee and to the wages of the median wage earner.  This formula takes into account the size of the company and the number of hours worked by the average employees, whether they be part-time or full-time, seasonal or year-round.

Proportional Wage Control has numerous advantages:

- a start-up company could hire young or un-skilled workers at a low start-up wage, depending upon whatever the market would allow.  This would result in increased employment among our young or unskilled labor force.  The balance...?  The manager of such a start-up salaried company would also have to settle for a low salary.  This would result in lower start-up costs for that business and would improve the chances of that business becoming successful.

- a successful and growing company would be free to reward the successful management of that company with higher salaries, provided that company was willing to share the rewards for success (to some degree) with the labor team that helped make that company successful.

- under this formula, as a company becomes very large (with, say, 5,000-10,000+ employees), there would be very little room for raising the CEO's salary beyond what the manager of a 100-employee company might make.  This would benefit small companies by enabling them to be more competitive in hiring talented managers.

- another benefit is that big businesses would be discouraged from taking over small businesses with lower pay scales because the introduction of lower wages into their pay structure would negatively impact their existing salary structure.

As with any "new idea", this new way of doing business would have to be "hashed out", but I have created dozens of examples of how such a Proportional Wage Control formula might work in businesses of various types and sizes.  I will be publishing many examples of this formulation in action to give voters a better understanding of how it might positively impact the face of American business and employment.

One side note:  These constraints on salaries would not restrict a company's ownership or profits, only the relative salaries of its employees and management.  The benefit of allowing cheaper start-up of small businesses would allow more Americans to share in the profits of business ownership and would be a catalyst for economic growth.

​The bottom line is that this formula allows free market forces to impact any company's pay scale, while restricting the degree to which a company can oppress its labor force.  This plan would also prove to be extremely beneficial toward small businesses, allowing them to be far more competitive against big business.
Fair Wages
and the
Income Gap
​Wage Control
Health Care
I recently heard several politicians proclaiming that we have a "right" to good health care.  May I just say, "No, we don't!"
While we may want to see good health care as some kind of God-given humane right, how would our right to any such health care be provided?  It would have to come at the hands of some doctor. We seem to just accept the fact that this anonymous doctor must provide this health care and must do so for whatever the system says he will earn for the procedure, if anything.  This does not describe a "right", but rather "slavery".  No "right" of yours can impose obligations upon others.
Do we, likewise, have the right to force a mechanic to work on our car for what the system says he shall earn, or to force a minister to officiate a wedding for who and what the system says it shall be done.  You see, no "right" of yours can be used to press someone else into your service, unless their slavery has become your right.  But this notion of forced labor for a wage that the government decides is at the very root of socialized medicine.  
In a Free Market society, as is ours, anything that increases the demand for a service or that makes access to it easier will raise the price of that service.  Insurance does exactly that!  Who is going to pay for health insurance and not take advantage of it at every opportunity?  Folks who might, otherwise, stay home until their temporary ailment passes, now, go to the doctor, take a pill, and wait for the ailment to pass.  This happens even more so with going forward with more serious it should be.  If you need care, you need care...and, with insurance, you have the ability to get it.  I do not suggest this is "wrong"; I only suggest that this added demand is one factor that causes health costs to rise.  But...
Health Insurance not only increases demand on our health care providers, the insurance itself increases costs.  Next time you visit your doctor, notice how many of the staff are providing care and how many others are merely dealing with insurance billing and processing.  For many doctors, dealing with insurance and/or Medicare requires them to double their staff.  Additionally, the insurance company, itself, is a for-profit business and that profit comes out of your wallet as added medical-related costs.
There only real alternative that we have been offered is letting the federal government run our health care system.  I've never seen the federal government run anything efficiently/effectively.  As Reagan used to say, "Government isn't the solution to the problem, Government IS the problem!"  So then, where does that leave us...?  Well, it leaves us, once again, looking outside the box.
I would prefer that all health insurance be abandoned/outlawed in favor of a combination of health savings accounts and non-profit health cooperatives with highly-restricted administrative costs.  The point of insurance is to spread the risk and sudden cost of major health issues across many other people to lessen the financial impact and still enable care to be provided.  There's no reason that we should also have to line the pockets of insurance companies and their stock-holders.
Is there another alternative to insurance or ObamaCare
This is an issue that the Supreme Court flatly got wrong…and not that long the Kelo -vs- City of New London case.  Eminent domain can NEVER justify taking private property from one individual or company and giving it to another individual or company, regardless of any supposed public benefit that might occur.  If a private entity has designs on someone else's property, tough!  It's not theirs and won't be theirs unless they can persuade the owner to part with it.  That is the whole idea of "PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERSHIP".  Any private property that is taken from its rightful owner should and MUST remain in the ownership of the governmental entity which took possession of that property; otherwise, the property should and must be returned to the original owner, with or without improvements.
One current example is the proposed Keystone Pipeline (phase IV) through the heart of America.  But this pipeline is owned by a Canadian company (TransCanada Corp.).  If this pipeline is to be held and maintained by private owners who will profit by its use (and a foreign company, at that), then Eminent Domain CANNOT be used  to justify taking land away from the rightful owners of that land.  Period!  That precedent could justify selling northern California to China to pay off our national debt.
Eminent Domain cannot justify taking private property so that another group can build a football stadium for their personal profit.  Eminent Domain cannot justify taking private property so that an oil company can build a pipeline for their company’s profit.  Eminent Domain cannot justify taking private property so that another group can build a shopping mall for their group’s profit even if it does increase the tax base.  If this subversive decision stands, then we have just killed the American farm... because almost any other use of any farm land would increase the tax base.

It doesn't matter one bit that some other use of that property might improve the tax base.  It doesn't matter that the owner is stubborn and is holding up someone else's idea of "progress".  Private Property rights are all about an owner being secure in his possession.  Eminent Domain was intended ONLY to allow government entities to build PUBLIC buildings, and PUBLIC roads, and PUBLIC parks, etc. that would benefit all and profit no one.  If Eminent Domain can be used to take away property from one individual or group so that it can be given to some other individual or group for them to use for their own profit, then there no longer remains any such thing as private property.

Indeed, in the aforementioned Kelo case, dissenting Justice Antonin Scalia judged correctly that allowing this abuse of Eminent Domain blurs the line between public and private property...a subtle way of saying that there is no longer any such thing as "private" property.  Equipped with this precedent, those who would seek to implement Agenda 21 could proceed.
Congress must act to clarify this point for the Supreme Court. 
We must correct what the Supreme Court got wrong!
Campaign Finance
Reform and
Ballot Access
As much as anyone, I detest the notion that elections can be virtually purchased.  However, contributing to the political candidate of your choice is an expression of free speech and a right of association.  Frankly, I'm not sure that even the current financial restrictions can constitutionally be applied to political campaigns.  One thing is for certain...  Without extraordinary circumstances, a government that is truly "of the people" is most certainly a thing of the past, which endangers the concept of a government that is "for the people".
Given the reality of big money, the solution must render money less effective in the process.  Several years ago, I thought to use social media networking as a means of transcending political parties to both, energize and activate potential voters.  I created a blogsite called "FOuRTH Party USA" as an early step in that process, but did not follow through with the concept.  Freedom Connector provided some networking capability around that same time.  More recently, I have seen that Tea Party members have created a FaceBook style site but it is awkward and difficult to use for networking regionally.  Such networks may prove useful but it is hard to overcome the deluge of TV and radio ads that money can buy.
On the issue of ballot access, however, there is no legitimate justification whatsoever for tough restrictions upon getting a candidate's name or a party on the ballot.  Even in third world countries, it is common for 10 or more candidates to appear on the general election ballot.  With the technology we have at our disposal, surely we could handle a printing and a counting of ballots, regardless of the number of names, especially when we generally use electronic ballots in most states.
States can regulate State ballots as they see fit, but restrictive ballot access laws that impact federal-level elections have no basis in the Constitution and are deliberate attempts to stifle diversity and competition for leadership.  It is in the fervor of competition that new ideas can be introduced and hashed out.  If we are going to restrict many ballots to only 2 or 3 choices, then why not reduce to just one choice as most other tyrants do?  ...unless it is for the illusion of "choice".
"Of the people" may be
     an extinct concept...
Can "For the people"
     be far behind?
Planned Parenthood,
Fetal Tissue
Some folks may object that I placed "Abortion" last in my discussion of issues.  In fact, I place Abortion at the bottom, the base, the foundation of my list of issues quite purposefully.  If a person cannot correctly reason through this issue of life and death, then they are wholly unqualified to lead the American people.
There is a tendency, especially among the anti-religious, to blame the Dark Ages on “the church”.  A more precise view would be that the Dark Ages was an era of ignorance promulgated by those who chose to not accept scientific reality.  We are seeing a new Dark Ages, a new barbarism spread by those who view themselves as enlightened.  Yet, it is these very individuals who ignore science, appealing to emotionalism in defense of the abortion industry and, make no mistake, it is an that has crossed serious ethical and constitutional boundaries.
In making the case against abortion, the pro-life camp has been rather foolish.  We cannot successfully argue that abortion is wrong because of some religious belief.  In this land of freedom, every man has the same freedom to exercise his own religious beliefs or his lack thereof.  Indeed, many in the pro-life camp are not really even pro-life because even they do not understand why abortion is wrong.
So, why is abortion wrong, if it is wrong?  What makes it wrong?  There is only one reason for us to oppose abortion as being wrong…and, in fact, there is only one thing wrong with abortion.  It is murder!  Is this hype, or a religious belief, or an opinion with which reasonable men can differ?  No.  It is the scientific reality if we can accept the simple definition that the intentional killing an innocent, living human being is murder.  Let’s break it down…
Is the unborn child “innocent”?  That is an almost absurd question.  Even if the child were conceived as a result of rape or incest, the child, itself, is surely innocent of any wrong-doing or criminal activity.  We do not execute children for the crimes of their fathers.  (The inclusion of “innocent” in this definition of “murder” is largely to dispel any notion that self-defense or capital punishment is somehow murder.)
Is the unborn child “living”?  There are only two possibilities – living or non-living.  Even those who choose to believe that the unborn child is just a lump of tissue have to admit that it is “living tissue”.  Non-living tissue does not function nor does it grow.  The unborn child is both, growing and functioning physiologically from the instant that the egg is fertilized.  It may not yet exist in its final form but, then, neither does a caterpillar resemble a butterfly; a caterpillar is nevertheless a living organism.  The unborn child may be parasitic in its fetal form, but its cells divide and normal physiological and bio-chemical functions take place.  It cannot be considered to be non-living, thus it must be living.
Is the unborn child “human”?  This one is simple.  As a matter of scientific fact, the fetus is, genetically, distinctly homo sapiens.
But is the unborn child a “being”?  On this point, we begin to hear the emotional chant for women’s health rights like a mantra of ignorance:  “women have the rights over their own bodies…”  Indeed, they do…but…  Is the fetus a separate organism unto itself or is it merely a part of the mother’s body?  Here, yet again, as a matter of scientific fact, every “part” of the mother’s body has the same genetic characteristics, the same chromosomes.  The unborn child, however, has a completely distinct genetic code, a combination of its parents' genes.
While a fetus may be contained within its mother’s body, that fact, alone, does not make it a “part” of the mother’s body.  If that same mother also had a tapeworm, there would be no doubt nor debate; that tapeworm is a parasite, but it is clearly a separate and distinct organism from the host.  Likewise, the unborn child, though parasitic in nature during its fetal stage, is clearly a separate and distinct organism.  It is a being.
What about pregnancies resulting from rape or incest?  What about cases involving the health of the mother?  Even many folks in the pro-life community fail to sufficiently reason out this issue.  As a matter of humanity, for us to treat an unborn "living human being" any differently than we would treat a healthy 5-year old child is unethical and inhumane, and no emotional argument can justify taking intentional and aggressive action to kill it.  We would not execute a 5-year old child just because we discovered belatedly that it was the product of incest or a rape.
Even when the life of the mother might be endangered, the mentality of the physician should be, must be, to save all lives if humanly possible.  As in any emergency triage situation, an ethical doctor would make hard decisions, seeking to save as many lives as possible.  For example, in the case of separating conjoined twins, the doctors would never just jump to a decision and say, “Well, of course, we’re going to kill the left one and save the right one.”  Can the unborn child be saved in the case of a tubal pregnancy?  Perhaps not, but if doctors pursued life as eagerly as they pursue death, sufficient technology might someday present itself.
Life is our most fundamental right, a right respected and extended to all, citizens or not.  Any man or woman, any politician or voter, who pragmatically surrenders this basic foundational right to the barbarism of death mill murderers and those who utilize them…any such person who yields and thinks themselves to be the least bit civilized is, in truth, delusional.  Life must be protected and murder belongs in that proverbial "dark alley" that pro-deathers so decry!
Planned Parenthood: 
It is stunning and dumbfounding to me that Liberals support the death of innocent unborn children and decry the death penalty for those who are guilty of horrific crimes.  It reminds me of a Biblical passage…
Isaiah 5:20 Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;
        Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness...
I hesitate to call any persons or ideologies “evil”, partly because it is an effective but poor leadership tactic to demonize your enemy.  However, evil exists… These clinics harvest “healthy, functioning” body parts from the unborn then turn around and insist that they are not “alive”.  I don’t use such language very often, but…  There is a special place in hell…
While the pro-death movement cries foul over recent heavily-edited videos depicting Planned Parenthood representatives talking openly about their business of selling harvested baby parts, you can’t honestly say that whole, un-spliced sentences that clearly refer to this practice are nullified by editing done elsewhere.  Their very language disproves their own contentions that these unborn children are just wads of “fetal tissue”.  When they speak of harvesting healthy, functioning organs, it is their clear acknowledgement that even they believe that they are dealing with “life”.
We are told that Planned Parenthood is a wonderful organization that does crucial work in the area of women’s health.  I will contend only this…  If you think Planned Parenthood is a wondrous organization, then take money out of your own pocket and contribute it to Planned Parenthood.  Such a “worthy” organization should have no need to feed at the public trough, taking the hard-earned money of Americans, forcing them to financially support activities that they find to be abhorrent and that are devastating to their sincere moral conscience.
But, of course, Senator Blunt voted for the Omnibus bill which continued funding the organization with OUR tax money.
A Litmus Test,
Not for Religious
belief, but for
Rational Thought