After World War II, the United States was the world’s only super power and we remained so for almost another generation.  Beginning in the late 1960’s into the 70’s and thereafter we began to decline from that lofty perch to where we find ourselves today.  Now there seems to be uneasiness in our nation, a sense of loss … almost a sense of despair in some quarters.

Hedrick Smith’s book, Who Stole the American Dream? may be summarized by the following statement:  The political class for the most part acts on behalf of the mega-rich at the expense of the middle class.  Mr. Smith is a Pulitzer Prize-winning former New York Times reporter and editor and makes a case that after the Second World War there was a “stakeholder relationship” between the worker and the corporation.  In effect the worker was loyal to the corporation and the corporation was loyal to the worker and the community.  (He cites many examples of decent middle class wages and benefits during this period of our history.  The middle class prospered under this arrangement.)

However, in the early seventies this relationship began to dramatically change in that the stakeholder relationship was replaced by the corporation’s focus on making profits for its shareholders regardless of the effect on workers or on their communities.  This resulted in the motto, “Greed is good,” and in its wake created open borders, rust belts and a lower paying service economy replacing good paying manufacturing jobs.  These good paying manufacturing jobs were shipped off-shore and as a result the middle class wages stagnated and actually declined in the past decade or so.

However, the Washington DC lobbying industry was booming and having thousands of lobbyists gathering on K Street in that district.  There our representatives in both houses and in both parties began doing the bidding of these special interest groups, motivated primarily to receive generous campaign donations from them which was necessary to keep themselves in office. This gave birth to an entrenched political class not envisioned or desired by our Founding Fathers. 

One glaring example of this undue influence by lobbyists is that in 1986, President Reagan granted amnesty to 2.7 million illegal immigrants.  This was to be a onetime act of amnesty coupled with a strong stipulation in the law that the borders were to be secured.  Polls then and now indicate that well over 80% of the American people wanted stronger border security.  However, to date the borders remain porous even after the horror and outrage of 9/11. 

Both parties have been in power since 1986 and neither party has acted on behalf of the will of the American people.  Why is that?  All branches of government seem to be under the influence of lobbyists or special interest groups, liken to some oligarch controlling the two parties.  For example, illegal immigration means cheap labor for one party and potential votes for the other party, while the lobbyists’ goal is simply to establish a source of cheap labor for businesses and corporations.   

On the moral scene we have had the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court 1973 decision coinciding with the time frame of the changes in relationships with the workers and corporations.  At the least, the killing of the unborn by their mothers and fathers has to have hardened the hearts of the citizenry.  There are perhaps up to 100 million Americans since Roe affected by the lamentable act of aborting these defenseless ones when considering that both parents, grandparents, abortion doctors and workers are or may have been involved.

So now we have a corporate culture of greed, along with a weakened middle class and a corrupt political class.  That is for starters.  Unfortunately, we may also have a compromised FBI, Department of Justice, State Department, IRS and many of the media outlets, along with a wounded scarred population.  This seems to be the state of our nation today. 

What are the solutions to ameliorate the condition that we are facing?  Some obvious suggestions are to incentivize corporations to bring good paying jobs back to America, have term limits established for all Senators and Representatives, (there are term limits for the presidency in place), campaign finance reform, secure our borders  and offer the balm of healing to all those wounded by the sin of abortion. 

There is a ready remedy for the latter which is called, Project Rachel.  I have copied their message from their web page and their web site address is shown immediately below:

Hope and Healing After Abortion

You have made the decision to have an abortion. It may have happened recently or many years ago, and yet that decision has left you feeling confused and emotionally wounded. You were unprepared for the deep sense of loss you’ve experienced since that time, and you’ve silently carried your pain.

Perhaps you’ve also experienced feelings of fear, anxiety, guilt, panic or hopelessness. These can be typical – not only for the woman who underwent the abortion but also for the father of the child, the grandparents, close friends, even the assisting medical personnel.

What can you do? Where can you go? Who will listen? If you are suffering from the effects of an abortion, we want you to know that there is help and there is hope. You can heal, and you are not alone.

Abortion is one of the most common surgical procedures in the US, experienced by millions of women. It creates a deep wound in women who have had an abortion, one that affects them spiritually, mentally and emotionally. Project Rachel assists women and men who have been wounded by abortion to find truth and healing.

All contacts are kept strictly confidential.     919-852-1021

PS:  As we enter into the voting booth on Election Day, it behooves us all to vote wisely.


Some historians deal with the rise, decline and fall of ancient civilizations.  For example, they give accounts of the Egyptian dynasties, the Babylonian, Assyrian, Persian, Greek and Roman empires along with the Golden Age of China.  All of these great civilizations have a commonality in that they emerged and began to dominate their surrounding neighbors or nations, reached a pinnacle of success, then began to decline and finally fall into chaos.

Our nation emerged, dominated our neighbors, reached a pinnacle of success after World War II and within a couple of decades thereafter began to decline.  Our decline accelerated at an alarming rate during the past twelve to sixteen years.  During this period our military, economy and our spiritual values have deteriorated, spurred on by moral relativism, crass materialism, and social unrest.

Now we are undergoing through a crucial election cycle to choose a new president.  One of the candidates has many questionable ethical issues swirling around her while the other is a showman, entertainer, business man with a “potty mouth.”

These are the only two viable choices that we have before us.  One candidate favors abortion during the entire nine months of pregnancy, believes, promotes, exhorts same sex marriages, and is on record in favor of restricting religious freedoms.  She also indicates her intent to appoint future Supreme Court Justices who will defend her aforementioned position in these matters, while the other candidate is against (most) abortions, in favor of traditional marriage defined as being between a man and a woman, and is on record of defending religious freedoms.  He is also on record with his intent to appoint future Supreme Court Justices who will defend his position on these matters.

There are other ancillary issues of some importance such as border control, immigration, taxes, deficits, trade, inner city turmoil, terrorism, education reform, and alike, but none of these are intrinsic evils such as those outlined above.  So now given where we are in our history how do we choose the new leader of our nation? 

(I recall that during the Byzantine Empire which was actually the continuation of the Roman Empire in the east, it underwent a series of severe declines, but overcame these threats to its survival by having competent leaders emerge who were capable of taking corrective action, thus averting a catastrophe).

So our survival is conditional on a leader who will right the ship of state.  In my mind a candidate who respects human life, born and unborn is probably the right choice, therefore I will VOTE 4 LIFE. 


(Preface: What do the atrocities of Islamic terrorism, slavery, genocide and abortion have in common? They all define the “other” as less than being human. This mind set justifies the promotion and perpetuation of these evils.)

As we know the overwhelming number of Muslims are not terrorists, (thank God), but virtually all terrorists are Muslims. Why is that? Based on the tenets of their Holy Book many Muslims take a world view which divides the world between the world of Islam (the true believers) and the world of the infidels, or the non-believers.

Based on this perspective, the Islamic terrorists justify themselves into thinking that since the infidels are in effect something less than being fully human, it becomes a moral imperative and responsibility for them to enslave or kill the infidels unless they convert to the world of Islam.

This way of thinking, in that the “other” is a lower form of humanity is not something new in history. In the Book of Genesis chapter 9, there is an account of Noah cursing one of his three sons, named Ham (Canaan) and proclaiming that he will be a servant of his two brothers. This Biblical account by some is called “the curse of Ham” and this Biblical interpretation was used to justify the slave industry. The slave traders and owners rationalized that since the descendants of Ham are black and cursed they are not really fully human and therefore, they can be enslaved.

In our history this line of thinking was used by the Supreme Court when they issued their ruling in the 1857 Dred Scott decision which addressed the question: “can a negro whose ancestors were imported into this country and sold as slaves become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all the rights, and privileges”, . . . “specified in the Constitution?”

Another quote from the court decision reads, “They (slaves) had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect, and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold, and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic whenever a profit could be made by it. This opinion was at that time fixed and universal in the civilized portion of the white race.” Such was the language used by the Supreme Court in 1857.

In effect the court decided that the U.S. Constitution defined blacks as a “subordinate and inferior class of being.” (This Dred Scott decision may have been one of the contributing and significant causes of the Civil War.)

Adolf Hitler was instrumental in establishing The Nuremberg Race Laws of 1935 which deprived German Jews of their rights of citizenship and in effect giving them the status of “subjects” in Hitler’s Reich. After the Nuremberg Laws of 1935, a dozen supplemental Nazi decrees were issued that eventually outlawed the Jews completely, depriving them of their rights as human beings. These laws eventually led to the Holocaust which resulted in the physical annihilation of millions of human beings.

The Supreme Court case of Roe vs. Wade made a right of abortion legal for nine months of pregnancy. This outcome is based in case law which was decided on January 22, 1973, as a result of a class action challenge against the constitutionality of a Texas law which restricted the use of abortion.

Quoting an excerpt from the majority opinion written by Justice Blackmun, we read, “Texas (law) urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.” (Note that the Justice believes there is a problem with knowing when human life begins, while the Texas law contends that life begins at conception.) The Justice then rules that the Texas law, Art 1195, is unconstitutional and concludes “that the Texas abortion statutes, as a unit, must fall.” (See the case law site:
Perhaps there may have been some difficulty or question in 1973 of determining when human life begins and as a result the unborn may have been considered something less than human.

However there is a scientific study of when life begins. Maureen Condic, Ph. D. created a scientific white paper which concludes,” that human life begins at sperm-egg fusion is uncontested, objective, based on the universally accepted scientific method of distinguishing different cell types from each other and on ample scientific evidence (thousands of independent, peer-reviewed publications). Moreover, it is entirely independent of any specific ethical, moral, political, or religious view of human life or of human embryos. Indeed, this definition does not directly address the central ethical question surrounding the embryo: What value ought society place on human life at the earliest stages of development? A neutral examination of the evidence merely establishes the onset of a new human life at a scientifically well-defined “moment of conception,” a conclusion that unequivocally indicates that human embryos from the one-cell stage forward are indeed living individuals of the human species; i.e., human beings.” (See: Dr. Condic is Associate Professor of Neurobiology and Adjunct Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Utah School of Medicine. She is also Director of Human Embryology instruction for the Medical School and of Human Neuroanatomy for the Dental School.

It then becomes obvious that the atrocities of Islamic terrorism, slavery, genocide and abortion all define the “other” as less than being human and as a result this mind set justifies the promotion and perpetuation of these evils.

We must underscore the dignity of all human life, born and unborn and develop an abiding respect for all of humanity if our planet is to survive.