I have written about abortion previously. I have discussed the problems with legislating from the bench and the societal issues when judges take powers unto themselves. Today, the media is in shock and awe over the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) making an abortion decision not to strike down a law in Texas. Would it shock and dismay anyone if I explained that SCOTUS still got the decision wrong? From the pen of Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, we find why the current SCOTUS got the latest decision wrong.
“The law is the witness and external deposit of our moral life. Its history is the history of the moral development of the race.” ~ Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
“The ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas [and] the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.” ~ Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
The history of abortion on demand is fraught with legislative attempts that were superseded by judicial activism. By judges acting to legislate from the bench and cram new moral authority into American law, without the consent of the governed, problems in governance arose. The most egregious problem is the dependence upon judges to solve legitimate legislative issues, and therein lay both the destruction and the solution to the current dilemmas of American society.
What are moral issues?
A person smoking is a moral issue, not a legal issue. Abortion is a moral issue, not a legal issue. Moral issues deal solely with how a person chooses to live their lives, regardless of how another person thinks they should live their lives. Drunk driving is a legal issue as it places other members of society in danger when an intoxicated person operates a vehicle impaired. But, drinking is a moral issue, provided that person is of social/legal age to drink. Is the distinction clear? Provided the exercise of a person’s moral choices does not interfere with another person’s ability to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. The moral decisions of the first individual do not become legal issues of the second person.
The feminists of the day wanted to control women’s bodies and control how often men had sex with women. This was part of a larger social trend to see women gain more rights and privileges in society, a moral issue. The feminists used friendly judges to chip away at the social fabric until they obtained a legal decision that allowed for abortion on demand. Fundamentally, the decisions of the feminists to exert control of mass populations of females was a violation of those females’ moral agency as many of them did not join the feminists’ associations before becoming influenced by the consequences of the decisions made in the name of females everywhere.
Social Change Needed
The separation of moral agency and legal rights is thin but distinct; unfortunately, the line has become blurred through social influencing, social media, and judicial activism. Society has fallen into helicopter parenting, and the courtroom has become both the parent and the potential gold mine. Find the right case, find a friendly judge, and take the current case to the media to inflame a population and try the case socially before the case is conducted legally. The other side barely stands a chance anymore. Even if you lose the case in court, you win socially, which changes minds and hearts, leading to more changes to laws, just a smaller payday.
As a kid, if you took a decision to a parent and the first one told you no. Then you went to another parent for a second opinion; how much trouble were you in? In my family, you got punished by both parents, twice the beating for the same decision. My buddy, his parents were getting a divorce; he used this tactic to the fullest all the time as a weapon against his parents, as his parents used him (only child) as a weapon against each other. Only later did I fully appreciate the horror and tragedy my buddy was in during this time in his life. Worse, it has only been in the last couple of decades that I have realized how terrible this lesson has been for all of American society and what it has done to our courts and legal system.
The Opportunity
Freedom means being responsible for our own actions and their consequences. Our moral agency allows us the power to act and puts us in the driver’s seat to control our choices in our lives. But, we do not get to pick the consequences, when the consequences land, or the severity of the consequences. We can only control what we do with our choices. I prefer to have unfettered freedom than nanny-state control. Who controls the government in a nanny-state? Honestly, look to Cuba, China, Venezuela, the USSR, and ask who controls the nanny-state, as they strive to control every aspect of you?
In representative governments, we, the people, are responsible and control the government. We cannot abdicate this responsibility, and the government cannot seize power without our consent. Herein lays our golden ticket to the chocolate factory; their bounds are set, ours are not! The government can only go as far as we declare they can. After leaving American citizens to the ravages of the Taliban in Afghanistan, polluting our shores with an unsecured southern border, and all the other crises we are dealing with, it is time we started restricting the government of consent.
SCOTUS’ decision was still wrong because they should never have issued a decision in the first place. The decision SCOTUS should have given should have been a single sentence, “Abortion is a moral issue, not a legal issue, and we are removing the courts from this issue and returning it to the legislative bodies of the United States for further decisioning.” With that single sentence, all legal proceedings, legal determinations, and laws on abortion would have been halted, awaiting a legislative determination. Then, and only then, would a great injustice have been legally righted in America and the 50 individual states’ legislative bodies being empowered to choose as their citizens saw fit.
SCOTUS could then do the same for same-sex marriage and every other moral issue they have legislated from the bench over the last 200 years. This leads to a dramatic change in and correction of the judicial branch and honoring the legislative and executive branches of government. When judicial activism ends, people understand that liberty is more precious than gold and silver and then live their lives according to the dictates of their own consciousness, leaving others to do likewise. Our opportunity is to return to this manner of legal system, seize this golden ticket and return to sanity in freedom!
© 2021 M. Dave Salisbury
All Rights Reserved
The images used herein were obtained in the public domain; this author holds no copyright to the images displayed.
There is a principle in life, “If you are not whole without something, you will never be whole with it.” Modern psychology will not teach restraint to gain freedom. It will often try to encourage a person to continue to do self-harm through their lifestyle while at the same time trying to find inner peace through the same lifestyle causing inner turmoil. Yet, natural law and common sense declare if what you are currently doing is causing you distress, stop what you are presently doing first.
Believe it or not, appetite control is a choice and begins with a desire to learn. The paradox in training is that when the desire to learn is stronger than the appetite to remain ignorant, the learner will produce the effort to change through learning. This is why appetite control is such a critical and fundamental topic for understanding. Desire is appetite, an appetite is a tool for good or ill, and bridling an appetite is every person’s job if they choose self-mastery as a means of self-regulation and self-improvement. When we choose self-mastery, we choose to become free!
How are the best racehorses made? Sure, breeding helps. But, training is as, if not more, crucial. A good animal does not become a great animal until they are placed into the hands of a good trainer who puts restraints upon the animal. A bridle, a harness, a saddle, wrap their legs to protect against ligament strain, shoes on their feet, and much more. Then over time, the animal learns that the restraints, which at first were chafing and fought against, become the tools by which the horse achieves greatness. The same is true for humans, every human, and those who, throw the restraints, never achieve freedom, never achieve excellence, and refuse their potential for momentary happiness, all because of appetite.
A colleague of mine mentioned something in passing that has me thinking about the contentious voices surrounding our lives. Consider with me for a moment; when the last time you heard just the news was? No commentary, no hidden bias, no reporting for emotional reaction, simply a description of the events of the day, news? I cannot remember when I last heard a news report. It seems that to get the local news, I have to question the motives on the stories, compare news broadcasts for opinions and biases, tune into three or four different radio stations and compare them to the TV, and those to the newspapers, and even then, 90% of what is reported still has to be discounted.
When emotional intelligence was first coming out, feel free to read the early papers and books on this topic if you doubt what I am reporting. Emotional intelligence was declared as the ability to read the emotions in a room and then control the people through their emotions. For which I have adamantly opposed emotional intelligence as a concept since inception. I have always felt that trying to control others through their emotions is wrong, in poor taste, and can easily backfire when those being controlled wake up and realize what has been happening to them. Yet, emotional intelligence has grown as a concept, has broadened in scope, and no one is asking why anymore. Well, I am, and so are a few others, but the media is working hard to keep us silenced and sidelined as “aluminum hat-wearing non-conformists.”
Well, I would see you escape the hook, wake up mentally, and arise as a powerful individual. Capable of independent thought and able to reason and think using your own instinct, talents, skills, and innate reasoning. I am not making a plea to your emotions, and if you ever think I am playing to your emotions, feel free to call me out! I am not here to enslave your mind, but to free your soul and empower your spirit, to support your goodness, and justify you being the free-thinking person you already are!
On this last point, consider Joe Biden and his words to different audiences on the campaign trail. To one audience, he pledged to put oil company officers in jail for unspecified environmental crimes. To another audience, he promised not to kill coal. Both declarations were later denounced as verbal gaffes, miss spoken words taken out of a larger context, and phrases that did not mean anything on the campaign trail. Yet, the words fit the emotion being witnessed, and the crowd forming the environment and peer group being addressed. All politicians do this, and it is referred to as “politicking” or “playing to the audience’s emotions.”
Those terrorists rioting over the spring and summer of 2020 were pawns and self-destructive actors to the contentious voices. We are all living in a time where social influencers play the most extensive role in the lives of people than ever before, and they can play this role because we have unbridled our emotions and refuse to believe that emotions are a choice, a judgment, and a tool for social integration. While the masses are not taught these things, those controlling the contentious voices know these truths, but they also practice hiding this information to destroy the groups they enslave. Please, free yourself from bondage, take control of your emotions, and never allow anyone to control them ever again!
Since February 2020, the world has seen 
What was the desired intent of this despicable piece of self-righteous trash? I have had three calls to date from two different VISN’s and VAMC’s requesting me to get vaccinated, neigh demanding me to get vaccinated. Yet, the VA cannot even answer simple questions about my concerns for the vaccination, including future sterility, why vaccinated people are only catching the DELTA variant, how the vaccine interacts with medications already being taken, the neurological issues and heart issues from receiving the vaccine, and the list goes on and on! But the VA wants to send me a letter talking down to me and my intelligence trying to promote the vaccine and claiming this is like serving in the US Military again!
Every one of you should be ashamed! Each one who has sat by and watched your governor or president be the flaccid media mouthpiece of cheap science, faux interest in public health, and have voted to create inflation, destroy businesses, livelihoods, and communities, while cheering the destruction of law and order, you also need to be held accountable for your culpability in this most disgusting and distressing event, COVID-19! I absolutely require your retirement packages, repayment of all funds, and a dishonorable discharge from public service for every one of you! Why have so few of you even asked the simple questions regarding COVID; for example:
COVID
Let me be clear, upfront, and personal; I am not here to tell you what to think, how to think when to think, or where to think. I will not force my opinions and ideas upon you as the global corporate media does. I will offer ideas and suggestions and how you proceed is your affair. Your choices will determine your destiny. I aim to aid you in understanding and viewing the world a little differently to improve your destination.
Macro-aggression is the complete opposite and are “obvious, intentional, above-board insults, where there is no chance of a mistake on the part of the transgressor to be provoking, insulting, or otherwise discourteous.” But, again, the definition does not include the fact that the person claiming another person’s activities are macro-aggressive is a personal choice, a judgment, and a socially powered decision.
Micro- and macro-aggression are often claimed to be “triggered” by specific words, colors, foods, waters, fruits, and a host of other items. Essentially using fear and envy to demand people act differently or the consequences are toddler-like fits and fussing, picketing, rioting, looting, e.g., acting like a terrorist. Thus, micro- and macro- aggression is nothing but the toddler throwing a temper tantrum because they are not getting what they want at that moment. While claiming their aggression is on behalf of someone else, and their acts of terrorism are excusable because the aggression was triggered by someone or something else. This is like the eight-year-old older brother or sister throwing a fit that the toddler was punished and claiming they are behaving irrationally in support of the toddler’s tantrum. How many parents will buy this logic; I do not!
Love them or hate them, comedians have changed since I was a kid sneaking peaks of comic relief on cable while washing dishes late into the night. Comedians now carefully pick their materials based upon their perceptions of the audience. Thus, we have classes of comedians, including “Shock Comedians,” who try to be as offensive as possible and still get laughs. We have political comedians; some come down equally on both sides of the political aisle, others are as cemented to a political agenda as they can be and use their “comedy” as a tool to influence their audiences towards that political agenda. We have a host of comedians dedicated to helping people laugh and others who see themselves as able to influence, regardless of consequences.
American policy on using biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons, in war or peace, the user was subject to a nuclear strike in retaliation. President Obama (D) and his “
America, I cannot stress this enough, I am not excusing the Wuhan Laboratory for their practices. The news has reported bad freezer gaskets, trash just dumped, and thousands of other errors in operational laboratory practices that should never occur in a certified laboratory researching viral gain of function research. I am not excusing the American Government nor EcoHealth Alliance for their roles in this COVID-Farrago. However, the fix to recovering from and avoiding future bio-weapons being released is to be found in the capitals of the US and all her states. The Government in America is the problem, and the solution begins with the ballot box!
Let me reiterate; only for emphasis, armed rebellion is not what I am calling for, advocating, or even advancing as a principle for throwing off the onerous chains of the tyrannical government America is currently suffering. The Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-Day Saints reveres as scripture a book called the Doctrine and Covenants, and section 134 represents 12 statements on government that I hold dear and believe in strongly.
I do not speak for The Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-Day Saints! I respect and honor the books and resources provided for their clarity and their simplicity. I have abbreviated the above statements to reflect my personal beliefs and respect the intellectual property owned by The Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-Day Saints. I firmly believe that these statements embody the principles found in the US Constitution, the Magna Charta, the Articles of Confederation, and The Declaration of Independence. By following these statements, society improves, regardless of the government flavor found locally.
I support obeying, honoring, and sustaining the laws of the land upon which you live and work. That through the laws of your land, just grievances may be brought forward to your government officials, civil officers, and magistrates, and redress for wrongs made right. I do not support sedition and rebellion in any shape, form, or creed, as this is the path to anarchy and chaos. As an American [A(h)-ME-I-CAN], I support the logical separation of church and state as described above and will support any organized religious belief in the public square, provided the religious beliefs do not infringe upon another person’s rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
Apathy is all about a lack of enthused concern. Being apathetic is a choice to show no concern, emotional connection to an issue, or interest. The choice to be apathetic is personal and does not indicate that a person is heartless; simply, that the person being apathetic is making different choices where emotion is concerned on a topic.
Here is the problem with all three emotional tools above, they are emotional responses to external situations. Jean-Paul Sartre is quoted thus:
Consider the announcement that someone’s cat has died. What does society say one should do in this situation; take visual cues and match the emotions of the person whose cat died to the environmental situation, and respond in a similar manner. Feel sad the cat died; why it was not your cat that died. What if the owner is feeling relief because the cat had suffered from health or physical defects; do we still emote sadness? What if the owner inherited the cat and is relieved they never have to clean the cat box again, step in wet hairballs, or take as much allergy medicine; do we emote sadness when the owner emotes joy? Thus, one can more easily see, and understand that emotions are a choice, and empathy and sympathy are emotional traps.
Pride, is an interesting element of emotional response and centers around self-elevation and enmity (being actively opposed or hostile to someone). The proud person will say, I am better than someone else and be violently opposed to any influencers who are perceived to threaten the superiority of the person emoting pride. The proud person will always use emotions as a tool for controlling others, which is one of the most compelling arguments against the current business fad, emotional intelligence. Pride, with its underlying core of enmity, is the root of the common conception of, and popularity for, emotional intelligence. Real emotional intelligence recognizes the cognitive, judgmental, and social aspects of emotions, and works to control oneself.
Consider the anger people chose over the death of Rayshard Brooks earlier this year in Georgia. Many people chose to be angry and then expressed that anger in burning down a Wendy’s restaurant franchise, rioting, lootings, clogging traffic, stopping commerce, and other actions considered acceptable expressions of anger by the media who reported the events.
Further emotional outbursts and increased levels of emotional criminology might occur later. Still, at the moment, those actions have reached the limit of justification and the emoter will choose differently to gain favor and approval from the third-party. As witnessed in the Missouri riots that spawned the political group “Black Lives Matter (BLM).” Further, the third-party that controls the justification can turn-on and turn-off those emoting at will, by telling them how they should be responding to a given situation. The third-party possesses considerable power through the justification of emotional outbursts, the same influence as exerted by an owner or a league over a sports team.
DNC-Consulting 