Category Archives: Religion

IF I ONLY HAD A BRAIN

Sun Tsu teaches that to defeat one’s enemy one must know who (or what) it is.  The enemy, in its own defense, will always try to deceive, creating artifices against which its victim can expend great effort and resources, weakening itself to the point where the attacker can triumph with few losses.  We call these artifices “Straw Men.”

So it is with good and evil.  Evil never has strong footing but is very clever at creating false targets or disguises of its true purposes.  Good can dissipate evil in a heartbeat but, being more trusting, gets diverted away from the target evil and even allies with it for a time, believing there is some greater good being served.  And so it is with abortion.

The evil that is expressed through abortion is very clever.  Abortion, we are told – and sold – is an expression of freedom and even civil rights.  Most of us respect “freedom” and are quick to defend it.  Most of us feel the same about individuals’ “civil rights,” and “Constitutional rights” even more.   Being thoughtful and caring, most of us hate to admit that we have been deceived into defending evil when our whole intention is to defend rights, freedom and the Constitution – all “straw men” in this battle.

It doesn’t matter whether our core beliefs are religious, although such are great resources to bring into the battle against “abortion: “abortion” being the industry of the practice, now infecting medicine and even churches.  Agnostics and atheists are free, certainly, to question our spiritual underpinnings as archaic or no longer relevant in a scientifically sophisticated world, believing that “science” has, or should, take the place of religious “superstition.”  It doesn’t matter: religious truths and rules of honor are still operating regardless of any individual’s belief or disbelief.  We still should strive to expose the Straw Men erected to protect abortion.

Among the other effects of the most famous opinion authored by Justice Harry Blackmun in 1973, Roe v. Wade cemented the repudiation of morality into federal law.  Following the failures of moral struggles in the 1960’s, and as the federalization of welfare in the “Great Society” gained momentum, Blackmun conceived an invisible right to “privacy” that forced government’s hands off of virtually any moral judgements toward individuals’ behaviors.  In effect, Roe justified evil, couching evil as a “right.”  Historically, under a basically Christian impetus toward responsibility for one’s actions (essentially answering to a greater moral code than an individual might create for him- or her-self), individuals were free to be stupid, or to simply fail, but not to be immoral.  Those who fought against immorality, or for a greater morality, were lauded and rewarded in society.  Those who worked for licentiousness had to hide their purposes, often appealing to sympathies for the confused or otherwise “unfortunate” members of society who turned to an immoral path as their “only” means to elevate themselves from still worse circumstances.  Straw Men on the march.

One need not follow any of the major religions to be uncomfortable at the destruction of unborn babies.  If one is “religious” in outlook, he or she recognizes a more-or-less direct connection to God for every gestating child.  This imparts a more-or-less direct responsibility – an obligation – to protect the holy innocents, there being no person of greater innocence than a pre-born baby.  We should recognize the straw men arrayed against morality as those who seek to protect the abortion industry.

First is the claim that what has been conceived and is growing in the womb, is NOT a baby.  It is merely a “fetus” which, in the view of abortionists, is a “mass of cells.”  By implication, the proto-baby is a “foreign invader” and obligating the host-mother to protect and nourish it is a form of slavery or oppression.  This argument is not biologically sound, nor is it morally solid.  Humans, generally, are sympathetic to “baby” anythings, be they chicks, lambs, puppies or kittens, even heifers, foals, piglets and hippopotamuses.  By great dint of effort, we have been divorced from the same emotions regarding our own babies.  Indeed, appeals for donations to feed orphaned animals are far more successful than for the prevention of child abuse.  How grotesquely odd; who benefits from this strange incongruity?

Women who have “bought” the entire narrative of oppression and “not a baby” still are likely to suffer some separation anxiety, even sadness, after an abortion.  The older the fetus the more likely the grief.  Who was that baby going to be?  Would he or she have loved me?  Blackmun found a right of privacy that flushed the destruction of the unborn clear of morality or meaning; the Right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, he couldn’t find.  Interestingly, 90% of women who consider abortion choose to become mothers after seeing an ultrasound test and hearing the baby’s heartbeat.

Abortion can be rationalized with sufficient hatred, yet the essential child-mother bonding that commences very early on after conception, is real.  More than simple hatred is needed to convince a mother that her irreplaceable role can be dissolved by mere hatred of a “growth” in her belly.  It is a special virulence that brings a woman into an abortion provider’s lair, and it has to be carefully taught.  For many abortion advocates, the essential hatred is hatred of male oppression.  Such a transference of emotion is another variation of the Straw Man syndrome.

The country appears to be divided over the question of easy access to abortion on demand.  This means that abortion advocates want abortion to be available within a bus ride, inexpensive or covered by insurance, and bound by few, if any, limitations.

The divide seems to follow party lines, with those on the left: liberals, progressives and socialists, the most in favor of unrestricted abortion; conservatives and Christians the least likely to approve of abortion on demand.  The Democrat party has devolved into the party of death; it seems IM-Prudent to identify as such.  Advocating for the most premature death possible is a form of evil.  For religious citizens, it is proof of the actions of the “Devil,” which is to say, “Deified Evil.”  Some call him Satan.  Whether one “believes” or doesn’t, abortion is never as “nice” as the RIGHT to choose one.  Even pro-abortion advocates should be able to recognize that pro-lifers who believe in the sanctity, or sacredness of innocent life, cannot compromise with the killing of that life.

It is worth wondering about the nature of the anger generated among pro-abortion advocates.  It seems, well, out of proportion.  Where pro-lifers might sing hymns or pray or simply try to speak with those heading into an abortion clinic – and this is understandably upsetting to those who have decided that death of their proto-baby is a solution to life problems – pregnancy support agencies are more likely to be vandalized and threatened.  Where laws have been passed to protect access to abortion clinics and to prevent “harassment” of potential abortion clients, there are none that restrict the same for pregnancy support centers.  Laws against vandalism and arson exist locally, of course, but seem to be less well enforced than the FEDERAL laws protecting the abortion industry, even when the industry, itself, breaks federal laws.

Demonstrations by pro-abortionists exhibit intense angers and even hatreds for pro-life defenders.  One wonders why feelings are so high and angers so hot, in favor of abortion.  Often there are threats of retaliation against those who oppose abortion.  “If abortion isn’t safe, then neither are you!”  Most pro-abortion / pro-death advocates have never suffered an abortion, yet they turn red in opposition to pro-lifers.  Why?  Clearly, if motivated to join a demonstration in favor of abortion, an individual believes he, or usually she, believes that a gestating baby is not a baby.  Perhaps he or she also believes so strongly in Constitutional rights that the risk of breaking laws is well worth the righteous defense of such rights.

Yet, the only Constitutional right most pro-abortion advocates have ever defended is the right to terminate pregnancies.  Is it just to defend the practice of licentious sex?  Is the responsibility for the consequences of fornication so foreign a concept that the right to abortion must be defended?  Is it that simple?  It seems not.

Obviously, pregnancy resulting from rape is a special case, as is incest, and to protect the health/life of the mother goes without question.  Requiring birth of a baby in these cases is cruel and unusual punishment, and society is not prepared to take that step.  Neither is Prudence.  Still, the baby is completely innocent in any case.  We have to arrive at an agreement of person-hood at some point in gestation, whereupon Constitutional rights apply.  We have not been able to do so.

It seems as though the right to kill innocent life is behind – or beneath – it all.  It is an act that is as anti-religious, anti-God as is possible.  If abortions were committed by sociopaths on the sidewalk, who then held the dead baby aloft like a battlefield triumph, we would arrest and incarcerate that evil person until his trial for first degree murder, a capital offense!  Rightly so.  But hiding the act away behind “clinic” doors and surgical gowns and rubber gloves enables us to defend it as a solemn right.  Solemn rite, more like.

One Lie, Two Lies, Three Lies, Four

One way to look at our current national condition is from the top of the Mountain Of Lies.  It’s a better viewpoint for observing the accumulating effects of dishonesty upon the health and strength of the nation to which it is dished on a literal daily basis.  Sometimes there is illumination provided by organizing lists of items that share one or more parameters.  It will be Prudent to consider the entirety, if not enormity of the following list of lies on which Americans’ lives depend:

LAW.  Our history and culture are replete with real and literary conspiracies based on subversion of laws.  To Prudence, undercutting the law is the worst of all lies.  Peace, safety, freedom and life, itself, depend on honesty in matters of law.  It is still worse when it leaves the individual level and seeps into “official” policy and action – denying or subverting the law, that is.  We can see the scope of damage that official lying can do, by reflecting on the completely fabricated “Russia” conspiracy that politicians and law-enforcement agencies attempted to pin on Donald Trump before he won election as 45th President, and through much of his administration.  Subverting federal laws only expanded after that.

A few people lost their jobs at the FBI, but, so far, not their pensions!  The message is that anything illegal done against Donald Trump is not considered to be nearly as bad as illegal acts taken against some other American citizen.  Yes, you broke the law, but it doesn’t bother us enough to apply legal sanctions – wink, wink.  Subversion of law: one of the worst kinds of lie.

But, unfortunately, the unprecedented crimes against Trump are not the worst in terms of how the citizens of the U. S. are besmirched by government lying.  We have to look at immigration and border policies and practices since Joe Biden signed that stack of executive orders on January 21st, 2021.

U.N. and U.S. rules for “refugee” and “asylum” status are pretty loose, subject to multiple steps of acceptance despite previous errors or even untrue/fraudulent applications.  A judge can always accept some claim of good reasons to submit fraudulent statements in order to obtain safety unavailable in their country of origin.  In other words, it is subjective at almost every step.  Those who hyperventilate over “loopholes” in tax laws are singularly unconcerned about the sieve of loopholes in immigration law.  Interestingly, many of the possible claims for asylum are based on non-binary sexuality.  However, there are laws and regulations that govern the processing of asylum claims and of asylees, themselves.  These are being ignored at the President’s direction, leaving millions of illegal entrants in our country with virtually no way for our erstwhile protectors to monitor or arrest them when they fail to appear for “hearings” required by law.

It’s all part of “Progressives’” intention to dissemble our Constitutional Republic.  Every person connected to the Biden administration who comments on “the border,” has lied about it, and quite consistently.  Those are bad lies, sure enough.

We could also bring forth the mendacity surround “Covid” and ersatz vaccines, but there’s only so much we can include, here. See: http://www.prudenceleadbetter.com/2020/08/26/if-you-knew-covid/

LEGISLATION.  Once upon a time in Washington, representatives of the people and representatives of the states would diligently research and debate, in both Houses of Congress, the federal budget.  Presidential administrations would cook up budgets with their own plans and hopes, including the increased spending inevitably required by each and every one of the 1,000 or so executive departments, offices, agencies and “black” projects.  Congress, politically, would dissect parts of it, replace parts of it, gain hours of news coverage about their essential work, and eventually pass some form of it, including myriad political advantages for the parties holding some level of power: earmarks.  And, always, plenty of “pork.”

The two great sources of power in Congress are 1) Spending; and, 2) Taxing.  No matter how motivated or honest a new congressperson may be, fairly quickly he or she becomes either purposefully corrupt or casually corrupted by the systems of Congress.  The orientation process for newbies includes explaining why it is that what each feels is the right thing to do… cannot be done.  In order to accomplish a small bit of what spurred the campaign to enter Congress, much has to be compromised.  That is the economic dynamic of Congress – not right or wrong, but bartering for good and not-good.  With the number-one goal of everyone in both Houses being re-election, the barter system quickly becomes bartering to gain re-election benefits.  Voting on the so-called “budget” offers dozens of barter opportunities, and so it goes.  It is inherently corrupt and corrupting, which means that our fresh new representatives – House or Senate – must lie to us at their first opportunity.

Then, there are the aggregations of spending and taxing ideas that are given names like, “The Inflation Reduction Act.”  These mountains of malarkey cut and pasted by the “power brokers” who then present a 1,000-page or 3,000-page pile of words with hundreds of new “laws” included and call for a vote within 24 or 48 hours.  No one can read or understand the implications all of it before voting, yet there is a great trumpeting of accomplishment.  Most of the time prior to the vote is spent by each “yea” voter to find something – anything – that he or she can tell constituents was “accomplished” for their benefit, including how their representative “fought” for them against the evils of Washington.  Still, where’s the truth?  There are $31 Trillion in the national debt that display 65 years of great lying to American citizens.

IMMIGRATION:  No country is a greater magnet for emigration than the U. S.  Despite the constant Marxist drumbeat of “systemic” racism, imminent murder of blacks by police and unfair incarceration of pathetic, somewhat innocent or non-responsible prisoners, people of color flock to our southern border by the millions.  Some just walk in and say the magic words claiming asylum.  Our Border Patrol officers spend virtually all of their time “processing” the flood of people from up to 100 countries(!).  In The meantime, about 25% as many as claim asylum escape through our poorly secured border, carrying tons of fentanyl and other drugs (drugs that kill over 100,000 young Americans every year) as well as carrying plans in some of their heads to commit terrorist attacks.

It is one of the prime responsibilities of a President and administration to prevent these very circumstances.  For a government to NOT fulfill this obligation requires two forms of “untruth:” 1) a purpose other than protecting the United States or its citizens; and, 2) a constant barrage of utter lies about the “secure” status of the casually breeched southern border, supporting the pretense of an administration that is fulfilling its vows.  Typically, there is a penalty to pay for lying, much more so if the lie causes injury or cost to the subject(s) of it.  What sort of penalty is appropriate for this grandiose lie?

The upshot of this close-to-the-worst-of-lies is that about 4 MILLION illegal entrants are scattered across the country.  Each of them is a living, breathing, expensive lie.  Along with them are the nearly 1 MILLION “gotaways” who evaded apprehension thanks to President Biden’s utter… no, purposeful… failure to complete the border wall, which would at least have channeled prospective entrants to limited points of entry.  They are all lies, too, whose very presence implies some sort of right to be inside our borders.  That there is no such right for nearly all of the 4 MILLION and the 1 MILLION, simply compounds the grotesque lie this administration has been telling American citizens.

COVID:  This compendium of lies began 10 years ago as the great Dr. Anthony Fauci funneled NIAID grants to the Wuhan Institute of Virology for gain-of-function research on the SARS-2 coronavirus.  He has denied that purpose, of course, which simply shows that lying is common in the federal government’s hundreds of agencies.  Fauci’s NIAID agency of the CDC earned millions in royalties from helping Moderna develop its mRNA “vaccine” (the vaccine that doesn’t prevent infection, doesn’t create immune response and doesn’t prevent contagion), which Moderna was working on in Wuhan months before the world heard of the novel coronavirus, Covid-19.

Interestingly, the only response to Covid infection was – and still is – “vaccination.” All other treatments, some very effective, have been suppressed and discussion of them censored.  Reputable scientists estimate that half a million American deaths can be blamed on failures to treat Covid with known anti-virals, immune boosters and supplements.  Individual personnel within the NIH are allowed to earn royalties from numerous pharmaceuticals they helped to research, including the slickest liar of all, Dr. Anthony Fauci, reportedly the highest-paid employee in the federal swamp.  Lying about Covid must have been the most lucrative scam he’s had.  To really push the mass vaccination program that was part of a tawdry, essentially worldwide scheme, great fear had to be fomented, and locking down the country from most business activity fitted in perfectly with that goal.

First, though, the “Friends of Fauci,” recognized scientists all, conspired to flood medical publications with false opinion papers that claimed, uniformly, that the origin of the ENGINEERED SARS-2 novel coronavirus came from some natural evolution that workers at a “wet market” in Wuhan city were exposed to.  Real virologists, like Fauci, can identify the Furin cleavage site in the viral chain where other genes were added to the original SARS virus.  Yet the papers went forth at Fauci’s direction to confuse politicians and divert attention from the financing of the exact research – begun in the U. S. and shifted to Wuhan – that made COVID-19 so infectious.  Lies have consequences.

COVID killed a lot of people, although far fewer than statistics claim, and nowhere at a higher rate than in the United States!  How could that possibly be?  We certainly have a right to know.

In effect, the pandemic here was handled politically, not medically.  Fauci and others inside the deep state, beholden to big Pharma, and PROFITING from them, advised federal and state governments to impose useless and actually harmful steps, locking down economic and social activities, ruining family economics and, worst of all, forcing protocols on hospitals that ignored known treatments and caused the deaths of thousands who could have survived.  It seems criminal.

As the so-called “vaccines” were introduced, the lies became greater.  The definition of “vaccine” had to be changed to include the weird chemicals that comprise mRNA shots.  Pushing them as vaccines was and still is comforting to the average “emergency use” recipient, now pushed down to infants and children.  Unfortunately, nRNA shots don’t prevent the disease, they don’t prevent infecting others, and they don’t instill normal immune response.   Oh, and they don’t last long in their one effect: mitigating the “severity” of infection.  As one gets into “booster shot” country, the effects dwindle to a month or two.  The shots are utter failures as vaccines and immensely successful as money-transfer agents.

But, wait!  There’s more!… or less.  The shots are dangerous to humans!  You’ve seen the ads, over and over, telling the trusting that COVID vaccine is “effective and safe.”  Some mothers couldn’t wait for them to be available so that their kids could be protected from a disease that is of nearly ZERO threat to them!  Zero as in NO THREAT!  Why force an experimental drug known to damage children to the point that they are at greater risk from the injections than they are from the disease?  I’ll tell you why: FEAR and two years’ of lies from our helpful government.

Other lies… well, let’s talk about IMMIGRATION.  Anyone in this administration or Congressional Democrat who happens to get a question about the “control” of the border with Mexico, lies.  No one stands out as telling the truth about this one issue.

President Biden is virtually never asked about the border – that’s left up to his press flacks: first Jen Psaki and now the incomparable Karinne Jean-Pierre.  On August 29th reporter, Peter Doocy asked “KJP” why tennis star Novak Djokovic cannot enter the United States to play in a tennis tournament because he ‘s not “vaccinated” against Covid, but migrants can just walk into Texas and Arizona unvaccinated and are allowed to stay?

Jean-Pierre’s response was that just walking in was not how it works.  When corrected of that notion she stated that “…it’s not like that you can’t just walk over and…”  And so it goes in the great mendacity machine that is the Biden administration.

Prudence has asked before: Where do we turn when our own government lies to us?

Psychology, If You Don’t Mind

I have the answer here in my hand…

We’re all psychologists.  Humans could not work together, form societies or even families, if we could not “size up” one another and make relatively accurate judgments as to the attitudes and outlooks of those we need to live with.  Like every other human skill, psychological survival and progress has attracted experts, often the death knell of progress in the field of interest.  Beyond studying and learning about human psychology, psychologists have moved on to defining and even inventing forms of it.  Today it is almost as though the professional in the psychology field had DISCOVERED psychology in humans and that they, psychologists, must be consulted about any and every aspect of it, lest mere humans hurt themselves and others by trying to comprehend it.

Life is animalistic without psychological abilities.  Animal brains only barely exhibit any sense of meaning to the actions they take.  Humans strive to avoid it.  Part of the magic of human psychology is the ability to worship, and to perceive a spiritual existence that is the greatest sense of meaning possible.  What does – or what will – what I’m doing, mean?

Generally, the actions of today are taken because of their meaning something in the future.  We save today for security tomorrow; we court and marry today to produce a family of children tomorrow; we live honorably, creating friends and earning respect from others, so that we’ll have friends and friendship in our old age; we try to avoid poisoning our bodies and avoid danger and injuries because it means we can live longer.  We even attempt to extend our meaning to others beyond the date of our death with inheritances and bequests and instructions.  Unfortunately, we are descending into a process of talking ourselves out of our own humanity.  Psychologists of various stripes have convinced many to deny who they are, and have convinced many others with influence over them, to help them in the process of denial.  What for?

A large element of civilization has been and remains theater.  It could be as simple as street actors and their ad-hoc creation of scenes, characters and stories, to the elaborate production of operas that remain popular over decades and centuries.  Greek and Roman theater still teach us to look at life and meaning in “better” ways; Shakespeare, Marlow, Bacon and thousands of others from every culture, employed costume, staging, music, masks and pretense to teach cultural truths and lessons for living.  Modern electronics make it possible for every individual – including children – to become a preferred pretense character, almost always on a Snap-Chat stage.  It seems, unfortunately, that the “psychology community” talked itself into treating human theater, down to the individual level, as more valuable – more essential – than reality.

As one old Greek noted, “Virtue lies in Reason and Vice in rejection of Reason.”  However, as psychologists are only too aware, or promoters of, Reason cannot be satisfactorily defined, especially from generation to generation.  There seem to be thousands of permutations of reason, and as communications have advanced, so to speak, certain biases have become widely shared, affecting modern concepts of reason, which is not to say, Truth.  Since the 1960’s and ‘70’s, feminism has become the overriding permutation of reason in the United States, and it has led to a society-bending twist of sexual roles and mores.  Psychologists haven’t tried to stem this tide.  Where “psychology” might add to understanding of various truths, instead it seems to adapt to and rationalize social trends.

Prudence can expect to be roundly chastised for the previous paragraph, and, probably, the next one.

Feminism has done more damage to American society than any other belief system besides slavery.  Bit by bit – now chunk by chunk – it has feminized men and destroyed the majesty of motherhood.  Simultaneous with the explosion in homosexuality, feminism has also led to hyper-sexualization of school-age children down to disturbing ages.  As it has torn down the old morality it has failed to replace it with a new one.  Where women used to “civilize” men, they now compete in an arena of irresponsible sexuality where everything is planned or avoidable based on the whims of women.

Women are now the drivers of the new para-psychology called transgenderism.  And, rather than eliminating confusion about maleness or femaleness, it encompasses a host of “sexualities” that mainly women teachers and gay or other “non-binary” “teachers” feel compelled to dictate to, if not guide and groom, children at very young ages.  Where are “the psychologists” on this strange twist of “education?”  Sadly, they seem able to rationalize or even justify the trans-gender fad.  If it didn’t do so much damage to the kids whose theatrical fantasies everyone is rushing to “confirm,” the psychologists might be forgiven.

MOST of transgenderism is theater.  Children, some genuinely confused about sexuality, a very small fraction, and the rest who want to play at being the opposite sex, are pounced upon by agenda-driven teachers, psychologists, doctors and even hospitals(!), who are all in a hurry to “confirm” trans-gender fantasies.  Confirmation, unfortunately, consists of largely irreversible hormone injections and blockers, and even surgeries to remove perfectly healthy organs.  The children are permanently changed and their developments confused chemically.  The greatest effect?  Sterilization.  Not many teenagers and damned few adults can conceive of what full medical transfiguration means as time goes by.  Most come to realize that they have attempted something that is impossible in the majority of cases, and that leaves them neither male or female.  There is more at stake than pronouns.

Yet, some dysphoria is real – the people who transition to another way of living are still real people who deserve as much respect as anyone else.  Heterosexual people are largely unable to accept trans-gender people at “face” value.  Reactions vary over a short spectrum, from disbelief to disgust.  Normal people have a duty to learn respect for those who have found the only way to deal with their relatively rare dysphoria is transition.  Let the rest of us count our blessings.

This doesn’t excuse the agenda-driven recruitment of children to a belief in gender-fluidity.  Parents know that childhood whims and fantasies usually fade away or are outgrown by maturity in nearly all cases.  To pounce on these susceptible kids, especially for teachers, is criminal.  For administrators and political / civic leaders to make it ILLEGAL to prevent gender-predation shall remain a stain on the conscience of the nation.  Shame on us and kudos to those leaders wise enough to resist this weird aberration in human purpose.

Those who are committed to the “trans” state of being and living also need to recognize that their own, understandably very deep biases toward “non-binary” sexuality, bends their views to find trans potential atop almost every pair of legs.  Bigots on both sides need to stifle their angers and misunderstandings.  Professional, expert psychologists and psychiatrists ought to be guiding the confused toward a path that is constructive for society and civilization.  Unfortunately, they have agreed among their professional, expert-laden Societies, to avoid moral judgement and even counsel patients to dissociate themselves from religious codes.  Indeed, such counseling tends to affirm those ideas that comfort the patient, rather than disturb him or her.

In other words, psychology can affirm one’s deepest beliefs, which is not to say truth.  Unfortunately, sometimes beliefs are just wrong and counter-productive or damaging to society.  They can interfere with forming positive bonds with others, with family members, or with others who would be good for the individual.  Psychology has drifted too close to chemical solutions for too many conditions/reactions; they also tend to counsel for far too long, with patients dependent upon their therapists to maintain a new normalcy.

As Americans ponder the decline of trust in the institutions that ought to defend successful traditions and uphold the greatest strength of U. S. culture, one of those has been medicine, including mental health medicine.  The professionals in that society have always been people of sense, ready willing and able to advise patients toward the healthiest, most sensible habits and actions.  This used to include psychologists and psychiatrists, but this has all changed.  Why?  How did industries – professions – of HONOR, become so sullied? 

Politics and money, not synonymous, but often congruent.  If politics were corrupted by only money we could survive and even thrive as the running battle against corruption played its parallel games.  But politics has been corrupted by ideology, hatred and mendacity.  The Covid pandemic exposed the degree of twist that has occurred.  One political party routinely condemns half the voters in the country, not as those who see a different way to improve and strengthen America, but as a group that can’t be permitted to hold or even share power… a group that threatens the republic, that is racist, homophobic, transphobic and every other epithet that can be used on TV to denigrate another person.  Then that same party does everything that their opponents are accused of doing, BY THEM.  It is no longer politics, but managed hatred, and it has coopted the institutions of government, justice, education and medicine, among others.  None of the professions that once held the nation together have been spared.

The various forms of artifice are all masks, covering the faces of evil.  Millions of true patriots resist and believe in the majesty of the American way – most are Christians.  They – we – are the conscience of America.  A new professionalism and a new citizenship are all that can restore us… and a new / old spiritual understanding of why humanity is male and female, and how it can survive and grow stronger.  Honestly.

Heil Soros!

It is certainly obscure, even mysterious, why a wealthy oligarch like George Soros would expend his fortune on the election of socialist, soft-on-crime District and States’ Attorneys.  He has had an outsized impact on not only crime rates and, automatically, the victims of criminal acts, but also on the reduction in trust of government, police and justice, itself.  Still, there must be a plan.

It doesn’t seem that Soros’ purpose stems from a love of crime or even any particular sympathy for the weak-minded dopes who commit crimes.  He doesn’t appear to be an advocate for all things anti-White or pro-Black.  But, there must be a plan and, considering his actions Prudently, the shape of the plan can be discerned.  It is quite simple.

Soros is a socialist – a virulent one.  He doesn’t seem to trust Communists, which is a mark of intelligence, but, like most political socialists, believes that socialism can be controlled and manipulated to fit the goals of oligarchs and one-worlders.  By employing a process that breaks down civil order and public safety, Soros makes clear his contempt for the “proletariat,” which is most of us.  He has always seemed offended, as it were, by the Constitutional limits that underpin the United States, the belief in “unalienable rights” that they guarantee, and, even more, the basically Christian love of freedom and personal sovereignty.  Soros hates the power and influence of the United States of America, and of Americans.

So, it seems clear that the purpose of destroying cities through increasing crime and lack of trust in authority, is designed to force Americans to accept authoritarian forms of government… so as to “clean up” the crime, drug, homelessness and other problems that make normal citizens unsafe.  It’s simple, really, and it won’t take long.  There is already a significant political party/movement that is pushing for exactly the solutions Soros wants: Democrats.  Their experience in promoting and excusing multi-city rioting and destruction, weakening of police departments and removal of the only populist president in our lifetimes, in 2020, and the ability to control almost everyone, including stripping many of their “unalienable rights” by building up the Covid-19 scare of 2020 – 2021 and beyond, encourages Democrats to attack the Constitution directly.  They, and Soros, have won some victories.

Are any students, anywhere in America, learning why what Soros has been doing with his money is evil and anti-American?  By the same token, are any learning about the Constitution, itself?

SEX SELLS

It is becoming ever more clear that there are good, solid, society-strengthening, family-strengthening and tribe- or nation-strengthening reasons to NOT sink into hyper-sexuality and debauchery.

“Oh, come on, you damned Republican prude, sex is fun and ‘empowering’ for individuals that didn’t like themselves before learning to translate everything about life and economics into sexuality.  Don’t be such a Donnie Downer.”  And, if one steps back from identity politics far enough to see the forest AND the trees, that one can see the point being made in that reactive statement.

Now, now, now… calm down, there.  America and the West have tried a 60-year experiment in immorality and sexual depravity, all couched in terms of “love,” “freedom,” “rights,” and “health care.”  It has proven extremely confusing, mainly because all the things the experiment was supposed to make better, have proven to become worse.

Of course, the prime target of the acids produced (and “dropped”) by the experiment has been morality, primarily Christianity.  REGARDLESS of your opinion of “the Church” or any reformation thereof, or of “the Bible,” the rules for living contained in both Testaments, are far, far better than the pack of “rights” and re-defined words we attempt to operate society with, today.  There is plenty of evidence of the breakdown of “Western” civilization, here in 2022, not least of which is the installation of an American administration controlled by mostly traitors and liars, and the “root cause” of this breakdown is mirrored by, or caused by, the spread of hyper-sexuality, mainly, but not exclusively, in forms of “non-binary” expressions.

“Oh, you hateful homophobic trans-phobe!  You can’t say that, you hater.  Next you’ll say you’re opposed to gay marriage.  Hummphh!”

It is not Prudence’ intent to use broad-brush half, or even smaller fractional truths to express feelings about others’ partial truths.  She intends to make very pointed statements about them.  Some examples might help.

Let’s consider pornography.  No one talks about it anymore.  In the 1950’s and 60’s pornographic photography came of age, or so people thought, in part thanks to Polaroid technology whereby film negatives didn’t have to be shared with any third parties in order to be shareable.  Of course there were always hidden, secretive “foreign” magazines from “Sweden” or some other exotic place, but, for the most part, “porn” was under-the-counter or back-room stuff in sleazy joints that most honorable, upright citizens would never frequent.  And then came “Playboy.” 

With Playboy numerous barriers were breeched: a new envelope was created, as it were, and ever more prurient publications pushed to stretch it.  Our own Constitution was unprepared for it.  The First Amendment had to be applied in some way to keep porn under wraps… and it couldn’t.  Judges, themselves, couldn’t agree on what constituted pornography or obscenity.  Pictures, and full-color, high-definition videos, of course, of naked bodies in the midst of various activities, are “protected speech” according to clever attorneys and agreed-to by judges, including supreme court justices.  Somewhere along the line, unlike the strict definitions of words usually applied to the Constitution, “speech” has been stretched to include “expression” which is automatically stretched to include bodily movement and exposure, all sorts of cursing and verbal attack.  One can almost hear the arguments.

“Freedom of Speech” now means any form of observable or audible activity detectable by another.  So, what, you ask?  Well, how about skewing life and sexuality toward unreality?  Do you not see the damage to marriage, families and morality?  And, now that what used to be hidden in various ways is quite public (any “Gay Pride parade), in movies and on television and a raft of advertising campaigns, can we even define morality?

“Morality?” you scream… “You mean that Christianity stuff?  Separation of church and state, pal!”  Hyper-sexuality has become the most effective weapon against true religion, most particularly, Christianity.  Just count the rainbow flags and laws that are closing in on what pastors and priest can even SAY within the liturgy.  What good has over-sexualizing everything from elementary school to church services actually done for America?

“Well, we can have more and innovative forms of sexual pleasure, so there… besides, it’s a free country and she can always have an abortion if something happens.”  Something.  And, it makes health care busier.

Let’s consider another example: the “trans-gender explosion.”

Hyper-sex has become a tool of the left – perhaps it always was.  We can define the left as always attempting to erode freedom and responsibility, turning both over to some form of tyranny, camouflaged or not.  Federalizing every personal unhappiness is a clear marker, making tyranny stronger and individuals weaker.  Ultimately, spirituality and religion are weakened or lost altogether, as we are experiencing, now.  Back to “trans.”

Public schools, so-called, are increasingly federal, government schools, with “the public,” whose offspring are the reasons for their and their teaching staffs’ existence, increasingly excluded from participation or influence.   Children, from the age of 5, and even earlier in “pre-schools,” are carefully prepared to distrust their parents, prepared to ignore their own realities, like physical features and even names, IN SCHOOL!  Teachers, to whom the kiddos are entrusted for 3, 4, 5, 6 hours a day and more, and who are clear authority figures and sources of wisdom – which every child is attempting to gain – are spending less time educating the kids in preparation for adulthood, and more time guiding, or grooming them, for early-onset sexual experimentation and experience.  “Do you feel like a boy or a girl, today?”

“You can feel like both, if you want.  We’ll call you by a name you like better and we’ll use the pronouns that fit how you feel.”

“Don’t tell your parents about your new name; they’ll be mad at you.  You can change into different clothes when you get to school – to match your new name.  It will be our secret.”

Can you imagine such conversations? … from TEACHERS?  These are your tax dollars at work.  When the kids are older, the boys are taught how to tuck their penises into certain underwear so that they’ll look like girls in their underpants rather than boys.  What the Hell do “underpants appearances” have to do with school?

Girls are taught to bind their breasts so they’ll look more like boys.  Both are offered drugs to prevent development in puberty, risking permanent physical damage and developmental retardation and likely sterility.  Is that the point?  To prevent more children?  Or is it simply, and cruelly, designed to dissolve tradition and normalcy and family bonds?

Who, or what “institution” benefits from the breakdown of chastity?  Casting about in all directions reveals only a single beneficiary: government… and Satan, one might say, often indistinguishable.  And as it expands, it is not a government of benign partnership in the success of its citizens; it is a government that almost automatically divides its population against one another, increasing dependence upon… you guessed it, not freedom, but increasingly tyrannical government.

Government of, by and for the government.  87,000 new, armed, IRS agents will do that.  None of their purpose is to enhance freedom – it’s to vacuum money from we the serfs.

Interestingly, the strongest political force against this foul creep of foul creeps, is parents, fighting to keep their families intact and their children as pure as possible. 

Why the hyper-sexualization of kids, though?  There is an overarching control-meme pushing otherwise professional and ostensibly educated people to adopt Critical Gender and Race theories.  We can encapsulate it with the term, “ideology,” but that’s the same charge these groomers use against religion: ideology, a belief system without empirical proof.  And, they are the first to shout the loudest about “impose your religious mumbo-jumbo on my body…”  Yet, the only “proof” that has emitted from Critical Gender Theory is the destruction of lives, families, suicides and lifelong regrets in all but the rarest of cases.  And WE’RE the haters?

Dear friends, we are fighting the Anti-Christ, pure Marxism.  Marx, who believed in God, believed also that he would go to Hell for his philosophies.  He knew what he was doing and advocating.  We need to know, also, and reverse the tide on Marxist hatred that seems to have infected much of our American governance.  Those who are its advocates have adopted the anti-life, anti-freedom philosophies for the crassest, crappiest political advantage and wealth.  For shame.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL MILITIA

When tyranny threatens, elections are months away.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL MILITIA

The evolution of American constitutionalism responded no more to the several theories of rights and representation of the late 18th Century, as much as to the necessity of freeing ourselves from the shackles imposed by the British Crown and a non-representative Parliament.  That freedom would not have been won without “Militias” – home-grown assemblages of armed citizens, by definition, non-governmental organizations.  Our Constitution references these quasi-military, self-selected groups of passionate defenders of farm, family and business, in the Second Amendment.

The potency of the Second Amendment is rarely mentioned.  Everyone argues over the “… right to keep and bear Arms…”  Opponents of gun ownership point to the first phrase, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, …” as if it referenced what we now call the State Police, or even “State Militia” which are controlled and limited by our friendly and benign state governments.  Some liken the term to the National Guard, which is even further off the mark.  “Militia,” in the Second Amendment, refers to self-declared and assembled, armed, private-citizen organizations.  It is not clear that such organizations are legally tolerated today.

In fact, there are a number of such groups around the country: legal gun bearers who come together like clubs, perhaps including some militaristic training.  They tend strongly toward white-guys, exclusively, sometimes religious, generally anti-federal government.  Unfortunately, there is a parallel tendency toward racism, but the number of incidents in which members of such “clubs” attack blacks or others is very, very small… no way comparable to the numbers of blacks who attack everyone else, although never being charged with “racism.”

Militias have a bad name.  Still, they are a part of the patriotic front that challenged and stopped the British in the 1770’s, and which became part of the “official” Continental Army under general George Washington.  They were tough people, supported by equally tough wives and relatives, both farmers and merchants.  How would they fit in to today’s social fabric and political landscape?  They are referenced and promoted in our Constitution, but universally denigrated as, mainly, racist crackpots playing with guns.

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State…”  What “state” were the framers talking about?

At the time of the fight for independence, the “states” were colonies: 13 separate entities with separate civil authorities appointed by the King or by his governors.  To become sovereign states they had to both rid themselves of British governors and soldiers, who were the “police,” as it were, and then establish their own authorities with elections, appointments, codified laws and relatively independent courts.  They had, also, to defend themselves.  Automatically it became obvious that the colonies had to stand against the British together, else they’d be militarily quashed separately.  Without much debate, they formed the Continental Congress and a sense of “nation” was established across fairly diverse colonies.  A common enemy will do that.

Militias, essentially, were folded in to the individual colonies’ “Minutemen” forces and ultimately into the Continental Army, but not all of them.  Many Militia fighters served key roles in interfering with British supplies and cavalry, harassing them like guerilla fighters, sometimes providing a flanking force when standing ranks faced off on battlefields.  However, by the time of the war of 1812, militias were relatively unheard of.  Citizens were still armed, but the U. S. Army and Navy then formed the military wherewithal of the new nation, calling up fighters from the states, each of whom represented their states as much as they did the United States.

The Constitution acknowledged and stipulated the importance of “militias,” and stipulated the right to keep and bear arms, but militias, themselves, faded from prominence.

By the end of the Civil War there was no question that the military forces were U. S. forces, and the federal government took on the costs and administration of veterans’ disabilities and welfare.  States had police forces, but no longer raised their own “regulars” or trained or equipped them.  Militias, if such can be identified at all, devolved into chapters of the Ku Klux Klan, constantly ginning up anger against negroes – a most despicable era of American history.  Roughly speaking, the “Union” army and victorious states were “Republicans;” the former confederacy and the Ku Klux Klan itself, were “Democrats.”  Democrats supported gun control laws, among other segregationist restrictions, to keep guns out of the hands of blacks.  To maintain power and influence, the Klan, like revolutionary militias, had to constantly exaggerate the presence of a common enemy: free negroes.

“Militias,” now, are perceived as kooks.  Any concept of forming armed forces to overthrow “the government,” is inherently illegal, and only a tiny fraction of Americans in either party think it’s either practical or legitimate.  Yet the concept of non-governmental militias is Constitutional!  Where could “militias” fit in?  First, they’d have to meet standards.  Their fellow citizens would have to trust them in terms of public safety and support of the Constitution, itself.  Then what?

Somehow, some way, militias would have to coexist with police forces, both municipal and state.  Participation in “Guardian” training and functions is a good place to start.

The Guardian Program, yet to be adopted anywhere, is designed to “legitimize” concealed carry, in a sense.  The Constitution already protects the right to keep and bear arms – carry them around, in other words: to be individually armed.  As a Guardian, the person who is willing to carry a firearm would also be trained in handling, safety and safe reaction in the presence of a crime or imminent criminal act.  That person would also wear a “9-1-1” transponder that would identify and locate the individual and alert police forces to a possible active-shooter situation.  Meanwhile, the guardian would take such action as practical to defuse a conflict or stop criminal action until police arrived.

Finally, the guardian would be shielded by special indemnification for legitimate and proper actions taken to stop criminal actions, whether on his or her own property or in public.  “When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.”  The truth of that observation is timeless.  Establishing “Guardian” legislation enables the multiplication of police power and effectiveness at very low cost.  It also provides vectors for evaluating gun owners and their family environments.  If such gun owners formed the core of “militias,” governments and citizens could have confidence in their judgment and rationality.

Militias could also be held to ethical standards.  Non-guardians who “joined up” would have to swear to certain behaviors and practices concerning gun ownership, handling and safety inside and outside of their homes.  Militia organizations would be subject to fines for failing to adhere to ethical standards or for failing to reject or eject members who fail to do so.  Such information would have to be shared with law-enforcement and become part of the unacceptable persons’ records.  Most Militias would form through “Rod and Gun” clubs or hunting clubs  or “Sportsmens’ Clubs.”  Whether they could remain associated with those clubs would be a decision of the club, not of any government.  How would a Militia function politically?  How would the majority opinions of a Militia or dozens of Militias, enter into public policy or political power?  Who would their “common enemy” be?

By definition, the “common enemy” would be our own federal, central government at the moment it is perceived as tyrannical.  We have major political forces who are enthralled with government by experts – the bureaucratic state.  Decision-making by and for individuals is anathema to these leftist “Progressives.”  They are also anti-religious, increasingly opposed to free speech, virulently opposed to the second Amendment as written, and socialist in economics and social organization.  Many members of a militia organized to monitor and resist – if not remove – tyranny in our central government, would count “Progressives” among the tyrants.  A militia formed by progressives, for such there could be, though unlikely, would see themselves as saviors and conservatives as the common enemy.

Obviously, those most attracted to “militias” would be vilified and hated to greater degrees as members than they are, if at all, as relatively quiet, unobtrusive neighbors and co-workers.

Militias would tend to be somewhat secretive in their meetings and deliberations.  Using common social media communications would leave them open to attack and interference.  They will want to network – and perhaps coordinate – with other militias through a modern version of “Committees of Correspondence” as was done in Revolutionary times, when their discovery would have resulted in arrest and torture.  If not actual secrecy, strict confidentiality would be essential to operation and growth of militias.  But, how, short of taking up arms in fact, would constitutional militias influence political, governmental actions and direction?

Clearly they would have to be financially independent of government support or tax abatement or tax-free status on any places of meeting or practice / training.  They would be subject to continuous hate from leftists and racists, for they would not be able to control militias from the inside.  They would have to be scrupulous about opening membership to anyone who met their standards of behavior and ethics, which standards would include legal gun ownership, by definition.  But, again, how would a militia influence political power?  Could a militia sway the votes of others?

Communications, communications, communications.  As with the Committees of Correspondence, militias would have to present factual and documented positions on the actions of government(s) and of elected or appointed officials.  They would have to lay bare the nature of tyrannies large and small that made clear the un-representative nature of those in power including, most specifically, the expenditures of public monies.  To do so would mean operating publishing businesses in both print and digital formats.  Since a militia would not be a political “party” or be attempting to run candidates of its own, its publications would have to be both historical and current, and easily comprehensible as to how an issue/ topic either resisted tyranny of the state (or municipality) or fit into a tyrannical or potentially tyrannical action that threatened Constitutionally guaranteed rights or the freedoms of individuals.

Would anyone care if they did this work?  Would citizens listen?  Militias, like those that deposed tyranny at the inception of our country, have an obligation to pursue wisdom and to act upon it.  The first militias had the wisdom of recognizing tyranny and of how to multiply their effectiveness in fighting it.  It led them to wonderous courage and sacrifice.  To fulfill that legacy, Constitutional militias must form with that same sort of commitment.  Membership would not be a sport or part-time interest.  Just as “the Left” maintains decades, if not centuries, of commitment to upending Biblical truths and models of behavior and governance based on individual freedom and responsibility, Militias must maintain a singular purpose to inform other Americans of the lies and evil of Socialism and Communism, backed up by the ability to risk everything to overthrow tyranny in defense of the American Way.

The creation of one militia, independent and uncorrupted, will bring forth many others, and their creation still more.  We have learned after dozens of congresses and hundreds of representatives and senators, that the election of readily corruptible men and women who enter office with pathways of personal wealth and influence providing them all too many comforts and excuses for failure, has not – and will not – bring about the change needed to save and preserve our nation, our Constitution and our integrity.  A well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State.

FROM ISSUES TO CRISES

Despite Prudence’ writings over the past 8 years, the nation has not adjusted to the models of governance and behavior she has carefully laid out.  Upon the election of the odd Joe Biden and his basically anti-American administration, irritating, family and society-weakening tendencies have become policies, however illegitimately.  Now, they’re crises – crises that threaten the survival of our nation and of Freedom, itself.  Like the heart of Socialism in every sense, it derives from the avoidance of responsibility.

People say things like, “it’s a new day,” or “Times have changed.”  Except “times” haven’t changed, people have.  They’ve – we’ve – been taught new ideas to believe, habits to adopt, pleasures to revel in.  We can look to a sudden change upon the murder of President John Kennedy.  Most likely, the purpose of that assassination was political, not cultural.  Kennedy had created powerful personal and political enemies.  The abrupt change in culture and morals was an inadvertent one.  Lyndon Johnson became president, federal civil rights legislation moved to center stage, for right reasons, but its adoption was made possible by the crassest political calculations.  Inadvertently, for some but not all, the Civil Rights bill shifted morality into the metastasizing businesses of the federal administrative state and the court, where it has become enforced amorality. 

Prior to the ‘60s, change in living standards and integration was happening due to improvements in individual beliefs in better moral codes… not fast enough, by a long shot, but improvement and progress were being made.  The Civil Rights Act and the movement that brought it to fruition, inadvertently changed the nature of federal moral enforcement, even as it made long-overdue corrections to discrimination and segregation.  Part of the federal “corrections” included elements of the “Great Society,” which federalized welfare and began the application of laws differently for different groups.  This process, in all of its corrupt and socialist pieces, has rendered the federal government a soft tyrant which is hardening daily, while providing $Trillions of support for sub-tyrannies throughout the administrative state, particularly in Education.

Under the Constitution, the only moral adjustments can and should be made through equal justice: Equal protection under the law / equal application of the law.  That canary escaped with the passage of the Great Society.  Otherwise, our system works only if the vast majority of our citizens and residents share basic morals and mores, a claim that can no longer be made.  Every institution that could reinforce the moral strength of our people, including schools and churches, are either hell-bent in the opposite direction, or bending a knee to popular immorality.  For shame.

Freedom isn’t freedom without responsibility, it’s mere licentiousness.  As responsibility began evaporating in the 1960’s, leftists accelerated, as part of civil rights and the Great society, their domination of public education and colleges of education, themselves.  Like Mao’s “Long March,” it has taken decades – well-paid decades – to convert the role of education from conveyance of language, culture, skills, morals and history to our youth, to one of separation by race, class and, incredibly, gender.  Everything happening fulfills the Communist Manifesto: separation from God and from Responsibility.

Churches and liturgies have proven to be much weaker than the years of bygone sacrifices to hold to and establish those faith communities would indicate.  Just count the rainbow flags that some churches think override the teachings that brought them this far.  They are proving every day that it is nearly impossible to convince others of ideas you, yourself, don’t believe.  Simple economics can’t take the place of shared moral goodness.

America has been under moral attack for 60 years at a higher intensity than during its first 170 years.  As the lessons of Genesis make clear, God’s Word (or, if you find that term more offensive than child abuse) moral truths, are always under attack here on Earth.  Christianity has long been the primary target of such opposition, both from within and without.

For centuries those attacks tended to fail because the engine of responsibility kept working.  People still, for the most part, paid the price for their own follies and failures.  That is, until socialism replaced monarchy.  Evil men – almost always men – grasped socialist ideas as a better way to control nations, economies and armies, but they ultimately fell: their bases were evil and so counter to human nature that they became insane.  There has never been a government that created for itself political defenses that not only protected amorality and immorality, but learned to erode morality and, specifically, responsibility by individuals.  Not until the U. S. federal (and state) administrative states.  They’ve made a lot of “progress,” but they are “Progressives” by their own description.  It has taken 60 years of “re-education” to bring us to an America facing the corrosive issues we do today.

What are the parameters of responsibility in matters of conception, pregnancy, abortion and birth?

Since the ‘60s we have replaced marriage as the cultural norm, with contraception, abortion, “hooking up,” and fatherless children.  Responsibility has shifted to federal and state welfare programs.  Women have become convinced that they need not choose a decent, committed and loving man who will provide for his family and children, and who will be in their lives through puberty and into adulthood – and this all before having sex!  All they need is the sperm… and other men when they feel like it.  It is the destruction of the American family and of children – especially boys: our vote-buying tax dollars of destruction, at work.

Along with hyper-sexualization of grade school children, lewd “Pride” parades and filth in school libraries, the left appears to be obsessed with fornication for “all genders.”  To Democrats and other anti-Christian groups, fornication is a “right” as important to freedom as the First Amendment and all the rest.  Except, without responsibility, it’s not a freedom at all.  Enter abortion “rights.”  Except abortion never was a “right,” per se; democratic decisioning at the state level is the “right” our Constitution guarantees.

What are the parameters of responsibility in matters of guns, ownership, self-defense and crime?

Gun owners quote the phrase, “… the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”  It is part of the Second Amendment.  Some like to ignore the stuff about the “A well regulated Militia…”  But, as they may also choose to ignore, the amendment goes on to qualify the concept of a “militia,” as follows: “… being necessary to the security of a free State, …”  Above all, the Bill of Rights amendments and their wordings are intensely Prudent in their purposes of preventing a tyrannical central government.  Guaranteeing individual armament is crucial to that purpose.  Clearly, by simple inference, mindful of why the Constitution was drafted and mindful of the horrendous sacrifices needed to permit its creation, is it not obvious that arming the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT had nothing whatsoever to do with the second amendment?

The only “militias” in the new nation’s experience were those formed by local communities and others to fight off the central government, perceived to be tyrannical toward the colonies.  This aspect is never, ever acknowledged by that same federal government.  Yes, gun ownership is crucial to individual self-defense, which that same federal – and some states’ – governments appear to discourage, if not deny, to its citizens, even as those governments purposely abdicate their contracted role of public safety.  Had the British monarch established today’s same failed public policies, the justification for overturning his authority would have been far more popular.

There is a high expectation of responsibility for Constitutionally legal gun owners.  As a definable demographic, legal gun owners are the least source of crime and, by far, the least source of crimes involving firearms.  Yet this same group is always the target for restriction whenever a mentally or criminally defective person commits a “mass” shooting.  Individual shootings and murders by gang members and drug dealers are of no particular concern to those who attack the rights of legal gun owners.

Maybe the concept of “militia” for legal gun owners is one that should be developed – not by any government, but by gun owners, themselves.  “Whoa,” you might be saying.  “That sounds like a mechanism for insurrection.”

Well, it’s not, but that threat should ALWAYS be on the mind of the Executive departments, and on the minds of voters.  Sadly, and our own faults, the Congress should have it at top of mind, as well.  Americans have the RIGHT to replace a tyrannical government with a representative one.  One bright light – President Biden – during a press conference on gun control, uttered these non-sequiturs:

 
“Those who say the blood of lib- — ‘the blood of patriots,’ you know, and all the stuff about how we’re going to have to move against the government. Well, the tree of liberty is not watered with the blood of patriots. What’s happened is that there have never been — if you wanted or if you think you need to have weapons to take on the government, you need F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons.”

If these words had been uttered by someone who knew what he were talking about, they’d be chilling to Americans…  perhaps, upon reflection, they are.  That bozo is President.  But the concept of “militia” is not far-fetched.  Certainly it is not a federal force, nor should it be funded federally.  “Militias” should be local, and the more local the better.  In the most Prudent view, those gun owners who choose to carry concealed could be part of an anonymous police-trained force that has been earlier referenced as “Guardians.”  (See: http://www.prudenceleadbetter.com/2016/05/30/the-guardian-program/) These same would be the nucleus of local militias.  Leadership of each jurisdiction’s militia would be chosen by election within the membership, and thereby granted officers’ titles.

The nature of “Militia,” Constitutionally, is inherently anti-federal.  No wonder this aspect of the Second Amendment is never discussed.  “Nuclear weapons,” indeed.  At the time of its adoption, the concept of “Militia” was understood as the forerunners of the Continental Army ultimately led by George Washington, named a General by the Continental Congress.  To make the revolution work required the establishment of a governing body separate from the King and his governors and troops.  It was all extra-legal and deemed illegal by the Crown.  Militias were already fighting the Redcoats by the time the Continental Congress got down to the business of revolutionary government.

Americans are so reliant upon a steady and dependable government in Washington, that we find it hard to conceive of an autonomous civilian militia, yet that is precisely what the framers were talking about.  The colonies had just fought off a tyrant and the framers were determined that we be just as prepared to fight off another, should the tyranny arise.  There existed very little affinity for a central government because of the tendency toward tyranny by virtually all such entities.  The ability of citizens to check the power of government provided all the justification needed for a Second Amendment.  Armed crime in the streets was practically non-existent in 1789, so that wasn’t the reason for it; hunting was so crucial to provisioning of food and even clothing, that no one had to “allow” for it in the Constitution.  What was crucial was preventing another tyranny from replacing the British Crown.  The twenty-seven words of the Second Amendment guaranteed the ability of citizens to replace a tyrannical central government, and Ratification was impossible without it.

Today, unfortunately, discussion of the true reason for the 2nd Amendment brings forth accusations of sedition and insurrection, “fringe” white-supremacist grouping, and religious fundamentalism.  Yet, it is the Constitution we have and that forms us, even now.

To the “left,” constitutionalism is suspect in all iterations.  It challenges and exposes the sanctity of the STATE for the hollow proto-tyranny towards which it constantly slithers.  The “establishment,” nearly as tyrannical as it could be – economically, morally, politically – is directly threatened by the Constitution, as are all tyrants, everywhere.  Our own proto-tyrants fight to make the U. S. as much like every other nation as they can, while patriots recognize and try to enhance the exceptional nature of our constitutional Republic.  “America first” sends chills down the spines of the permanently re-elected swine that wallow for decades at a time in the halls of Congress. 

Americans have unique responsibilities, including defense and preservation of the Constitution; it is not the task of elected people, specifically, but of THE PEOPLE.  The Constitution came not from government, but from “We, the People…”  WE ordained it, which is that we gave it life.  WE ratified it, but only when the Bill of Rights was appended to it, which is that we entered into a covenant  with all who forever after held office upon swearing to Preserve and Defend it – the Presidents merely a handful of those.  The ultimate defense and execution of the Constitution is our business: the People’s.  We are obligated to preserve it, defend it and live according to its rights and responsibilities on behalf of every American citizen, now and forever after, as well as on behalf of every nation and people, who depend upon the United States to stand firmly against globalism, socialism and communism… and dishonesty.  Let’s get busy.

Belief, Reality and Death

Says it all…

Life can be much more uncomfortable for any group or faction, than its members, literally, never planned for, should the motivating ideologies that have activated the group politically, emotionally or intellectually be exposed as, essentially, incorrect.  It is very upsetting, and more so if you are in the subset of that faction that is the last to realize that your beliefs really can’t apply to reality any longer.  Those so impacted are quite likely to strike out against those who knew of the wrongness of the formers’ beliefs well in advance of the “new” awareness of those upset.  In effect, a larger and larger majority of society appear to be becoming enemies of the newly “awakened” – a most unsettling environment.

This shift in “truths” can affect the powerful as well as the marginal.  For those with political power, the reaction seems never to be an adjustment in action or belief, no admissions of error.  Rather, the reaction is likely to be what is called “doubling down” on the old beliefs and supporting actions.  To a degree, we can see this reaction in Congress, most particularly within and around the so-called “January Sixth Committee,” which has as its main purpose the proving of “White Supremacy” and “domestic terrorism” as the prime motivators of anyone who ever supported Donald Trump.  As expected, evidence of the opposite being true is routinely ignored or denigrated as simply part of the “big lie” that the ever-smaller sub-group is sacrificing so mightily to expose.  This concentrated cabal remains certain that all Americans will embrace their sacrifice once that premise is “proven.”

For many, the foolishness embodied in the January Sixth committee barely registers as a problem worthy of Congress’ attention, which helps to show the falseness of the premise noted above.  The shrinking inner group of alternate believers seems to be more determined than ever to prove their case.  Should that fail, hatred of the alternate believers will be the irreducible collapse of their dimming star: there will be no supernova.

So it is with abortion and “choice,” but on a much longer timeline and background of seeming success.  This awakening will be one of the most wrenching that America has faced, certainly since the 2nd Civil War.  That one, over slavery, finally, made America stronger.  The collapse of Abortion, Incorporated, has the potential of doing the same, but only if churches wake up at the same time.  America “works” only in a society of shared morality.  Will a new understanding of life, itself, open people’s hearts?  Not very quickly, Prudence fears.

Abortion “rights” distill the human conflict between spirituality and the worship of socialist government.  This conflict has existed since the “Garden of Eden” when the “serpent” convinced “Eve” that surely she would not (actually) die if she ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, but that she would become like the gods in knowing of good and evil.  When God learned that Adam and Eve had eaten of the tree His love for them tempered his punishment: not death, but difficulty, and banishment from “the Garden.”  The “thesis” was that Eve and Adam would die if a certain commandment were not observed; the “serpent” provided the “anti-thesis” that surely they would not die.  God’s love for His “children” softened the punishment, as love does and should do, which was explained as the antithesis being slightly more true than the thesis.  This is the same dialectic employed by Marx and Hegel and Engels. 

For thousands of years, amidst phenomenal progress, prosperity and elevated standards of living, the lure of authoritarianism, Nazism, Soviet Communism and Fascism has clung to the human condition like a voracious parasite.  Its only opponent is God and, as Christians believe, his son, the Christ.  The story of Jesus Christ, whether one is a believer or not, is a dramatic departure from identity only as part of a religious group.  Grouping is virtually automatic, but being FREE because of a personal connection to God, rewards faithful individuals with personal responsibility for individual decisions, choices and actions.  There is no freedom without that responsibility; there is no freedom when “right” action is taken only in fear of some earthly authority. 

Back to the future of our once-great nation.

Is there a source within society that can rebuild a common morality?  Our collective conscience?  We need two key elements… no, THREE: 1) Non-political churches; 2) Morally guided education; and, 3) Equal application of laws.  Free individuals have the power to empower all three factors.  Yet, our imperfect politics is what we tend to look to for salvation from problems created by, mostly, politicians.  Do we have some reason to believe that, facing a wide replacement of those in Congressional power, that the new crop of “representatives” in either House is going to help us chart a more morally straight national course?  There is almost no historical support for that outcome.

But there is opportunity for America, and it’s wrapped up in our ability to deal with the promised agitation from pro-abortionists.  There is no greater moral imperative than to protect our children.  There is no economic value that comes close to that of protecting our children.  Supposedly economically or politically powerful people can issue drivel that tries to connect the destruction of the unborn with some sort of economic benefit.  Obviously the economy exists because there are people, but it is a stretch beyond all reason that aborting new lives is good for everyone, let alone any one.  Still, there is a good possibility that overreaction to the end of Roe v. Wade will awaken many who are rabidly in favor of abortion, now.  It certainly will focus attention on the worst forms of butchery and profiteering.  Prudence would indicate that there is still sufficient moral outrage in Americans’ hearts to overcome the allure of political/financial power.  To those in Democrat power, abortion has been played for added power for 50 years – the destruction of 62 Million lives has been a small price to pay to keep re-electing Democrats.  What a foul bargain.

The illegal “leak” of Justice Alito’s draft opinion on “Roe,” has unleashed a rash of law-breaking by proponents of unfettered abortion.  Within that is the possibility of exposing the utter lawlessness of our own Department of Justice under AG, Merrick Garland.  Not only has he lied to Congress in sworn testimony, but he has employed the FBI to investigate parents who are upset about improper educational curricula and ideological indoctrination of their children.  The FBI was instructed by Garland to open cases under “domestic terrorism” titles regarding parents who broke no laws.

Now, as proto-criminals harass Supreme Court Justices in direct violation of federal law, America’s AG ignores them and refuses to direct the FBI to apprehend and charge those breaking 18 U. S. Code Section 1512.  Unfortunately, with Garland’s apparent political agreement with demonstrators who are in contravention of that section of federal law, and with his established willingness to break federal laws, himself, and to lie about it, no apprehensions or prosecutions appear likely.  Perhaps stopping illegal demonstrations is a threat to Democratcy. (spelling intended)

As Prudence has noted before, contracts, including covenants with a free people, are only as good as the integrity of the parties to them.  Changing the meaning of words is a common and corrupt means of sidestepping truths, a major cornerstone of integrity.  The second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence says, in English, that our unalienable rights include Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.  The abortion travesty of 1973’s Roe versus Wade decision tried to codify the redefinition of “Life.”  There no longer was a question of life or death of a fetus, provided that the pro-death faction was allowed to define when life began to exist.  The court did not rule on that, although it tried to “split the baby,” so to speak, by stating that States could limit abortion to the first one or two trimesters of, well, LIFE, perhaps, for lack of a better name.  But, in the Blackmun opinion, abortion was allowed throughout pregnancy.

The floodgates were thus opened to dozens of interpretations of “when life begins,” largely coming down to “when the pregnant woman decides it does,” largely on the basis of convenience, not on the life or health of the mother or of the baby.  Needless to say, this open-ended death warrant included, and has been argued to include, “abortion” up to the moment of birth.  In effect, a woman who decides at the very day of birth that she does not “want” the baby, for it certainly is such, can deny its right to live beyond a point of starvation or dehydration after birth.  It seems Prudent that a live baby is a citizen of the United States and causing it to die is murder, no matter the reason or logic for the act.  The pro-death faction has been allowed, in some jurisdictions, to redefine the meaning of “murder,” too.

Perhaps there will arrive a national awakening to the horrors of abortion, the cruelty, the pain, the denigration of humanity and even the anti-God aspects thereof.  Perhaps morality will win out.  Perhaps this 5th Civil War will begin the process of restoring America and erasing our ability to believe one of the worst aspects of socialism: that a fetus can be both a person and not a person at the same time.

Socialism depends on large numbers of people acting as though two diametrically opposed ideas are true.  Such mental incongruities are all around us, today.  That so many young people can believe, in the midst of unparalleled freedoms, that socialist central governance will make them more free, is one such incongruity.  Believing that men and women can change their genders with enough determined willpower, is another.  People will fight to hold these opposing ideas simultaneously.  In order to do so, of course, requires constant reinforcement by immersion among groups who are also determined to believe two incongruous ideas.  They have to redefine a lot of words to support their beliefs.

They ought to be made to answer some obvious questions as, for example, when the somewhat confused mayor of New York City, Eric Adams, was asked if there should be any limits on abortion, and his answer was “No, no limits.  It is a woman’s right.”  Any reporter with enough courage to ask a public figure a question without prior clearance, should have then asked, “Are there any limits on what procedures may be used to stop the heart of a baby who survives the abortion process?”

As an alternative, should no one with that much courage be within earshot, would be, “Mr. Mayor… if the baby survives the abortion, is it a citizen of the United States?”  Surely there would be an answer to one of those queries.  At least one of the “abortion activists” shouting slogans in recent days opined that a mother could decide up to the age of two years, or even later, whether the living, growing fetus actually had a right to live and grow any longer.  When pressed, it all came down, FOR HER, to “… it’s the mother’s right.”  That outlook seems imprudent, at least, and blatantly murderous.  How did a female of the species arrive at such a belief?

Prudence indicates that truth will overcome evil, whether EVIL agrees with it or not.  The subgroup that likes rubbing shoulders with evil or Satanism, itself, will be come smaller as those farther out from the pit are able to be revulsed by what they’ve been instructed to ignore.  At the same time, those who never bought the pro-death lies will gain the courage to resist, if not fight, the proponents of eliminating children.  In fact, here are a couple of protester signs that might help: Babies are a pain in the vagina: Get rid of them!  Or, if that point is misunderstood, All unwanted children should be killed!  Convenience über alles, God forbid.

AS ABOVE, SO BELOW

AS ABOVE, SO BELOW

The flow of history is a slog through constant resistance, almost like wading through clingy mud, as it were, with progress measured in excruciatingly slow jumps: dry patches where it is possible to walk briskly a short distance until humankind’s instinctive ability to confuse and confound its direction toward some elevation of living quality or standards.  Seventy years ago we dreamed of sleeker automobiles, wrap-around windshields and ever more powerful engines.  Tens of thousands of patents have been issued for automotive improvements in the interim, but we still crash into and maim or kill one another by ignoring signals or courtesy or conditions.  Fewer and fewer of these “accidents” interfere with trips to church.  There is still trash littering our gutters, highway shoulders and median strips.  Excruciatingly small jumps of progress.

We celebrate great thinkers like Einstein, Rosen, Bohr and Susskind who seem to leap ahead of contemporary understandings, but their genius takes a long, long time to improve people’s lives, although the atom bomb provides the exception to that rule… so to speak.  Many of the “rapid” changes to humanity’s convenience and living standards have derived from weapons development as far back as history has been recorded: even the wheel and domestication of oxen and horses and so forth.  But great theoretical, mathematical thinkers don’t concentrate on creating better appliances or roofing materials; they contemplate time and gravity and quantum mechanics and black holes and such, which are all important, too, despite most people caring very little about their progress.

Now and then there is a Nicola Tesla, a Thomas Edison, an Isaac Newton, a Copernicus, a DaVinci or an Elon Musk, and thank God for them.  The greatest thinker of all, however, is God, it seems Prudent to accept, even though people are certain they can explain why He is not so.  It strikes Prudence, however, that the great theoreticians are edging, bit by bit, toward understanding how God’s creation works – physically, mathematically, honestly.  It is a matter of truth, information, reality and pure intersectionality… oh, and black holes.

The latest thinking tends to accept that the “event horizon” of a so-called black hole is nearly a spiritual place.  It has to do with quantum mechanics and the preservation of information and the “entanglement” principle that predicts that two related particles or wave-packets or even energy strings, will maintain a status of “truth” between them no matter how far apart they may be.  That is, if a quality of one particle varies for whatever reason, its “mate” will exhibit the same variation instantaneously.  This can be proven by observation if the two particles are within range of observation, and is so well established that the principle is accepted at essentially all distances.  What has this to do with the event horizon?

The “event horizon” marks the last place where light or other radiation can escape the effects of a black hole before “falling” into the black hole. Two particles that interact in this most unusual place might separate, one radiating outward as the other falls in past the event horizon.  Current thinking says that the “entanglement” of these two particles, which is to say, the shared truth of these two particles, does not end at the event horizon.  The entanglement principle holds true in both realms.  Variance in the nature / condition of one particle will be true for the other at the same time regardless of distance.  To poor, dense Prudence, this sounds a lot like “As above, so below.”

What is true in Heaven is true on Earth, in so many words.  The Newtonian / Einsteinian descriptions of reality: space, time, gravity, electro-magnetism, atoms and sub-atomic particles, can describe many relationships in the observable Universe, but it is quantum mechanics, quantum physics, that explain how the engine runs, including the spontaneous conversion of energy into matter and vice-versa… and entanglement.  The truth of quantum entanglement pretty much establishes truth as the heart of the engine.  It is also the heart of life, which seems to be everywhere in some form, humans being part of it: love, life, law, truth.

There is something true about how the Universe works and exists as it does.  As scientists struggle to think the way God does, for utter lack of a better name, they keep getting closer to fundamental truths.  As they attempt to observe with ever-greater clarity, how two particles – or FACTS – are entangled in truth, they realize that with better and better observation the particle or packet being observed – or the fact being observed – expands and expands to fill the known Universe, theoretically.  Pretty soon the theoretical master-minds are describing the Universe as holographic: an expression of truth perceived through a filter of observation and, well, meaning.

Is the hologram mere happenstance?  Can we ask, whose hologram is it?  Not a fair question?  Scientists keep sharpening their sense of truth / reality without contemplating the spirituality of truth, but it is lurking everywhere truth is observed, thank God… for utter lack of a better name.

MALE AND FEMALE CREATED HE THEM

And there is love…

A man shall leave his mother and a woman leave her home

And they shall travel on to where the two will be as one.

As it was in the beginning is now and till the end

Woman draws her life from man and gives it back again.

And there is Love.  There is Love.

                                                                        From Peter, Paul & Mary: Wedding Song

To hear it screamed about, the apparent likelihood that the Supreme Court will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that upended common law regarding abortion, marks the end of life as we know it. (Pun intended.)  Or, maybe, the end of civilization, itself.  How grievous that women may again be celebrated for motherhood.

Well, maybe that’s not fair: women are so much more than mere “birthing persons.”  They are able to work, after all, which the artificially high costs of living and taxation require these days, and even earn more than many, Ugh!, men can earn, for Heaven’s sakes.  Careful of the “Heaven” reference, there, Prudence.  No sense bringing spirituality into this “life” argument; it’s taken nearly 50 years to denigrate it as well as we have.

Besides, religion is for the handful of weirdos who are not as enlightened as abortionists and who, still, think abortion is somehow “wrong:” science-deniers, all.  KEEP YOUR RELIGION OFF OF MY BODY, or can’t you read the signs of deep wisdom all around you as you leave church this Mothers’ Day?  We will not be held in subjugation by men for a million more years as we have been: mere mothers and homemakers and nannys to the children of, Ugh!, men.

Well, that’s one way to look at it.

One sign that popped into being since the big, illegal reveal says, “(euphemism for fornicate) to come, not for pregnancy!”  Females, then, (since ‘women’ can’t be defined) have been elevated to the higher status of pleasure-seeking pleasure objects… which is another way of looking at it.  That men have benefitted the most from freely available abortion – at least in terms of unfettered pleasure-seeking – and WHITE MEN most of all, seems to have escaped the notice of enlightened females.  Black men tend to be discarded in abortion clinics at much higher rates than whites, but, then, who’s listening to them?

Somehow, though, the relative power of the feminist mystique has resulted in wholesale destruction of women’s true status which was supposed to be elevated by loosening the shackles of pregnancy.  Exactly why current ideological, pedagogical theory requires pediatric exploration of sexual pleasure rather than language and arithmetic skills, critical thinking and problem-solving, has not been explained, but it certainly is a component of socialist beliefs.  Children, both sexes, we are told… they are told, need to be separated from traditional “roles” that science-denying religionists assign to them at birth, especially traditional roles of boys and girls growing into men and women, from whose love shall come forth new generations.  Those same kids must be separated, psychologically from their parents, who can’t be trusted as much as their true friends, the “education” establishment.

Go ahead and give birth, if you want to, but that’s where your rights end.

Men are pigs, so to speak.  Despite their strengths and values, men tend to set aside almost any higher calling when they perceive the possibility of having sex.  To borrow a phrase, it takes a village to keep men in their own pasture, and the head of that village is a man’s wife.  Women are the civilizing force in society.  Decades ago the strengthening feminist juggernaut decried President Reagan’s statement that “women are the civilizing force on men.” (Or, words to that effect.)  The feminist “leader” who put Reagan in his place for that comment, was signally offended by his statement, apparently because it linked men and women in the processes of socialization and civilization.  God forbid.  No way did a modern, liberated woman have any obligation to do anything – even a good thing – for a man: everything required negotiated parity between equals.  Love had nothing to do with it, nor, apparently, did child-rearing or family dynamics or nurturing stability or dependence on some, Ugh!, man to provide for the family.  It is remarkable, indeed, that any families are still being formed, today.

A measure of the destructiveness of feminized socialism is the breakdown of traditional father-mother families, and it is at its worst for black families.  Today nearly three-fourths of black children grow up in single-parent households, mostly fatherless; nearly 30% of white and Hispanic children do, also.  This shift began in earnest with the “Great Society” and the federalization of welfare, perhaps the worst public policy experiment ever conceived.  People blame Lyndon Johnson for the foul execution of military policy in the Viet-Nam War, as they should, but 100 times as much damage has been done through federal welfare programs that facilitate single-mother households.

Since the eugenics of Margaret Sanger, but really since the inception of the Great Society, the “liberation” of women, constantly touted by the Democrat Party to their key voting block, as they help them throw off the shackles of oppression by men, women have striven towards economic equality with men, but it has cost them the rewards of their majestic roles as mothers in loving 2-parent households.  In part as a result, American citizens no longer have enough children to replace ourselves.  Is this a measure of feminist success?

It is almost better referred-to as a success in the battle against motherhood, now that the battle against fatherhood is so well underway.  The rabid attempts to sexualize and gender-neutralize elementary school children could play a vital role in this battle.  Indeed, the greatest impact of convincing children that they are not who they originally thought they were, but are some sort of gender-fluid non-boy or non-girl, is STERILITY!  In the minds of feminized socialists, separating children from their parents and from reality, is the most effective way to destroy Christianity, as it destroys procreation.

Are there any demonstrations over Roe v. Wade outside of Mosques?

Indeed, the entire, sick fad of trans-genderism, non-binary identities and gender fluidity is an assault on both masculinity and femininity.  To what end, a normal person is inspired to ask?  To express hatred towards life?  Towards God?  Towards love?  It expresses nothing better than hatred for all of these things.

Perhaps the destruction of traditional sexual mores is the natural outgrowth of feminism.  Can a half-century of celebrating anti-masculinity result in a new appreciation for the value of men?  Our culture teaches boys that they are flawed almost to irredeemability, able to restore approval only by renouncing maleness in grade school.  The same culture teaches girls that the least-attractive aspect of their lives is as a mother, then it teaches that some giant boy pretending to be a girl is worth more than girls, themselves.

Then we select and celebrate a female judge who is incapable of defining what a woman is, and entrust her with discerning the essence of our Constitution when she cannot discern her own.  No wonder women are angry these days, and, as on most days, when angred there must be a man at the root cause of it.

Prudence is not certain that having more women in government really is an answer we’ve been waiting for: more real men might help, though.  Maybe the liberal wing of the Supreme Court can find a right to love one another in the penumbra of the Constitution, and override all State laws to the contrary.