What we are seeing, however, is not a Federalist Reformation. Rather, we are seeing the political landscape becoming very conductive to a Federalist Reformation. We are all against higher taxes and government intrusion. Those are very general notions and so long as those are the ideas then what we can expect to happen is very simple. A Republican revolution that sees taxes cut and assorted changes are made, but the underlying problem will not have been addressed.

If a man does not like his local laws then he can move a few miles down the road and live in another township. If a man does not like the laws of his state then he may elect to move to some other state that is more conductive to his own pursuit of happiness. If, however, a man does not like the laws of the nation then where can he go? This is why  our nation is becoming increasingly divided. The people of Massachusetts may decide for themselves to have massive social programs and the people of South Dakota may decide not to. Neither infringes upon the other. But when so many laws are passed at a federal level then both sides impose on each other. This is the root of the problem.

In order to have a Federalist Reformation we need to correct the imbalance of power between the state and the federal governments. This article suggests ten amendments to the Constitution that would do a great deal towards achieving this goal. (I would also include an amendment that reverses the 17th Amendment with a mechanic to insure Senate seats do not remain vacant.) The result would serve to shrink the federal government and bring about the states taking back issues that should always have been theirs.

But I am unsure that that is what we’ll see. More likely what we’ll see is another Republican revolution as stated, but for the structure that allows the federal government to grow under both Republicans and Democrats to remain in place. In so many election cycles the same problems would compound and we will be left where we are today.

It would be better for our republic if we do this right the first time, but it will be ever so harder to do. The progressive movement has a century of momentum in growing the federal government and it will be ever so loath as to have their gains reversed in total. They are used to being slowed down or kept at bay. It will take every mother’s son to do it, but what we need is to reform our government to the ideas of federalism our Republic was built upon.

I think she should have finished out her first term, lame duck or no. It does however, give Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell a time to be Governor and have a better shot at retaining the office in 2010. 

This does not mean that she’s out of politics, but I think it does mean no 2012 and no 2016 either. I wouldn’t want to have to defend her in those years if she ran for president. She’s young, only 45, if she plans at some point to run for president then she has time to finish raising her children before getting to it. There’s 2020, 2024, and 2028. Some are suggesting she’s just done with elected politics. And thats fine too. 

Regardless Sarah Palin will still be around being Sarah Palin. She’ll continue to be a leader and that’s good enough.

Fundamental ideas of freedom and liberty. The idea that any given individual is the best judge of his own prosperity. That a man is capable of governing his own life, be responsible for his own self, come what may. There are people who fancy themselves to be the betters of everyone else, who would point to a man who has fallen and decry that the system has failed. They miss the point. Here in America it is better to be free then to be ‘right’.  

A good man fallen on hard times though on the rocky shores of life is still the captain of his own destiny. Through hard work and perseverance man is capable of overcoming any obstacle he may face and be stronger for it.  A man must be free to fail if he is to be free to succeed. Whether in success or failure, a mans actions and achievements are his own. Deny him the opportunity to fail and you deny him the opportunity to succeed. 

Give a man every material want and desire and you have robbed him of the opportunity to prove his worth. A man’s own worth is something that only he can set for himself through the triumphs and tragedies of his own life. No man can live a another life for him, nor can any government. 

In order to maximize the freedom of it’s citizens a government must necessarily take advantage of every opportunity to stand out their way, but increasingly this past century we Americans turn to the government to govern our lives. Somewhere along the line many of us have lost sight of the simple fact that each one of us is a government of one capable of our own domestic and foreign policy. Each one of us is part of a social compact with nearby foreign entities, our fellow citizens, to abide by the same laws and to respect one another’s freedoms. We construct artificial governments between us because the proper amount of extra-individual government makes everyone freer. 

The only natural government is a person governing himself. We are so long accustomed to government that we take it as a given, as inevitable and constant as the rising sun, but it is an artificial construction. People expect a government to be care for them as mother, father, and god all in one, but a government cannot care. A government has no heart, it has no soul, and it can provide no meaning. Government and is hollow and empty when it comes to these things and no expansion of it will change that fundamental truth. A free man finds government is only as tolerable as it maximizes his freedom.

The more power a government is allowed to have over it’s citizens the the less power the citizens have and the less freedom. Power corrupts, which is why our founders sought to scatter it, putting it in as many hands as possible, because when power comes to rest in the hands of the few it inevitably leads to tyranny. 

Which is why I think our nation risks ending sooner then later. More and more power has been appropriated by our governments, local, state and federal. More and more power concentrates not in the localities, not in the state capitals, but in Washington. This has been the trend for over a hundred years.

We have a number of structural brakes on our governments and we have a powerful cultural tendencies that have kept us from being as far down the road to socialism as the European Union, but make no mistake, we are on that road. Rome didn’t fall in a day, and the seeds were planted centuries before it did. 

Another way of putting it is that America is not a mom and pop shop. Mom and pop shops can close at the drop of a hat. Huge corporations take years to decline before they suddenly fall. We are not speed boat that can run circles around icebergs with ease. Fools steer us towards icebergs and endanger us all. The course must be set some time before in order to hit the iceberg that will sink the ship. Though our nation is a very large ocean liner we can avoid icebergs with ease so long as it is not steered towards one. Fools who steer a nation into waters conductive to tyranny are often long dead by the time their nation is fully rent asunder by their course. 

But if the past century of missteps has concentrated power in the Federal government then the cure is to disperse power again as our Founding Fathers had intended. We need to reform our republic to the principles of Federalism as our founding fathers understood them. We will need a Federalist Reformation.

We have had over the past few decades various levels of talk of a Balanced Budget Amendment, a Line Item Veto, repealing the 16th and 17th Amendments, Term-Limits, proper implementation of the 10th Amendment, and so forth. These need to be not viewed as separate issues but rather they should each be viewed as different aspects of the over arcing concept of reforming the Federal government.

We effect such a solution and our great county will have many more great days ahead of it. If we fail to do so then we will continue our slide into Socialism and our good thing will come to an end.

So within the year we may see a coup. Pakistan’s nukes will be loose and the blood could very easily spill over into Afghanistan and India. There’s not much we can do to prevent it. Such a situation is much to our detriment, but there’s one factor that I haven’t heard discussed yet.  

What will India do in the event of a coup?

This is an interesting question and I wish I knew more about India and it’s internal dynamics. As concerned as we may be about loose Pakistani nukes India is undoubtedly more concerned. India’s military would be remiss if it did not have plans on the shelf for a preemptive strike on known or suspected nuclear sites, stockpiles, etc. Whether they strike first or wait and see if a nuke goes off in their county is anyone’s guess. 

But however it happens, if India winds up in a war with a Taliban controlled Pakistan there are certain priorities they should have. For peace of mind about the security of their people they would want to neutralize pakistani nuclear stockpiles and ability to replenish them. Air strikes alone may or may not achieve everything they would hope for. It would be very difficult for them, but to be absolutely certain they would need to commit ground troops. India would also want to catch as many of Pakistan’s nuclear scientists as possible because their knowledge is just as dangerous in the long run. Looking at a possible Balkanization of Pakistan it would be in India’s interests to downgrade the Pakistani military capability to the point where it would take any Pakistani government decades to build it back up again. They may also take Kashmir while they’re at it.

What should the United State’s position be in such a scenario?

It is current US policy to maintain the peace between India and Pakistan, but if the Taliban effect a coup then what interest do we really have in continuing to maintain a strained neutrality between them? What reason, also, would the US have to prevent a natural ally from attending to legitimate security concerns? What reason would we have to prevent them from settling the Kashmir question on their terms? In acting on their own security interests they would also be acting in our security interests. Simply put, we do not have the manpower necessary to do what would need to be done in Pakistan. India does. If India were to take all of Kashmir then we would have an allied nation bordering Afghanistan who could thereby give our military undisputed air and land access to the country. 

If all that were to occur then our interests and influence in region outside of Pakistan would potentially not be much changed. Also, the reason our armed forces have not been more forceful in cross border operations is because of the fear of destabilizing the existing Pakistani government. A Taliban coup would eliminate this concern.

I don’t like the idea of Indian military action in Pakistan. As much as it might work out well, it might also work out badly. It depends on who gets to the nukes first. Otherwise India should prevail given it’s 12 million strong army compared to Pakistan’s 4 million, but you never know. If only the Pakistani government had dealt with the Taliban years ago this wouldn’t be an issue. But they didn’t and now we are faced with the reality that Pakistan could destabilize, nukes would be loose, our sphere of influence in the region would be diminished, and all our efforts in Afghanistan would be jeopardized. 

If a coup were to occur we should let India know that we’ll not tie their hands and that we would support any action they feel is necessary for their own security with regards to Pakistan. It would be really messy, but I think that would be the best of all bad options in the event of a Taliban coup.

[edited first paragraph: $10 billion spent over the past eight years, not the last year.]

There is this tendency to view the economy as a machine and this is a mistake. A machine might have a bad engine. We can replace the engine with a new one and the machine is as good as new. But we cannot put the economy up on blocks and change out parts while it’s at a stand still. Further, we can’t start it up again as good as new. The economy was never ‘new’. Our economy began as seedlings hundreds of years ago. As our nation has grown so too has our economy grown and today it is a vibrant forest. We cannot “regulate” a forest, nor can we “fix” it. We can tend and nurture it.

If there is a dry spell the answer is not to take water from the trees, but that is precisely what the progressive solution calls for. Businesses natural tendency, like trees, is to grow, but if they cannot afford to grow they won’t. Just as is impossible for a tree to grow if you restrict it’s water supply, it is impossible to tax businesses into creating more jobs. Even the communists understand that.

The current state of the Abortion Debate is stalemate. We as a nation are not asking ourselves the right question. This is evident in how evenly divided our nation has been on the question for the past 35 years. Does life begin at conception? Does the woman have a choice? Both questions are non-starters.

Of course it’s life. As is often pointed out by Pro-Life advocates, even Pro-Choice advocates concede that it’s life. Broad agreement on that point, however, has not led to consensus on abortion.

Most polls put the number of people who believe abortion should be illegal in all cases somewhere between 10 and 20%. Link. That means 80 to 90% of Americans are against banning abortion completely. The question of whether or not it’s life is a non-starter even within the Pro-Life movement. Many Pro-Lifers believe that abortion should be permitted in cases of rape, incest, and to save the life of the woman. Such positions are inconsistent with the core Pro-Life argument.

And of course the woman has a choice, but not absolutely. Most polls put the number of people who believe abortion should be legal under any circumstance somewhere between 20 and 30%. That means that 70 to 80% of America are against absolute choice. The question of whether or not the woman has a choice is a non-starter within the Pro-Choice movement as well.

Just as both of the current arguments need to be put to one side in order to rethink the abortion debate, so too must Roe vs Wade be reversed. It is a spacious ruling made on flimsy constitutional grounds that set the precedent for judicial activism. It politicized judicial appointments and continues to lower the dialogue in this country. It also stands in the way of any road to consensus in this nation.

*
This isn’t about the hard-liners*

It is a given that there will be hard-liners on both sides who won’t accept any solution short of the totality of their own goals, but this shouldn’t be about catering to an them. As I said in the previous post:

The numbers are different depending upon the survey, but essentially 30% of America is Pro-Life, 30% is Pro-Choice, and 40% are somewhere in the middle. These percentages have wobbled back and forth a bit during the past 35 years but are basically unchanged. Neither argument has enough support to become the majority opinion in this country and there is no reason to believe this will change in the next 35 or the next 100 years.

…

The basic plan on both sides is to pack the courts with judges who are sympathetic to their views. That’s a fine plan, but it only works until the other side is able to regain the majority. Gaining such a majority in the courts would be difficult and that majority would be lost as the pendulum swings the other way. That’s because of that 40% of America that’s in the middle on this. You may not like that, you may curse their names, but you won’t ever advance your goals without them.

The point is to find a solution that would be acceptable to the crucial majority in the middle. The debate has catered to the hard-liners for the past 35 years. That has not helped this nation find a solution that the majority of Americans could live with. 80 – 90% disagree with the Pro-Life hard-liners and 70 – 80% disagree with the Pro-Choice hard-liners.

Sooner or later a consensus has been reached on every issue that our nation has dealt with, but it is difficult to see such a thing occurring with abortion. The point is not to find a solution that will make everyone happy– that would be literally impossible – but to find a solution the majority of Americans can live with.

In order to be acceptable to Pro-Choice advocates, the answer would need to afford an opportunity to choose. Abortion would also need to be restricted more than it already is in order to be acceptable to Pro-Life advocates. Above all any solution would need to be on firm constitutional grounds, otherwise it becomes another lighting rod that polarizes the country like Roe vs Wade.

Citizenship and the Right to Life Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness

Abortion is not addressed in the Constitution as such, but a fair reading of the 10th Amendment indicates that both the state and the people may have the power of abortion. The only justification for the state to become involved in order to prohibit abortion entirely would be to defend the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of a new citizen.

The sperm and egg are property of the man and woman. At some point the sperm and egg undergo a process whereby they constitute a new citizen. The point where it becomes a citizen couldn’t be during the first trimester because 60+% of Americans believe that abortion should be legal during that time. On the other hand citizenship needs to be gained no later then the end of the second trimester because 60+% of Americans are opposed to abortion during the third trimester.

The 14th Amendment offers clarity on who counts as a citizen. As I said previously:

The key word there is ‘born’. As a practical matter we do not abort children a day before they would naturally be born because it is obvious the child is capable of surviving outside of the womb. A child that is capable of surviving outside the womb should be considered the same as having been born, with regards to citizenship, because it is capable of doing so.

With current medical technology a child has a 50% chance of surviving if it is are born in the 24-25th weeks. Before that the survival rates drop off. There are cases, however, of survival at 21 weeks. See chart.

If citizenship is gained as soon as the fetus is capable of surviving outside the womb (even if it’s not outside yet – the key word is “capable”, here) then given current medical technology a fetus should gain citizenship no later then 20 weeks. Allowing benefit of doubt to the fetus we could reasonably say the fetus gains citizenship earlier.

Between 60 and 70% of Americans are against abortion in the second trimester and the number of abortions during that period bear that out. Only 1.4% of abortions occur later then the 20th week, and 11.3% of abortions occur after 12 weeks. Link.
Most Americans are already willing to give the child benefit of doubt at 12 weeks.

Given that most women don’t know that they are pregnant until the 6th to 8th week of pregnancy that would give them at least a one month window to have an opportunity to choose. That is really all most people want and something Pro-Choice advocates could very well live with.

Granting benefit of doubt regarding Citizenship would at the very least render abortion illegal during the last half of pregnancy. At the limits of public opinion, it would also render abortion illegal during both the second and third trimesters. The net result of this would be about 155,000 fewer abortions per year by rendering abortion illegal after the 12th week.

Property Rights = Reproductive Rights

Many Pro-Lifers would not be happy with restricting abortion to only the first trimester, but instead of trying to ban it outright they would get farther by settling for making abortions harder to gain. In the first trimester there are still rights to protect.

The reigning argument of Pro-Choice advocates is that a woman owns her own body and that it is her right to do with it as she pleases. They are already making the argument that property rights equal reproductive rights. It would be wise of Pro-Life advocates to accept that she does own her egg and may do with it as she pleases, and insist that it should be carried to the logical conclusion that a man owns his own sperm and may do with it as he pleases as well. Their genetic properties are intertwined. To destroy one is to destroy the other.

Pro-Life advocates should insist that before a woman can have an abortion that she receive permission from the man to destroy his property. Such permission is not guaranteed. Some will consent, some will persuade the woman not to have an abortion, and some will refuse.

The primary exception to this rule would, of course, be rape. The rapist forfeits his Reproductive Rights in the act. One of the few things that the majority of Americans can agree on is that a woman who has been raped has a right to an abortion.

Many of those who are not Pro-Life are predisposed to finding this argument reasonable due to it being argued for so long. Again, the net result would be fewer abortions.

Parental Rights

The second exception to the Property Rights argument would be in the case of a minor. Parental Rights trump Property Rights with regards to abortion. Parents have the right to raise their children how they see fit and their permission is needed for any other medical procedure their child may undergo.

It only follows that a parents knowledge and consent be gained for any abortion to occur. Variations of this argument are already in play. See map.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:MapofUSminorabortion_laws.svg

Twenty-one states currently require the knowledge and consent of at least one parent.

Making that law in the other 29 states would again result in fewer abortions.

Pro-Rights

Taken together these positions are neither Pro-Choice nor Pro-Life. The common theme among these arguments is Rights: a Citizens Right to Life, a Citizens Right to Property, and Parental Rights. Hence the name Pro-Rights.

Both Pro-Choice and Pro-Life advocates are in a war of a piece here a piece there, but eventually both want the whole pie. Both are right to believe in the slippery slope argument because that’s exactly what each side is hoping for. With a Pro-Rights solution there is no slippery slope, only the common ground that the majority of Americans could live with.

It’s been interesting being treated as if I was a Pro-Choice happy baby killer, but in reality, I am not. I want to see a more rightward solution to the abortion issue.

Do you care more about the argument or the goals? Most of the people who have commented on my entry have issues with it because it’s not a Pro-Life argument and ignore the fact that it would actually advance Pro-Life goals. I assumed that the Pro-Life advocates were interested in achieving the goal of pushing back abortion however they can. If, however, it turns out that the Pro-Life advocates are happier to argue your argument – rather than actually achieving goals – then I am spinning my wheels here. But if you are actually interested in achieving the goals you argue for so passionately then consider the state of the abortion debate.

The numbers are different depending upon the survey, but essentially 30% of America is Pro-Life, 30% is Pro-Choice, and 40% are somewhere in the middle. These percentages have wobbled back and forth a bit during the past 35 years but are basically unchanged. Neither argument has enough support to become the majority opinion in this country and there is no reason to believe this will change in the next 35 or the next 100 years. The Pro-Life argument has achieved about as much of it’s goals as it’s likely to.

The basic plan on both sides is to pack the courts with judges who are sympathetic to their views. That’s a fine plan, but it only works until the other side is able to regain the majority. Gaining such a majority in the courts would be difficult and that majority would be lost as the pendulum swings the other way. That’s because of that 40% of America that’s in the middle on this. You may not like that, you may curse their names, but you won’t ever advance your goals without them.

Neither side can win with the existing status of the debate. Is it life? Yes it is, but that needs to be reconciled with the fact that the majority of Americans will not accept outlawing abortion entirely. Does the woman have a choice? Yes she does, but that needs to be reconciled with the fact that the majority of Americans are uncomfortable with abortion on demand.

Viewing the argument in a Pro-Life vs Pro-Choice manner has not yielded a majority opinion in this country so the problem might very well be that we’re not asking ourselves the right questions. Instead of trying to find a way to pack the courts and to force the rest of the country to go along, why not try to come up with an argument that the majority finds persuasive?

It is because I am unsettled by how far to the left abortion has gone in this country that I have tried to come up with a a rightward solution that the majority would be able to live with. I’m in that middle 40% on this issue. I can see elements in both arguments that would appeal to many people. In a perfect world both arguments would work fine, but this isn’t a perfect world. Neither argument has the whole solution.

The reality is that abortion is a complex issue. It may be simple for you, but it is not so for a lot of other people. Their concerns are not immaterial. It will only be by arguments that address those concerns or appeal to them otherwise that we as a nation will be able to gain consensus on the issue.

There are a lot of people on the other side who are amiable toward restricting abortion a bit, but are worried about a slippery slope leading to abortion being made entirely illegal. There are Libertarians who value their rights before your values. There are a lot of people who could be brought on board by the message that abortion is a family decision and that by making it so the family unit would be strengthened. Arguing for gender equality in regards to reproductive rights is actually a way to use the Pro-Choice argument against itself.

By addressing those concerns and using new arguments I think it’s possible for a more rightward abortion solution to be accepted by the majority in this country, but it’ll only be made possible by acknowledging that you won’t be able to get everything you want. There’s no chance of getting everything, but there’s a good chance of getting some of it, and some is better then none.

• John A Brill

Abortion has weighed on this country for 35 years, not only because it is a very emotional issue, but also because abortion touches on so many other issues as well. It is not just about Female Reproductive Rights, the Rights of the Unborn, the Right to Privacy, etc. It is also about Male Reproductive Rights, Parental Rights, Rule of Law, and Personal Responsibility. I do not believe there is a solution that could possibly please all the people all of the time, but I do believe there is an abortion position that does the least amount of violence to all of these rights and principles. Here I present a grand unifying theory on the power of abortion, reproductive rights, and parental rights that does just that. I call it the Pro-Rights abortion position.

The 10th Amendment states:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The authority and power to decide whether a woman may or may not have an abortion is not a power granted to the United States Federal Government, nor is is a power prohibited by the Constitution to the States. Therefore the Power to decided whether a woman may or may not have an abortion is one that is reserved to either the States respectively or to the People. The question then is whether it is the States or the People to which this power is reserved.

The 14th Amendment states:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

The key word there is ‘born’. As a practical matter we do not abort children a day before they would naturally be born because it is obvious the child is capable of surviving outside of the womb. A child that is capable of surviving outside the womb should be considered the same as having been born, with regards to citizenship, because it is capable of doing so. A fetus should achieve citizenship as soon as it is able to survive independent of the womb.

Accepting that the word ‘born’ implies “an ability to survive independent of the womb”, the 14th Amendment becomes clear that until such time as a fetus is capable of surviving outside the womb, they are not a citizen of the United States. If the unborn is able to sustain it’s own life outside of the womb then it is indeed a citizen, and the state’s interest is clear as it has a responsibility to protect the child’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If the fetus cannot sustain it’s own life then it is not yet a citizen, and has no rights that the state is authorized to protect. As such, the Power of Abortion is the People’s until such time as the unborn is capable of being born at which time the Power of Abortion is accorded to the States. Functionally this means that the Power of Abortion is the people’s during the First and Second Trimesters, and the state’s during the Third Trimester.

During the First and Second Trimesters which People have the Power of Abortion? As the fetus is not considered a citizen before the Third trimester it can only be considered property during the First and Second Trimesters, but whose property?

Each of us owns our own body. This is a self evident truth that our country is built upon. No man can own another, no government owns any person. Our bodies are our own. Our organs cannot be taken from us unless we give consent for them to be taken by signing up as an Organ Donor, our blood can not be taken unless we decide to donate it, and we own our genetic material. The fetus is made up of equal amounts of genetic material from a man and a woman and as such they have joint ownership of the fetus. It is the consenting act that results in impregnation that represents the deepest of social bonds. Throughout human history humanity has acknowledged that both man and woman bear equal responsibility to the life they are bringing into this world. In all other respects, both the man and the woman have equal say over the fate of their child. Why should decisions regarding abortion be any less? All people own their genetic material. It is from that ownership and the bond represented by the consenting act that reproductive rights can be derived.

As it stands now a woman can unilaterally abort a fetus thereby dissolving the deepest of social bonds and the responsibility that goes with it without ever informing the man. She is, for all intents and purposes, destroying his genetic property without his consent. This violates the reproductive rights of half the population. All men and women are created equally. The fetus is equally the genetic property of both the man and the woman under a bond made willingly.

If the fetus was conceived in the course of rape then the rapist by default has forfeited his right to determine the fate of the fetus and the woman should be able to exercise the Power of Abortion as she will. However, if the fetus was conceived with the consent of both parties, then it should follow that it would need to be aborted with the consent of both parties. The man should be informed that the fetus exists and his consent should be gained before an abortion is performed. To do otherwise would deny men reproductive rights.

The state has an interest and duty in safeguarding the genetic property rights of both the man and the woman as it would for any property rights issue. Should a dispute arise between the man and the woman as to whether or not the fetus should be aborted it would fall to the state to arbitrate as it would any other property dispute. If their genetic material were not bound as one there would be no issue. People are free to dispose of their property as they wish. In the case of a fetus, however, the properties are bound together. Destroying the property of one is destroying the property of the other. The state does not have an interest in allowing any citizen to destroy the another citizen’s property. A woman aborting against the will of the man is as much a violation of his genetic property rights as a man perpetrating trauma to a woman’s stomach to induce miscarriage would violate hers.

In the case of a minor the rights of the legal parent or guardian necessarily supersede the rights of the potential father. A parent’s or guardian’s permission is required for every other medical procedure, not to mention relative inconsequential matters such as a school trip. It makes no sense that a parent would not have authority, in regard to their under aged teen, over the very significant medical procedure of abortion. It is in the State’s interest to support and respect the integrity of the family unit, as the family is the foundation of our society. A minor should be required to have the consent of at least one parent before an abortion can be legally performed.

Should complications arise and the unborn were to pose a threat to the life of the potential mother, then her own vested interest in life and liberty takes precedent over rights of any parents, guardians, or potential fathers.

There are three types of amendments to the Constitution that would alter this argument. Those amendments would need to redefine what a citizen is, to redefine a citizen’s natural ownership of their body, or to outlaw abortion specifically. The likelihood of any one of these amendments being passed is slim at best. It is a reality that a significant portion of America would oppose each of these measures, ensuring that none of those amendments would pass.

The Pro-Rights Abortion position is consistent with the Constitution as written. Above all else, this nation is a nation of the Rule of Law, before which all people are equal. This Pro-Rights Abortion position would bring our nation closer to that ideal. It treats Men’s and Women Reproductive Rights as the same, with no double standard. It places responsibility square on both parties, being both fair and unfair to both equally. It treats abortion as a Private Issue between the potential father and potential mother, until the fetus itself satisfies conditions for citizenship. It respects the Rights of Parents to raise their children as they see fit.

The Pro-Rights Abortion Position does not address whether or not it is life or whether or not the woman has a choice. Viewing the issue though an emotional lens will not satisfy either side of the argument and ensures deadlock on the issue. The Pro-Rights solution views abortion as a matter of citizenship and property rights. In doing so it offers something to like for both Pro-Choice and Pro-Life advocates.

Granting both women and men the same reproductive rights would be logically consistent for Pro-Choice advocates, extending choice to everyone. Here to for, men have been disfranchised from their reproductive rights. What reason would they have to deny men suffrage in regards to the power of abortion?

This argument should also appeal to Pro-Life advocates by firmly restricting Third Term abortions and by making abortions harder to obtain during the First and Second Trimesters. The Pro-Rights position is also a Pro-Family abortion position because it maintains that any abortion decision should be made by the family, whether parents to be or between parent and child. The Pro-Rights position also encourages a culture of responsibility, because both parties could not be sure if the other would be willing to have an abortion and they may find themselves stuck with their choice. America offers freedom, but not freedom from consequence.

We have not been able to resolve the abortion issue in this country because the majority of Americans are uncomfortable with the pure implementations of both of the existing positions. Much of the debate over the Power of Abortion in this country has been about where to draw the line in between those two positions. The Pro-Rights position navigates the middle, where most Americans happen to stand on the issue, by seeking to do the least amount of violence to the many Rights and Principles the issue touches upon. Because of that it is my belief that the majority of Americans would be able to live with a Pro-Rights solution just fine, and the country would be able to gain consensus on the issue.

• John A. Brill

Cross Posted at TheNextRight

• Thomas Jefferson in 1800 with 61.4%
• Thomas Jefferson in 1804 with 72.8%
• James Madison in 1808 with 64.7%
• James Monroe in 1816 with 68.2%
• James Monroe in 1820 with 80.6% (!)
• Warren G. Harding in 1920 with 60.3%
• Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1936 with 60.8%
• Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964 with 61.1%
• Richard Nixon in 1972 with 60.7%

Of the 55 presidential elections we have had, 17 have been won with less than 50% of the vote.

Of the 55 presidential elections we have had, 23 have been won with less then a 10% difference in the popular vote between the winner and his opponent. The closest being:

• James Garfield in 1880 by 3.5%
• Grover Cleveland in 1884 by 3.3%
• James Madison in 1812 by 2.8%
• George Bush in 2004 by 2.4%
• James K. Polk in 1844 by 2.4%
• Jimmy Carter in 1976 by 2.1%
• John F. Kennedy in 1960 by .7%

Other close popular vote elections are three of the times the Electoral College trumped the popular vote:

• In 1888 the difference was 3.6%
• In 2000 the difference was 3.7%
• In 1876 the difference was 3.1%

The other time that the winner did not receive the popular vote was John Quincy Adams in the 1824 election. That election shows us why it’s good to have only two large parties to avoid the mess going to the house.

Usually elections the Electoral College is not even close with the difference usually in the hundreds. The odd close ones being:

• 1796 by 3 points
• 1800 by 8 points
• 1824 by 15 points
• 1876 by 1 point
• 1916 by 23 points
• 2000 by 5 points
• 2004 by 34 points

It’s interesting. Kennedy is one of the presidents who won with less than 50% of the vote and with a difference in the popular vote of .7%, but he won the Electoral College by 82 points. That is still a close call electorally speaking. The mythology about the man never mentions that his election is among the closest elections our nation has ever had. Had he lived I’m sure Goldwater would have beaten him soundly.

Both of Bush’s elections have been really close, both in terms of popular vote and the Electoral College. I’ve known they were close elections, but I did not realize how close they were, historically speaking.

Fun fact: Did you know that the only president to ever win 100% of the electoral vote was George Washington for both terms? And Washington didn’t win all the states his first term. John Adams won two states, but all his delegates apparently voted for Washington.

A variation on the story of the Boy Who Cried Wolf.

Once there was a boy who ran for office. At the first breath of criticism the boy cried “Racism!” against his neighbor and all the villagers stoned the offender. The next day another neighbor criticized the boy and the boy again cried “Racism!” and again the villagers stoned the offender. Soon the boy cried “Racism!” as matter of habit at anything that looked at him funny. And pretty soon half the villagers, a quarter of their cattle, two-thirds of their goats, three houses, two trees, and an a pond had all been stoned to death. The remaining villagers had worn out their arms throwing stones at the offenders when the boy cried “Racism!” yet again. This time the offender was a thrown stone the boy had stubbed his foot on. The villagers looked very wearily at the boy. Most of them had forgotten what the word ‘racism’ meant anymore. Mostly they were all tired of always having to throw stones at the behest of the boy. The villagers then stoned the Boy Who Cried Racism and got on with their lives.

What do you think? Do we have a new fable?

To my surprise McCain hit Obama on NAFTA and CAFTA. He should have brought up that the language on Union Safety was pulled directly from another trade agreement. The language was already there.

One of the things that Obama hits McCain on is that people would lose Healthcare through their jobs. McCain needs to say “Many people are afraid of switching jobs because they’d lose their healthcare. With my plan they would be in charge of their healthcare and wouldn’t have to worry about losing it when they switch jobs.” That’s a powerful point and he could still make it in commercials.

He hit Obama on breaking campaign promises for federal funding and to debate McCain anywhere. I think he could have made the point that Obama lied about these things a little bit stronger. He could have wrapped it up with “You talk about meeting with the leaders of rogue countries without preconditions, but how do you expect to talk to the leaders of rogue countries when you’re afraid to talk to me?”

He hit Obama on Born Alive, but he could have hit harder. He should have brought up “The reason why it was an issue in your state was because a nurse found an infant in a storage closet left to die after a failed abortion. It survived for another 45 minutes after the woman found her. Obviously the laws in your state weren’t sufficient.”

To my surprise McCain did not say ‘Maverick’ or ‘my friends’. If he did I missed it. Also to my surprise he did not go on and on about bipartisanship.

One of the things I wanted McCain to say in the first debate was “you’re not running against Bush, you’re running against me.” He hit that one with “If you wanted to run against Bush you should have ran for president four years ago.” If McCain had only been saying that for even the past month he would have been doing better in the polls. It would be a good idea to put that into an ad to deflate the McSame argument in these last few weeks.

The moderator brought up things said in their ads against each other and asked if the candidates would say those things to each other’s faces. This was a perfect opportunity for McCain to say something to the effect of “You have lied, you do pal around with terrorists, you are dangerously naive, and I don’t think you’re ready to lead.”

McCain should have connected Obama to the financial mess by pointing out that through Obama’s entire career he has been aligned with the people who got us into this mess. ACORN who advocated the legislation that forced banks to issue sub-prime loans, as a lawyer who sued banks to make sure they issued sub-prime loans, and as a man on the take from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to look the other way while they played reckless games with our financial market.

McCain was much more fun and enjoyable to watch, a happy warrior. McCain is as often a pain in the behind, as he is a person to cheer for. Tonight he was overwhelmingly the latter. There were several times he looked at Obama as if he was thinking “You know, if we were in the middle of a jungle with not a soul around for hundreds of miles armed with only our wits and a knife, this would be a different story.” Not that he’d ever say that, because he’s a gentleman, but it’s nice to see that kind of fire there. A man incapable of being offended, incapable of that fire, does not have his priorities straight.

Obama does this thing where he tilts his head down and he smiles. It comes off as very girlish. I noticed it in the last debate and now I notice it every time he does it. Neither Hillary or Palin ever appear girlish and they’re women. There are so many other reasons not to vote for Obama that this shouldn’t even be considered as such, but it’s still there and it’s kinda weird. A presidential candidate shouldn’t appear girlish, because a president just shouldn’t appear girlish.

Obama did do a lot of defending. He changed the subject and retreated to safe territory many times. He also said McCain was right at least once or twice, and that footage should be turned into another ad.

All in all this was a much better debate, but McCain could have made it more devastating for Obama. I can’t help but wonder how much better McCain would be doing right now if he had started like this in the first debate, but better late then never. We still have three weeks to go and that’s a long time in politics.

Here’s what I think McCain needs to do to really fight for us in this last presidential debate:

He needs bring up the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, Acorn, and how Obama has been part and parcel his entire career in bringing us to the financial crisis. He needs to bring up the Born Alive Infant Protection Act and ask Obama why he killed it, and why he lied about why he killed it. Each one of these would be a headline grabber. The press would have to report on Obama’s time with the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, his connections with ACORN, and the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.

He needs to point out how Obama proposals, his “tax cuts”, would reverse Welfare Reform of the 90′s.

McCain needs to call Obama a Socialist. I’d prefer Liberal Fascist, but Socialist is good too.

McCain needs attack Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Say that after the markets are steady that he’d make sure they became smaller and smaller until they could be dissolved without disrupting the market.

He needs to attack the Community Reinvestment Act that created the housing bubble. Follow that up with how ACORN was behind the 1995 modifications that made it lethal, how Obama is connected with ACORN, and how Obama as a lawyer sued banks to make those sub-prime loans.

McCain needs to flip on ANWR and explicitly advocate an all of the above energy policy. That’s not just oil and clean coal, but also oil sands, oil shale, natural gas. That’s not just building more nuclear power plants, but also oil refineries. That’s not just investing in alternative energy, but also having a Manhattan Project to develop new alternatives such as the room temperature super conductor. Then link how that such a policy would bring down the price of gas, create jobs, and keep more money in this country. He should say that the price of gas would go below $2 a gallon with such a policy. With three weeks left to go it is not too late to own the energy issue.

McCain should not say ‘Maverick’ or ‘my friends’ more then 5 times each. We know already.

He need not go on about bipartisanship either. Now is not the time to be bipartisan.

Unfortunately, I don’t think we’re going to get any of that. McCain said that he’d rather loose an election then loose a war, but does he realize that it’s not an either or choice? I’m not sure. McCain will be McCain. That is a constant.

Will McCain fight? I don’t know. McCain hasn’t fought very hard in either of the past two debates. While I want him to fight, I do not expect him to do so.

America was complacent in the years after the fall of the Soviet Union, but it was never enough just to defeat Communism. That is just one bird. Socialism, Communism, Fascism, Progressivism: these are all birds of a feather. They all flow from the same totalitarian impulse. It isn’t enough to defeat any one of them, it is necessary to defeat all of them. We should not be afraid to call them for what they are. We have a phrase coined by H.G. Wells in 1932 and unearthed by Jonah Goldberg to call the American varient of these philosophies that threatens our country today: Liberal Fascism.

If we wish to keep our Republic then we should use it.

What we should not do is say that a Liberal Fascist is a decent person and a person that you do not have to be scared of as president of the United States. It’s the difference between asking people if they support affirmative action or asking them if they support racial preferences. Affirmative action yields more of a 50/50 split where as the majority of americans are opposed to racial preferences. But the plain fact of the matter is that Affirmative Action and Racial Preferences are the same thing. Call something for what it is and people will know it for what it is. Let it be called by a name that obscures it’s true nature and watch it survive long after it should have been put down.

America is ready for candidates to push back the tide. Fred Thompson gained traction last year in large part for simply calling Liberals for what they are. Conservatives and moderates want candidates who will fight. Not just to slow it down for a while, not just to hold the line, but to push it back. It can be done. Greater miracles have occurred in our history, if not so large a battle. There has been no time in the past hundred years when the Progressives, the Liberals, the Liberal Fascists have ceased to fight for their vision of America. If we are to swing America back towards the middle (let alone the right) then we need to be no less dedicated.

At the end of the day they believe that government can be both your mom and dad, providing you with a house, a job, and every object of your desire from cradle to grave. They believe that government can even bring meaning to people’s lives. But Government cannot be all things to all people. Government cannot be God.

They need to be made defend their radical ideology. They should not be allowed to claim the middle. Call the American Socialists of our time for what they are. Call them Liberal Fascists.

It would be marvelous to discover out that we are causing those planets to heat up as well. It would mean that we have the means with which to transport large amounts of our pollution to all these bodies at the same time. Such technology would significantly enable mining and colonization efforts within our solar system. But that is not what is happening.

What is happening is the sun is heating up. Increasingly scientists are saying that solar output drives climate change. There are sunspot cycles that we have known about for quite a while now and they account for the warming our planet has undergone in the past couple of decades. We cannot do anything to counteract the behavior of the sun and it is hubris to think that man can have more affect upon the temperature of the Earth then the sun.

Keep this in mind the next time the presidential candidates say they can do something about climate change.

That collective adventure into social engineering has now been proven to most Americans to be terribly unwise and it would behoove us to adopt an exit strategy from the CRA, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac. We have a bailout that is supposed to level things out in the near future. Fine. After leveling out we should withdraw.

This is the very same argument the left has been pushing in regards to legitimate security concerns for years now. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Republicans should campaign against the CRA, against Fannie Mae, and against Freddie Mac. The public will likely never be more convinced that these are failed institutions then they are right now. This sentiment is shared on both sides of the political spectrum. Even as there is the taint of the bailout surrounding everyone who voted for the bailout, Republicans could get ahead of it by campaigning against these institutions. There is opportunity to rally the base, appeal to independents and Reagan democrats, and otherwise out flank the democrats on the financial crisis in this way.

The US government should not be involved in the housing industry. Correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t understand there to be any constitutional justification for these institutions. This is the way for conservatives to turn lemons into lemonade.

After all, how could the democrats argue that this crisis is not a quagmire? How could they argue against an exit strategy from said engagement? Oh I know they would, but I have the distinct feeling that those arguments would ring hollow in the ears of most Americans.

This is the first time I’d seen Biden talk at length. I am impressed with how he continued bounce back. When he was lying, and even when Sarah had just called him on something, Biden back came back sounding confident. The man has presence. I wouldn’t be nearly as afraid of this election if he were at the top of his ticket. Still nothing to be desired, but a Biden presidency is more palatable then an Obama presidency.

Sarah has two faces: the hockey mom face where she’s smiling and the serious face. I don’t mind a bit of the hockey mom, but it’s the serious face that establishes credibility. I fear she used too much hockey mom. On the one hand it makes her more relatable, and on the other hand she risks not coming off as serious.

Palin really nailed Biden more then a few times. Zingers abounded. I cheered every time she threw his contradictions with Obama back at him. And, like McCain, she got the only laugh of the night. She was rougher on foreign policy, but she did well considering how short of a time she’s had to bone up. Thankfully she brought up the fact that Obama has voted with his party 96% of the time. I think the actual figure is 98%, but it a figure that’s higher then the 90% the Obama campaign has been playing.

After Biden described something as a “Bridge to Nowhere” Palin should have said something to the effect of: “It’s interesting that you deride something as a Bridge to Nowhere. You have a record of voting for Bridges to Nowhere. I had to kill a Bridge to Nowhere that both you and Obama voted for…twice.” He went to her territory and she should have taken advantage of the opportunity to creamed him on it.

Palin did make a great sound bite about how the government needs to learn to do without. Solid gold.

There were a number of answers that she could have done better on. She should have brought up the sun as affecting our planets temperature. She should have come out against the bad government regulation – the bad social engineering that got us to this crisis.

She should have brought states and courts into the gay marriage question. “The only states where gay marriage is legal they had to used activist judges to do so. If some states of the union wish to have gay marriages amended to their constitutions then that is their prerogative, but every state that has brought amendment to the table has voted otherwise. Whenever the people have voted in a state they have voted against and I’m with the majority of Americans on this issue.” Something like that would have fielded better.

There was the question about how a McCain/Palin administration would change policies in light of the financial crisis. She could have made the point that they are already for lower taxes, less spending, less government, and that all the crisis does is make all of those moire urgent.

Mccain/Palin need to make the point that their healthcare plan would decouple Healthcare from jobs. That’s a point that needs pounding. A lot of people are afraid of switching jobs because they would loose their healthcare benefits. She did get in the point of allowing competition between states on insurance. It’s a common sense market approach that everybody can see the virtue of.

A lot of people are going to say their candidate won. I’m not sure. I think they tied on substance and Biden beat her out a little on presence. Not that she a slouch, just that he debates for fun. My girlfriend is less forgiving and says where Biden was 100%, Palin was 80%. She also noted that Palin needed to stop saying ‘maverick’. I think she has a point. More generally, I think that after a point every time she starts talking about John McCain it begins to sound like she’s returning to a safe harbor. She doesn’t stay there, after a regrouping for a few sentences she’s back out there, but still it can seem that way if she returns too it too often.

It is more historic for Palin to be the VP then for Obama to be President and after these two debates it’s become clear to me why. She is competent, whereas he is where he is because of the soft bigotry of low expectations. She’s a step forward and he’s a step backward because she did it on her own and he reaffirms a negative. There was an interesting moment in the debate where Biden is describing how he’d fit into an Obama presidency and he basically said that he’d hold Obama’s hand. Obama sounds very much like a young punk out of his depth, and the evidence and his own VP nominee carries that notion.

I have a fair amount of criticism for Palin, but I think she did real good. She’s no light weight. She certainly did what she needed to do. She was knowledgable, likable, presidential. She’s a smart cookie.

I would have loved to have seen a Palin/Obama debate. She did very well in this debate, and if she performed against Obama like she did against Biden then she’d have seen his feather and raised him a ton of bricks. Won’t happen, but I can dream.

And I would love for a second VP debate. This was far more watchable then the presidential debate.

But he’s not doing any of this, and it shows. The McCain campaign has somehow managed to squander the Palin wave, sinking in the polls to where he was before he announced Palin as his runningmate.

He needs to pound home that Obama is a out of touch liberal elitist. He needs to pound home that Obama has a No Energy policy and contrast that with an All Energy policy. He needs to couple that he was right that Fannie and Freddie needed reform with his foresight that Iraq needed the Surge. He needs to pound home that he would decouple healthcare from jobs with his healthcare tax break. Not all of these issues are important to everyone, but used in conjunction with one another they will appeal to most everyone.

He needs to play to win. He needs to use every weapon at his disposal. And I don’t think he is.

1: “You keep talking about the past 8 years, but you’re not running against Bush, you’re running against me**.”

2: “What do you think “without preconditions” means?”

3: “You talk about meeting with the leaders of rogue countries without preconditions, but you said you’d talk to me any time, any where. I said fine, let’s do ten town hall meetings and then you hedged. How do you expect to talk to the leaders of rogue countries when you’re afraid to talk to me?”

McCain got in the only line of the night that garnered laughs. Something to the effect of “What are you going to do when you sit down with them and they say ‘we’re going to wipe Israel off of the map’? ‘No you’re not?’”

I confess that I am disappointed in our election process that results in debates where neither candidate can keep a coherent line of thought. Obama had a much harder time with this then McCain, but that’s not saying McCain was stellar. More then a couple of times McCain starts to make a good point and then he loses it.

Example: On the topic of sending troops to Pakistan McCain begins to make the point that he wasn’t for sending troops to Lebanon and Somalia. I could see the point was to say that we should not commit troops to an area where it would be right easy for the locals to kill them, but as soon as he said Somalia his line of thought jumped. He eventually got back to Somalia and made something of a conclusion, but he didn’t complete the thought he began with.

That said, McCain was definitely more coherent the Obama and came off better. There was a lot of vague language that we’re used to from him, For fun I was counting the number of times Obama would say “uh”. I stopped counting after about 50. More then a few times Obama interrupts with a second or so of stammering before getting a sentence past his lips. Obama does like to interrupt, and sound defensive after he does. I would not think that the interruptions played well. At one point I began to get frustrated that whenever McCain got on to a roll either the moderator or Obama would interrupt him. Only a few times did I think Obama said something particularly well, but those were just glimpses amidst a sea of halting speech.

I think McCain won the debate. I think he got under Obama’s skin more then a few times. That said, I think McCain should have hit him harder and more often. He had a lot of opportunities to throw in zingers like the three I’ve listed above. Pow! Zoom! Straight to the moon! Obama’s light enough. Hit him hard enough and he just might get there.