I wonder how long it will take for scientists and other logical minds to begin voicing their opinions about the negative effects liberalism is having on societies in general and the United States’ population in particular.

Psychiatrists have clearly indicated children raised in traditional families fare better than those raised in single parent households or families with two parents of one gender. Liberals not only ignore this fact, but champion the worse choice.

The moral and ethical value of a society is easily determined by how it treats its most innocent and vulnerable members. With regard to the subject of abortion, liberals believe a woman’s right to convenience outweighs the right her unborn child has to simply survive. Liberals cloak this idea by claiming a woman has a right to determine the treatment of her own body. Nobody disputes that fact. However, there is another person in the equation whose life is being ignored in that concept. Which one of those two is the most innocent?

Liberals don’t like the idea of personal responsibility. Actions, in their minds, should be free of consequences. This can be seen in their push to allow inmates the right to vote, and as mentioned above, sex without consequence, among other examples. Excluding an instance of rape, a woman chooses to have sexual intercourse. If a child is conceived, that is a natural, potential consequence. Should that child’s life be forfeit if it interferes with the woman’s educational plans or forces her to postpone her vacation? Not in a society with any type of ethical values.  Liberals ignore this by insulating women from the actual facts of what abortion entails. It is not politically correct to acquaint a woman who is considering abortion with any real facts. Even young teenagers aren’t required to consult their own parents regarding abortion. Liberals rationalize the unborn as not “living” until the birth has occurred. In other words, it is legal to kill a child while any physical part of the child remains within the woman’s body; but as soon as the entire child emerges, the same killing is legally considered murder. Strangely, liberals count the loss of an unborn child in a drunk driving accident to be unjustified homicide. They want to have their cake and eat it too.

An embryo or fetus is genetically homo sapiens. It survives within its own environment (the woman’s womb) and thus is alive. To put an end to that life is, by definition, homicide. Is it justifiable homicide? Justifiable homicide occurs when someone is executed for a heinous crime, killed as an enemy combatant, or killed in defense of an innocent person’s life. The innocent person in an abortion is the unborn child.

Pro abortion arguments could rationally have merit in debate. It could be argued that requiring a woman who has been raped carry the child to term would constitute the continuation of a violent crime. Perhaps abortion would be justified, holding the rapist responsible for an unjustifiable homicide probably not reaching the level of premeditated murder. The termination of a pregnancy due to the likelihood the mother wouldn’t survive the process could be logically argued. An argument for abortion of a fetus suffering a grave physical problem which would deny any cognitive experience of life (such as anencephaly) would be within the realms of ethical logic. Not so for a child born with Downs syndrome or any other physical or developmental issue which would allow for a life experience. In those cases, an ethical society would do well to assist in the financial burden such a birth would create. Liberals will not engage in this type of adult, logical arguments because it is toxic to their agenda of denying personal resonsibility.

Liberals champion self delusion. People are born of one gender (with almost no exceptions). The current controversy lies in how individuals view themselves and to which sex they are attracted. Liberals believe a transgender person has actually changed their sex. A simple blood test would prove otherwise. Homosexuality has never been questioned. The acceptance of homosexual behavior has. Historically, most societies and religions have been unaccepting of homosexuality. What research has been done to determine why that has been the case? Maybe it would be wise to know why that bias has existed for so long. Does it have merit or not?

Liberals threaten freedom of speech. They believe any disagreement with their philosophy must be stifled. The main purpose of the First Amendment to the Constitution is to guarantee the rights we have to disagree with and even insult one another. Everyone should have the right to speak their mind. Everyone should have the right to do whatever makes them happy as long as they don’t physically or financially harm others in a malicious manner. This means homosexuals should be allowed to engage in mutually agreeable relationships. People whose beliefs disagree with homosexuality should be able to express themselves. Prayer should be allowed in schools and on any public properties. Atheists  should be able to complain. Those who believe themselves to be something demonstrably different from what facts could or do establish should be free to do so. Parents should be free to raise their offspring as they see fit free from government intervention. No legislation should deny or infringe upon any of these rights. All this is clearly laid out in the Constitution. Conservatives are bound by the Constitution. Liberals don’t believe they are so bound. Liberals view the Constitution as a “living document” subject to change to fit the current fancy. This is the main difference between a republic (the U.S. is a republic) and a true democracy. True democracies, due to their design, always collapse.

True democracies are too expensive to survive. They are over taxed. Winston Churchill compared any state trying to tax itself into prosperity as a man standing in a bucket trying to raise himself by the bail ( the handle).

History has proven socialism and communism breed lackluster results in ambition and motivation among citizens and poor economic results overall. Socialists, Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, are currently commanding actual interest. This indicates the liberal bent among unionized educators to provide students with sufficient history on the subject. Liberal college professors follow suit often teaching theory while ignoring  pragmatism.

With all rights come responsibilities. As it is illegal to yell “fire” in a crowded theater, the media must uphold its journalistic responsibility to refrain from inciting unrest and riots through partisan reporting and sensationalizing crimes. A clear line must be visibly maintained  between journalism and opinion.

Societal stipends have never worked but that isn’t stopping Stockton, California from trying it again. What did Einstein say about trying something over and over again, always expecting different results? It was his definition of “insanity”.

The concepts of addition and subtraction play no roles at all in the development of  bills proffered by liberal legislators. The fact that an idea is fiscally unworkable doesn’t sway these folks from introducing it and arrogantly denouncing people who point out the fact that these ideas are idiotic.

And speaking of money… when you compare liberals to conservatives, which group knows there are an infinite number of dollars to be earned by those with talent, ambition and energy? On the other hand, which group believes there are only so many dollars to go around, so those dollars must be divided up more equally? Which group depends upon the votes of the young and inexperienced, the naïve, the impressionable? Which group is supported by the older, more experienced, more self-reliant?

Liberals believe the goal is for the poor to reach the level of middle class. Conservatives believe the “American dream” holds much more.  Many poor American families remain poor because they buy into the notion that they are victims with no hope of success or wealth. Many new immigrants achieve the conservative ideal of the American dream because they haven’t had time to be sullied by the liberal politics of “cake and circus” and believe they must earn their own success. So they do.

For those unfamiliar with “Cake and Circus”, it means feed them and entertain them and you will own them. This is very attractive to illegal aliens and others wishing to survive on the treasure of others. This is the reason liberals choose to ignore national border protections and create sanctuary cities. Their ultimate goal is to allow non-citizens the right to vote. Liberal presidential candidate, Kamala Harris, is supporting legislation to allow illegal aliens the right to work for Congress.

Liberals continue to create and pass more and more restrictive legislation and are completely unaware of the effects these laws have upon the population. They can’t imagine a correlation between the reduction of civil liberties and freedoms to accept personal responsibilities with stress and the rising suicide rate. How many things were you free to do ten years ago which if you did them today would be breaking the law?

It seems every other soldier returning home from battle in the Middle East suffers from P.T.S.D.. Why did so few soldiers return from battle in WWII with the same problem? The answer is simple. WWII veterans weren’t raised in a society governed by infants. Kids love to have power over adults. The children of the Khmer Rouge, under Pol Pot, killed between 13%-30% of Cambodia’s population when they had the power. Hitler created the Hitler Youth and gave them power. Liberals want to give the vote to 16 year olds.

The simple fact is that these liberals are egomaniacal psychopaths whose sole desire is to control people.  They have no qualms about what damage they do in the process.

History will prove this to be a sad and stupid era which will, by some means,  come to an end and return to a system of logic. They real question is how long will it take.

There is one other concern. Holding onto freedoms is a constant battle. Again, maintaining the right to be held responsible for our personal behavior is a freedom. Historically, regaining freedoms lost through foolish new laws has always required some type of war and bloodshed. Have you been wondering why Liberals are so “anti-gun”? The Second Amendment to the Constitution is designed to allow us to protect ourselves from an unfriendly government in power. Liberals don’t like the Second Amendment.

Disclaimer: I am a voter, so liberals would have a good rebuttal to my comments employing Winston Churchill’s words once again. “The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.”