Beyond the Cusp

July 6, 2014

Importing a New American Future

Texas Representative Louis Gohmert speaking to Fox News as one of the people who represents the counties across southwest United States bordering Mexico about the recent flood of illegal immigrants, mostly children, into the United States claimed, “Either we’re going to enforce our laws and remain strong, economically or otherwise, or we ignore the rule of law and go to being a Third World country. You’ve got to follow the law. You cannot bring hundreds of thousands of people into this country without destroying the country. Then there’s no place that people can dream about coming to.” The question which needs to be addressed is whether Representative Gohmert’s concerns were potentially racist or perhaps held kernels of truth and a warning which had best be feared. The way one views the statement depends somewhat on whether you apply the effects of illegal immigration over many years into the future or simply believing that his comments apply solely to the current emergency where the majority of those crossing into the United States from Mexico are children with the majority under the age of thirteen. If his statement references the current situation one might see a tinge of racism while if he was referencing illegal immigration in a holistic view then one might find that kernel of truth.


If representative Louis Gohmert’s comment was a general comment expressing one of the known threats of the broken United States immigrations policy and situation of illegal aliens arriving within the United States whether they arrived by crossing the borders with either Mexico or Canada, arrive on ships or aircraft, arriving on a student or temporary work visa and overstaying past its expiration date or any other manner of arriving and remaining in the United States beyond any legal limitations or illegally crossing the borders, then his complaint includes numerous different nationalities of illegal immigrants and holds some validity. Immigration policies are designed to control the numbers of legal immigrants, their skill levels and their application to the needs of the United States, and numerous other considerations. When immigration policies need to allow for large numbers of illegal immigrants, no matter what their skill levels or nationalities, then such policy will always represent the best assumptions and guesses as to what are the unmet needs after the uncontrolled influx of immigrants are estimated and included in the total numbers of immigrants desired. Since illegal immigrants are unscheduled and the United States officials who are tasked with immigration policies and setting the quotas for legal immigration, this leads to an eventual disaster as with time the numbers of immigrants which might be desired for any single year could conceivably be less than the numbers of illegal immigrants. Such a condition would result in not allowing any legal immigrants which would also make for losses for the nation as they would not have the available quotas for necessary immigrants with skills considered desirable. Representative Gohmert is quite correct that a nation which has lost its ability and control over who and how many immigrants enter across its borders, particularly illegal entrants, would have lost control of the future makeup and personality of its culture and population. Further, since the vast majority of those who cross any border to leave their home nation will logically and necessarily be heading into a nation which offers financial and other advantages not available in their country of origin. That means if a nation loses control over immigration and large numbers of illegal immigrants enter the nation coming from nations which are less advanced, have a lower standards of living, a less free environment, or any number of manners of disadvantages could swamp the nation in time and actually change and alter not only the flavor of neighborhoods in which they end up residing and eventually alter the entire political and social makeup of the nation. The direction of such changes would almost necessarily be to a less advanced and lower standard of living.


Taking Representative Louis Gohmert’s comment and simply applying it to the current children’s tsunami across the border under the potentially erroneous belief that they are more likely to be permitted to remain and become American citizens, Representative Gohmert’s comment appears to be somewhat racist. To believe that even were all of these children permitted to remain and become citizens of the United States and were either placed with recognized relatives and otherwise given for adoption would then not be raised and share the views and background of children besides whom they would attend school and share in play times and relations outside of school is rather narrow-minded and potentially racist. These children are victims of a ploy woven by adults either in the United States, their home country or both. From the new coverage the situation was probably caused by the announcement by President Obama that illegal immigrant children who were brought here when they were children having no control over the decision would be permitted to remain and follow a set protocol to become citizens. This begs the question of would allowing these children, who are under some unfortunately arbitrary age, to be accepted as Americans and placed in either relatives’ or adopted parents’ homes be that big of a threat? The answer is obviously not provided such a generous and altruistic decision did not become a generally applied policy as that would result in an inundation of young children which would swamp even the most optimistic estimates of acceptable families for adopting such immigrants.


Needless to point out, even if these children are permitted to remain in the United States, a purely benevolent, humanistic and philanthropic action beyond any possibility of reality in most nations, it will be necessary to make certain that it is universally known and understood that this is a one-time act which will never be repeated. The United States needs to trace down where the originating impetus for this invasion, and it is an ongoing invasion, and punish those who are within the jurisdictional reach of the United States Justice Department. If the cause behind this invasion is traced back to anybody or group within the government of the United States, they not only need to be prosecuted but also removed from their position or employment even if such requires impeachment. Such blatant transgressions of the laws of the land require stiff penalties and not just some lesser reprimand. Such penalties are highly unlikely to reach back into the government of the United States beyond anything other than suspicions and innuendo but definitely will fall short of prosecutorial evidence of any higher level government employees. There will be those who will desire to place blame with the opposing party or the White House but inevitably they will need to be satisfied with expressing their righteous indignations and try to refrain from nonsubstantive allegations as doing so will only open their accusations to ridicule and serve to transform the serious nature of this serious and challenging situation into something ridiculed by the mainstream media detracting from any serious discourse, and that would be tragic


Beyond the Cusp


May 22, 2013

The ‘A’ Responses to Pregnancy

If the question was put to a thousand Americans what word beginning with the letter ‘A’ they associate with unwanted pregnancy the vast majority, if not every single one, would most likely respond abortion. As a Western society with what has come to be considered a metropolitan attitude in which anything that causes life to become troublesome must have an easy resolution which frees the citizen from any responsibility for their actions. In the case of what is euphemistically called an unwanted pregnancy, the easy, no fuss, no muss answer is to get an abortion and presto, no more pregnancy. Abortion was presented as the simple and neat way to avoid one of the consequences of having unprotected sexual encounters which, of course, are nobody’s fault as such can occur to any woman at a moment’s notice.


Abortion came to the fore as the responsible way to resolve the situation of an unwanted pregnancy replacing its predecessor, adoption. But the modern metropolitan answer to pregnancy in the new, no responsibility, fast paced, immediate resolution of all problems had to find an instant, microwave fast resolution to pregnancy that did not require actually going full term and giving birth to a baby then giving the child up for adoption. Adoption was too messy and required the consequence of carrying the pregnancy for the full nine months and might even cause the unthinkable, ruin a girlish figure. Not in this modern world was it even thinkable to make a woman carry a baby to term just because she and her interest of a moment had pleasured each other without bothering to take precautions which might have actually delayed such actions and possibly even ruined the mood which drove the desire for such actions. Thus, adoption was out and abortion was in. Everything was now sped up to keep pace in the no consequence, fast paced, modern metropolitan world.


The ghastly, repulsive, repugnant details of what abortion is in reality was glossed over by changing the argument to make pregnancy resolution simply a choice and the zygote or fetus, dependent on length of pregnancy before detection, was minimalized and dehumanized into being nothing more than a collection referred to as a cellular mass. Everything about the actual pregnancy had to be redefined into a non-humanized, new world, metropolitan denotation which masked the entirety of what was actually occurring. But that is all falling apart and in the coming months this wondrous clean metropolitan lifestyle is going to have to face some very unpleasant and grizzly truths. The first shot across the bow was fired by the trial of Philadelphia abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell. The abortionist who kept jars with baby’s feet on his desk and other jars of various baby parts as mementoes decorating his clinic. Abortionist Kermit Gosnell ran a less than perfect clinic which lacked refinement, cleanliness, or observance of the law. Kermit Gosnell performed late term abortions beyond the legal limit, delivered live births and then performed what was referred to as clipping which severed the spinal cord at the base of the neck disconnecting the brain from the rest of the body. Every single horrific practice which one could imagine in their worst nightmare was a weekly occurrence in Kermit Gosnell’s clinic. Kermit Gosnell also preyed upon those women who really had nowhere reputable for them to turn to and were the most vulnerable in our society. This should make our indignation even more strident and purposeful for if our society does not protect the most vulnerable among us, what can be said to mitigate such callousness.


There are already the faint rumblings of even more Kermit Gosnells operating similarly grotesque abortion mills from other states. What we should fear but also prepare to face is a torrent of similar findings from numerous more cities and towns than we may care to admit, but that will not prevent witnesses from coming forward in the coming months. Initially the Kermit Gosnell case will be heard despite the near total media blackout and refusal to give this horrid and sordid case the attention deserved and that will start the first smattering of other such clinics being made known. The growing number of such clinics will force coverage from a reluctant media which will only serve to bring more cases into the light of day. We had best brace ourselves for the shocking horrors that are the truth about abortion as it will be coming into our consciences and there will be no way of avoiding the truth. The only honorable result of this entire sordid affair will hopefully be the awakening of our society to the actual truths about abortions and a return to a more sane approach to unwanted pregnancy and a return to the other ‘A’ answer, adoption. If the horrific witnesses testimony and horrifying evidence uncovered and brought before the courts and the public results in a renewed debate over the appropriateness of legal and easy abortion as an acceptable alternative for adoption, then some goodness may yet be salvaged from this shockingly graphic tale of criminal malfeasance. Maybe we as a society can demand that much of the needless expenses and overtly complicated legal forms and many layered administrative demands be streamlined and simplified and return adoption as the societal default answer to an unwanted pregnancy. Where our societal discussion went wrong was confusing the concept of an unwanted pregnancy with the fallacious concept that the child, which would result from the pregnancy going to term, would be equally unwanted. Nothing could be further from the truth as is witnessed by the long lists of people wishing to adopt and being circled around the system like an airplane at an overcrowded airport waiting for clearance to land. It is time our society weighed the truthful facts about abortion and gave equal consideration in the debate for adoption. If we prove to be half as civilized and removed from barbarism, then we will choose life over destruction, promise over regret and fulfillment of dreams over nightmares of hope dashed and kindness discarded.


Beyond the Cusp


« Previous Page

Blog at