The Divide and the Wall

 

There is no more perfect measuring tape depicting the divide between those who desire government as usual and those tired of the monster in Washington D.C. which has been named the “Deep State” which envisions minions of the state huddled in their offices and cubicles making rules for the rest of the nation without any recourse by the people to select or remove these bureaucrats. This has been an existing threat to the freedoms and liberties of every American for decades. Some ask where did this “Deep State” originate and how did they gain so much power and influence over even everyday life? That is an interesting question which brings to light the bad attitude many lawmakers really have for their constituents. This story starts as a result of gross mismanagement of the economic front combined with the demands of World War II imposed atop the former problem. The first person to go on the record and warn the people of this growing threat was, from an unsuspected person, President Dwight David Eisenhower. President Eisenhower had probably one of the deepest understandings of how the government functioned and how the unchecked growth in the Federal Governmental Powers would eventually lead to an oppressive state where the rules had become so complex and often contradictory that anybody could be arrested for even the most casual and daily activity. Between his serving as the Commander of all Allied Forces in the European Theater, he learned the tact needed to work with the political; and as President, he came to envision the potential that the Federal Government could grow to threaten the people and the nation. He referred to this threat as the “Military Industrial Complex” but he saw deeper as mentioned in his parting speech given as he prepared to leave office and retire from public life, which we have included below. This additional threat he foresaw was for a technological elite who through computing power, money and control over information would hold the power to control much of life and even potentially take dictatorial control enslaving even the governance of the country reducing the people to pawns they moved as they desired. This short speech is well worth watching as President Eisenhower hits the nail on the head explaining the potential problem which has slowly come into focus and we are witnessing today.

 

 

Today, we have as President a non-politician Donald J. Trump, a figure who has proven to be divisive unlike any before him. He managed, as has every Republican from Eisenhower forward, to alienate the Democrat base and their far left set. Trump has also managed to distress the elite Republican guard, also known as the Country Club Republicans who mostly reside in New England but run for office in states such as Texas, Utah or anywhere else they may have a second or third vacation home. Then the far right has become disenchanted with Trump, as he has not turned out to be the hateful White Supremacist they had desired. This is one group which President Trump gladly refuses to give cover as their actions for hating others is repugnant to him. We realize that there are a fair number of people who like to believe that President Trump is aligned with those hate filled people of the far right, but President Trump has nothing for those hate-filled people on the far right any more or less than he feels about hate-filled people on the far left. There have been a few actions by President Trump which have been for the betterment of the American public, though some will deny this with every ounce of their energy. These liberating actions, though, will only prove helpful if the people actually observe, learn and then act upon what they have learned and observed. The biggest item on this list is the revelation of the “Deep State” which is the fulfillment of America ignoring the warnings from President Eisenhower. His warning of a military industrial complex taking control of the governance and using the government to their benefit without concern for the betterment of the people was likely ignored and soon forgotten and the monster grew to the point where it has enveloped much of industry and all of government. Their claim is that when they gain, the people gain, but from what we have witnessed, the people do not gain as much nor as fast thus allowing the elite from the industrial techno-military and dark programs complex to have also engulfed the media and academic worlds into a shadow government. This has been further enhanced by the machinations by the full array of management of numerous bureaucracies, virtual independent or mutually dependent fiefdoms, with their eternal demands for more financing to solve the problem they caused with their previous solutions leading to their never-ending cycles of demands. This has permitted the government to grow to the point where control became difficult and very soon thereafter moved far beyond any point where control was even remotely conceivable. This was greatly aided by the Congress being remiss in performing their Constitutionally defined duties and consecutive White Houses which permitted such delinquency in regard of the Constitution and singing incomplete legislation leading to an ever-growing government bureaucracy.

 

 

The problem arose when the issues became more complicated, complex, technical and beyond the ability for the average member of Congress to get their arms around. This led to the forming and passing of legislation which did not set laws but rather set vague and generalized goals with the notation for the actual laws, in the form of regulations which Congress has assigned to have equal weight as a law, to be filled in by certain chosen departments within the government and often ending stating any other departments, as determined to be necessary. This permitted virtually every department within the government to make regulations and then set up the enforcement requirements within the agencies leading to the perpetual growth of the departments which for the bureaucracy which is the swamp President Trump alluded to draining. The unavoidable result of this system are the web of regulations which have already become almost innumerable in scope leading to regulations both requiring on one hand and forbidding on the other hand of acts, reportings, and other requirements such that nobody can comply with the entirety without potentially transgressing another regulation when complying with an original regulation. This is the perfect storm required for the government to be weaponized against the very people it was designed to protect. Anyone who owned a small business or even a Mom & Pop store realizes day in and day out trying to meet the regulations they know or have been advised to follow. When they are fortunate, the government leaves things at that, but should somebody decide to target such operations, they simply seek out some regulations, or some group of regulations, which can be applied to their business forcing them to attempt to keep abreast of these demands which can and likely will become overwhelming and often results in their business falling victim to over-regulation forcing them out of business. Moneyed interests can even twist laws to the point of breaking in order to gain their desired results. Such appeared to be the case in the “Kelo v. City of New London” which involved use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development. The Supreme Court decided five to four that the city had the right to force owners of private residences in an area where the city desired to place high-rise condos and a shopping mall had the right under eminent domain to force out the owners of homes, some had been family residences for generations, simply because the new development would provide greater revenue through taxes remitted and thus the development was in the best interest of the people which outweighed the property rights of individuals. Many were very upset with this decision as it put monetary concerns ahead of the individual and their rights. Now, any governing body can decide to take over any neighborhood if the planned replacement will be more profitable for the governing body, individual rights be damned. We hold out hope that in some future this decision will be overturned.

 

This brings us to the Trump Wall along the Mexico-American border. The present fight, some might even say war, between President Trump and Congress over funding the wall reached a new plateau this week with the House of Representatives and the Senate both passing legislation voiding the State of Emergency declared by the President by which he could get the funding despite Congress. As should have been expected, President Trump used his veto and sent the legislation back to the House of Representatives so the Congress could work on procuring an override to the Presidential veto. It is almost a given that the proponents of this legislation will never be able to get the two-thirds vote necessary in both houses. Yes, there were twelve Senate Republicans who voted for this legislation yet it still only passed the Senate by a vote of 59-41, well short of the sixty-seven required for an override. The mere fact that twelve Senators from presumably Trump’s own party would cross over to rebuke him so flagrantly is simply further proof that the President is not supported by the mainstream of either party. President Trump is honestly the President without a party, he just borrowed one for the time being and many of those Republicans who see their control threatened are quite put out, one might even say they are furious. This veto will soon become another Trump derangement where it will advance their precious “Impeachment Clock” one more tic closer to toc. Thusfar, the “Impeachment Clock” has had an operational problem in that it continues to tic but cannot advance, as it is unable to find the required toc to complete the cycle and move ahead. Thus, the “Impeachment Clock” will forever be stuck at just under three minutes to eleven and never count on to high noon and an actual impeachment trial in the Senate.

 

 

The wall along the border will possibly begin in fits and starts but will not be completed even should President Trump be reelected. The only way the wall gets built is if the United States can elect a new President who shares the vision of controlling the border but is at least measurably less contentious. As any Republican elected for the foreseeable future will be treated exactly as President Trump has been treated, the wall would require a Democrat to build it. Any Democrat attempting to build the wall will not see a second term as he will have alienated his entire base as “intersectionality” has a required position in favor of open borders, and as long as the left demands rigid obedience to their chosen mantras which include but are not limited to, open borders, Israel is racist, renewable energy over fossil fuels, free college, free healthcare, Israel committing genocide, Zionism is racism, global warming-climate change will destroy the world and a host of other items approved by the Social Democrat Party. The people behind these far left positions have taken control of the Democrat Party with the old-school Democrats hanging on for dear life hoping not to fall within the sights of these leftists and face a primary challenge. The new left has proven their ability to unseat even long-sitting representatives such as when Representative Joseph Crowley of New York, once seen as a possible successor to Nancy Pelosi as Democratic leader of the House, lost to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in a primary race. The Democrat Party will be facing an inevitable and inexorable slide to the far left and demands for making the United States into their idea of a socialist utopia. Unfortunately, there has never been a socialist utopia which incorporated a group larger than a community as socialism depends on the ability to shame those who demands more free things without toting their own share of the work required. Pure socialism worked in the Israeli Kibbutzim but Israel herself necessitated moving from a largely socialist governance to a more capitalistic governance where even the healthcare system, which covers everybody with a set minimal level of care, has four companies which offer the basic required plans as demanded by government and each adds their own flavor to that package plus offer higher degrees of care for additional process. Then there is the other story about the ills caused by collectivism in the Plymouth Colony and the “Third Thanksgiving” and how injecting a little ability for self-gain increased their work levels and productivity. We have often held that man is not a perfect being and some amount of greed is to be found in all people. This makes a system based on needs over production will always lead to an ever increasing list of demands over an ever shrinking productivity, which deems socialism to failure whenever people, and not ants or bees, are concerned. Meanwhile, in a more capitalist system those who have needs simply have to work smarter, harder or both in order to gain those needs. Not as obvious, if one can find the means for having others work and produce for them, they will gain even greater rewards. But socialism aside, since only a Republican President will favor building the Mexico Wall, and any Republican will face the level of hatred which President Trump faces, this may doom the wall to failure. Those who desire claiming that President Trump is being treated differently than other Republicans must have missed out on Bush Derangement Syndrome during George W. Bush’s Presidency or have not been born or was not old enough to remember the taunts and insults hurled vindictively at President Ronald Reagan whose movie poster of him with the chimpanzee “Bonzo” claiming that he was second fiddle to a monkey, and they were not referring to the film. The wall is not going to be completed no matter the steps taken by the President and the swamp cannot be drained as it has reached a size beyond the human capacity to take down any faster than it was built, which is now approaching three-quarters of a century if we take President Eisenhower’s warning as the beginning of the problem. We can only hope that the swamp can be contained, then we can work at draining it. Until them, Americans can assist draining the swamp or enlarging the swamp, there is no neutral on this issue.

Beyond the Cusp

 

Now the Presidency Has Too Much Power

 

It is simply astonishing to hear left leaning politicians vested in Democrat power and maintaining the government regulatory monster are all of a sudden all awash with examples all about the extent that Presidential power has reached. The latest scream is the rescinding of the President Obama Net Neutrality four-hundred plus regulations being touted as how far President Trump has been capable of reaching. When President Obama imposed these regulations out of the blue with absolutely no Congressional authorization, that was simply wonderful as it gave the government the ability to monitor the internet and assure that it remained free from being overtaken by some evil corporate menace and other undefined catastrophes which only the Federal Government was capable of harnessing and protecting the world from. There was no care or worry that four-hundred plus regulations might be crippling internet freedoms and having the government running herd on the internet might be placing a completely different menace loose on the freedoms the internet should have. The actual main effect of these regulations was to limit information of political manner making it that any internet provider who might have been detected providing conservative sites an overly preponderance or heavy presence, then they could be forced to also find an equal number of left leaning sites. Of all the providers struck by these regulations, over eighty-five percent were sited for not providing sufficient voice to liberal web sites especially in the news they provide. Thank all that is holy that we are advertised as an editorial site and not news source.

 

The rescinding of these four-hundred plus regulations was a great step in freeing the internet as now providers may carry those news sites which provide the best content and the greatest return on their space provided. They can no longer be forced to provide a web presence to news sites which do not generate sufficient traffic to warrant the resources provided by the providers. Simplified, web providers can now use their web resources to maximize their profit and not have to worry that the government might demand that they waste resources on a web presence which does not carry the weight of the resources invested in such a site. Why should a web provider be required by government to provide equal web presence and resources and bandwidth to sites which do not generate the traffic by which these providers are able to sell commercial and attach advertising space wasting bandwidth and losing money with some of their resources just to satisfy some preconceived government idea of fairness. Web providers are not in business to be fair, they are in business to garner traffic and have profitable web sites and balance be damned. That is the hard cold fact just as other media are in business to turn a profit. Imagine if the New York Times or the New York Post were required to have reporters and editorialists which represented the opposing views from their normative political perspectives. Their readers would not be served and such a requirement would eventually drive both newspapers out of business. Neither newspaper would be able to retain their readership. The same should be permitted for when providers, as they also have, in some form, a readership, and if having a balanced view is profitable, then such will become the norm and there would be no government regulations to enforce such a result.

 

Net Neutrality was sold as assuring that all web presence has sufficient bandwidth for fairness, whatever that means. That could be interpreted as requiring that we here at Beyond the Cusp have a similar bandwidth to Netflix. That would be ridiculous, as we are not streaming movies and television shows for thousands of people simultaneously and do not require even the smallest percentage of bandwidth as Netflix. Even if we had a similar number of visitors as Netflix, if only, we still would not require anywhere near their required bandwidth as we provide largely text with occasional videos and some images but not constant streaming once the article is loaded. There would be no reason for the two sites; Beyond the Cusp and Netflix, to be given anywhere near the same bandwidth or memory space and that is also why Netflix pays a premium price and has their own servers and we publish here at WordPress. Oh, and we chose Netflix as our example as one of the great scare tactics used by the left was that many companies and users whose services people love, like Netflix, were all of a sudden not going to get the necessary resources and that competing internet providers were now going to make Netflix no longer available to their users. We can think of no faster way to push away users than to provide shoddy service or by blocking desired services to your customers. When you are using Netflix, two items determine how well it will function beyond the capability of your computer, the baud rate your service provider has available and that will be as high as you pay for and any limit is hardwired into the type of service you buy, and second the ability of the Netflix servers to handle the demand load placed on them, which Netflix will make sure is comfortably above the demanded ability or somebody else will provide the same service with better quality and Netflix will join Blockbuster as a former company providing movies on demand. The idea that your internet provider would block Netflix because they do not provide it with servers if the government was not there to protect you was ridiculous from the start as Netflix was doing just fine before President Obama “guaranteed” through four-hundred plus regulations that did nothing except strangle competition thus making progress and new start-ups from gaining any traction. Net neutrality was simply another vehicle for government to decide what was best for the customers instead of the companies providing service doing so as customer demand required.

 

There is one glaring example of how going from government fully regulated to private provider has brought faster innovations at less cost to the taxpayer with a far greater variety of choices. This example is spaceflight. We used to have a very simple regulation about spaceflight which was used presumably to make spaceflight safe. That regulation was that the government would provide all space related services. That was what gave NASA the freedom to control risk to the public. It worked great as NASA never risked the public until they had an accident and a teacher was killed, Christa McAuliffe (see image below). But other than crewmembers, NASA kept all on the ground safe. Having NASA as the sole provider of entry into space also made numerous companies go overseas to launch their payloads, as it was less expensive and their payloads and satellites reached space faster. Since space has been opened to private competition there has been a virtual explosion of directions being taken and there has not been any loss of life as of yet. Will that change, of course as space is dangerous. The United States did not build a coast-to-coast railway system without a few thousand casualties along the way and that was expected as part of the price for progress. Somehow, the world, specifically the developed world, has come to expect that any venture into the future be conducted with absolutely no cost in human lives. That expectation is ridiculous and if permitted to be pervasive, it will make space travel impossible as well as any development of space. The one item that we can guarantee despite having no ability to influence outcomes is that people will die making any Mars base into an actual working and self-sufficient inhabitance. Eventually going to Mars will be relatively safe and affordable as that is the next frontier but getting there and establishing mankind as a fact will be costly in more than just money, there will be risk to human life and possible catastrophes. It is even likely that the initial settlement on Mars will result in the same end as the Jamestown, Virginia, failed; but future attempt after attempt eventually built a city of that name which served as the capital of Virginia for some years.

 

From left to right the space shuttle Challenger’s STS-51L mission astronauts are
Christa McAuliffe, Gregory Jarvis, Judy Resnik, Dick Scobee,
Ronald McNair, Michael Smith and Ellison Onizuka

 

Government regulations do not expand service or make something more free. Removing regulations does and that is what cancelling net neutrality did, it made providing a free and open internet experience more possible for those residing in the United States and with time will benefit the rest of the world as well. If net neutrality actually provided what it claimed by those defending the four-hundred plus regulations, then how did people outside the United States have their service survive without net neutrality in their respective countries? The answer was they saw no change with or without for the most part but now that the United States has taken a live and let live approach by removing burdensome regulations from the internet, the world will see improved service largely in the area of variety of available features as new internet companies of all types no longer must wade through four-hundred plus regulations to assure they were compliant with government regulatory demands and restrictions. This is true of every regulation that the government can shed from its overregulated society. Regulations do not necessarily make one safe, as no company actually desires killing off their customers with certain obvious exceptions such as those items posing health risks such as cigarettes. Does anybody believe that any number of government regulations short of a total ban could make cigarettes safe to use? Of course not and cigarette smoking has decreased as awareness has increased and that would be true with or without regulation. The one service the government provided which reduced the numbers of smokers was the public service spots on television and radio. Even the warnings regulated to appear on cigarette packages had minimal effect, and many here are former smokers and can attest to this fact.

 

Government helps when it provides independent and unencumbered scientific investigations and releases true facts. This means that government need provide funds for research into public health issues free of preconceived notions or targeted results. Nowhere is this more obvious than the concept of global warming. Since the initial discovery that the Earth was warming, the idea was hatched that it was caused by man. This gave rise to the concept of anthropogenic global warming or mankind causes global warming. This became “scientific unchallengeable fact” after Dr. James E. Hansen of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration testified after being sought out and handpicked by Senator Timothy E. Wirth, the Colorado Democrat who presided at the hearing. This bombshell led to the United Nations becoming involved despite almost no witnesses were ever allowed to testify who denied the “scientific unchallengeable fact” of anthropogenic global warming. The United Nations jumped in with both feet and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which has paid scientists to prove that their concerns over anthropogenic global warming were and is true. Funding without a predetermined outcome was difficult to find as the United States, European Union, United Nations and several European and other governments were all paying exclusively for proof of anthropogenic global warming, so that was what the world got an preponderance of evidence proving. The evidence against anthropogenic global warming came almost exclusively from individual scientists who investigated global warming independent of government funding. Private funded scientists found no or next to no proof of anthropogenic global warming outside of the government funded research which was predisposed to finding proof if they desired continued funding. The media acted like an echo chamber for the government-funded research and the public bought that as the truth. Only now are people actually starting to question these results and rightfully so. The reason is that the only evidence for anthropogenic global warming comes from computer models which all thus far have failed to give results which mirror reality.

 

Al Gore with his hockey stick graph of global temperatures which would have had the Earth now at a balmy 150o Fahrenheit, or there about, proved completely false as have the other predictions of higher average temperatures and the Earth having a fever. The hysteria caused by government-funded research with a presupposed result and the media echo chamber along with anthropogenic global warming being taught from kindergarten through college paid for with government funding has all combined to taint the scientific research in one direction, scare people into doing whatever the governments demand of them to solve this terrible guilt they have had foist upon them by the false results proving anthropogenic global warming. This was what fueled the brouhaha over President Trump pulling the United States out of the Paris Climate Agreement which would have required a tax on carbon, which translates to a tax on any fuel source, including electricity, and eventual restrictions on fuel use most especially on vehicle use. Cities would ban cars from morning to night if not all together and eventually complete travel bans making people pay for a license to take a trip on vacation. This would permit government to predetermine where people would be permitted to reside and skyrocketing cost for housing as building would be restricted with choking regulations. For an example simply look to California and more accurately, San Francisco where new construction has been next to nil for two decades or longer. Steadily the truth is emerging and people are starting to listen and question the government bought-and-paid-for research. The truth is, in science, skepticism is presumably a good thing as a part of science, which was all but starved out in this debate. Questioning every hypothesis and every conclusion should be researched, both to support and find faults, and the latter was lacking in research on anthropogenic global warming. One thing which almost always proves out in the end is truth; the only question is how long it takes us to get there. Government always has an angle where it takes the side of whatever provides it a route for growth and greater control. Emergency crisis give government powers they would not otherwise have and anthropogenic global warming has been a powerful emergency, life or death according to government research, and that is permitting further regulation on business and private lives and has been used to promote a single world power which regulates everyone out of Turtle Bay, the headquarters of the United Nations.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

Are You Truly Pro-Choice?

 

One of the most misleading labels in all of American politics is the “Pro-Choice” label. These people are often the least in favor of you making any choice in your life ever. They are the people, especially the politicians, who demand to make almost every decision facing an individual in their life, and especially the most important decisions. Broadly defined, they believe that you and everybody like you without an Ivy League education and a doctorate in an “approved major field” which again is another example of taking away your choice of colleges down to less than two dozen and your choice of majors to the social and other soft sciences, are far too stupid and unaware of the world and how everything works to be permitted the right to decide for yourself. Heavens forbid you get to make any rational choice from your view point; you would most definitely damage yourself and society and upset their ability to sculpt that perfect world they are constantly attempting to carve out of our society.

 

Oh, you would like some examples. First, we define these Pro-Choice politicians and people as the supporters of Planned Parenthood and abortions on demand any-time, any-place, any-where, and for any-reason or even no reason and that is their big claim to being Pro-Choice. Well, here it comes as you asked for it. Let us look at the choice of how to best protect your home, family and everything you hold dear. Can you, according to the Pro-Choice politicians purchase a firearm, a rifle or handgun or even a scary-looking semi-automatic rifle which resembles some military styled weapon? Of course not and that is why all the red tape, forms and everything else including waiting periods and the occasional threat of being outed as owning a firearm in a public posting often by one of those from the Pro-Choice groups of people. So we now know you may not purchase a firearm to protect your house though it is legal thanks to the Constitution but don’t mention at the weekend services in many congregations that you own firearms as that could make you into some kind of pariah. The professed Pro-Choice class which is all knowing will inform you that you should buy a good alarm system and if it should sound that your house had been breached, then you should dial 911 and hide in a closet until a nice officer finds you to tell you all is clear or the intruder finds you and ends all that ails you after possible tortures such as, well, we will let you imagine the what, just realize it would be cruel, unusual and designed to be physically or mentally hurtful or both. The Pro-Choice will add that for an additional fee you can have the alarm system hooked up to a monitoring service who will call you and if you do not answer or use a code-word they will call the police presumably cutting down on your wait time. The Pro-Choice might even inform you of a service which hooks your alarm directly up to the police and this gets the fastest response but places the onus on you to prove there was a trespass or you can be charged a heavy fine for the false alarm response making this a less than perfect system. Hey, they are wealthy recipients of a doctoral degree from an Ivy League college which you should have found some way of achieving so you could be like them. You see they have a monitoring service with all the most high tech alarm systems and other means of detecting and even spotlighting, literal spotlights, the intruder as soon as they step across their property line. Also, their service includes anywhere from one to a platoon of well-trained and highly-armed professionals who will torture the intruder until you arrive to identify if this was a real trespass or just the neighbor kid trying to toss a few pebbles at your daughter’s window. Wait, to the Pro-Choice group that would be a trespass. They will point out incessantly how it is they see no need for guns in the house except in the hands of trained professionals and even if you are one of these trained professionals you may not have your firearm from your work kept in your house as there is safety in the fact that at their house you are monitored while at home you might go crazy because in unsupervised areas guns cause forms of insanity. If I ever get desperate and hold-up a convenience store, I will plea to the judge that the gun dragged me from bed to pull-off the heist which was why I was dressed in my pajamas.

 

 

Moving on to the next choice you might think of taking. Let us say your industrious pre-teen child decides to do simple gardening and lawn mowing and charges rates which come to less than the minimum hourly wage. As this is not a professional and recognized area such as waitpersons in restaurants, then the minimum wage laws apply without exceptions. This would mean that your child would be required to raise the charges for his services despite their selling them for a fair price and exactly what they believe their efforts are worth. You are not permitted to estimate for yourself what your efforts are worth nor may you charge less than your competition who is charging the minimum wage set and thus gain additional business. Even more important, your pre-teen is not permitted to even fathom such an enterprise as they are not even old enough to receive a work permit with your signature permitting them to work before reaching eighteen as they are not fifteen or sixteen depending on the location. There is an exception for family farms and other recognized family businesses where the child may be permitted to work at any age and may even not receive any wages if the parent does not desire to pay the minor child, and that is more fair than them working on their own for less than the minimum wage, free choice and all that you know.

 

There is an ever lengthening list of professions one may not freely choose. Presumably, in a totally free society anybody may choose any profession they desire and if they perform well people will pay them accordingly and if they fail they are free to try something more their style and fitting their ability or fail until they luck into such a profession. Nobody would pay a hairstylist whose only style is a crewcut unless that is what they desired and they were inexpensive. But to be a hairstylist today one must take courses and then apprentice and finally get a license. The claim is to protect the public from health hazards. Truth be told, individual demands of decent ability in their choice of hairstylists would take care of such a problem just as well. The problem is by allowing the public to control such through the demand of the market would take away thousands of bureaucratic jobs, put an end to most of the beauty schools which are more diploma mills teaching the average student all stuff they probably already knew simple by styling their hair and their friends’ hair growing up. It would also take away the licensing fees for running a beauty salon and that is additional yearly funds for the government and another level of government control taking away your free choice. This also applies to cab drivers only to a much higher degree as this has become a protection racket between government and the existing cab companies and thus the big furor over Uber and other Internet ride-share apps. There are quite a number of ways around the government using apps and the Internet which is one of the reasons that government desires control over the Internet and thus these types of free enterprises which circumvents the government assisting with your free choice. Government licensing is but one limitation of your free choice but is supported heavily by the Pro-Choice people, especially the Pro-Choice politicians.

 

Taxes are another idea which the Pro-Choice politicians and, as long as they are heavily progressive and only on salaries. Many Pro-Choice individuals think taxes are a necessity and often require taxes to be raised on some and lowered on others or eliminated altogether on a select group who are determined not to earn sufficient amounts to contribute to the functioning of the government. These Pro-Choice individuals also support giving refunds to people who did not actually pay any taxes and refunds of more than what was paid in for select others. These are done all in the name of equality and altruism. Altruism used to be voluntary as was charity of giving of your funds to the less fortunate. Taxes doing this for you are another stolen choice from your long list of choices. Further, the government chooses which charitable organizations it will support and which ones it will not and the amount for each. Chalk up another stolen free choice. But the government was just getting started; there are so many more choices the government has removed from the public square in the name of your own safety. Some argue that it also weakens the gene pool as it allows idiots to proliferate. Such limits would require motorcycle riders wear helmets, car passengers wear seat-belts, natural gas include a chemical giving it its odor, toilets to flush exact or less amounts of water per flush and many other things even one which does help, it enforces the standardized measures and sizes in tools and fasteners and of course money.

 

Children’s education is probably the most regimented and least Pro-Choice industry in the United States. This is sad as education would appear to be one industry which could benefit most from competition and a great variety in opportunities and different paths leading to different results. The current public schools system is dictated from Washington D.C. with requirements such as multi-cultural sensitivity, sexual education and a plethora of the latest educational theories including but not limited to new math, whole word recognition (a theory which was first proposed as a means of limiting the words included in people’s vocabularies by removing phonics making new words impossible to “sound out” as had been taught for the last centuries to great success), racially sensitive history, and dropped little things such as civics requirement, spelling as a requirement claiming that each student be permitted the freedom to use alternate spelling (whatever that is), and math such that attempts are more important than the correct answer (no wonder many students require remedial writing, reading and mathematics when entering college with some wasting their first semester and others their entire first year learning what should have been taught adequately in the public school system). While most of the Pro-Choice use private schools and claim that if you are unsatisfied with the public school system you can also send your child to a private school. Of course these same Pro-Choice people and politicians work to limit or exclude charter schools despite their having proven often to produce superior children with a far better and broader educational experience and they are working to strangle home-schooling with regulations and requirements making the home-schooled children and their families under greater stresses and heavy burdens forcing them in some locations into using the public school curriculum including the educational requirements often from Washington D.C. and also the exact reasons the families demand their right to educate their own child as they see fit. Apparently the one size fits all education of the public school system despite it failing in every testable means simply now is claiming that testing produces stresses which rob the child of self-esteem and thus should be limited or eradicated completely.

 

These are but a select few of the limitations the Pro-Choice elite have placed upon your lives, often without anybody realizing this as they are too busy attempting to survive and make a living while not going out of their minds every April filing forms which make no sense even to the IRS as if you call for assistance and do not like the result, wait and call ten hours later and get a different person who will likely give you an entirely different set of directions and then choose which one you like the best. Well, maybe there is some Pro-Choice in the government after all and in the least suspected place possible. Imagine that.

 

Beyond the Cusp