Who is more self-righteous? Left or Right

The question is hard to answer as both sides are self-righteous, but in different ways.  The left, or more appropriately the liberal elite, believe that they know more than anyone else and are the only ones qualified to decide what should be done for the planet.  This position is clearly self-righteous.  However, the right believes that their standards are higher and only people that meet those standards should be allowed to decide important items that deal with morality.  Both sides are self-righteous and neither is good for the country.

Facts not emotion in the Evolution vs Creation debate

For too long, both sides on evolution have done nothing to enhance the debate.  Anytime someone talks about the "gaps" in evolution theory they are castigated as being crazy Bible thumpers.  The truth is that there are gaps in the Theory of Evolution or it would not be a theory.  It would be a law.  Without going down the creationist path, a common sense approach is to close the gaps in the theory.  That is what happens in all other areas of science, but in this culturally sensitive issue, no one has been allowed to talk about the gaps without being chastised.  Any discussion about a gap in the theory would have allowed the creationist concept to gain a foothold.  That was not allowed by the left.

In essence, generations of potential scientists that could have closed these gaps were driven in other directions by the left and the right.  At last, with over 15 years of work, a new discovery has moved the debate forward. 

Bridging the Evolutionary Gap; Washington Post 2 Oct 2009

This does not close all the gaps and the article (including the pictures) have highlighted where those gaps still exist.  This is the first time in years of watching this debate that I have seen mainstream media even acknowledge that gaps in the theory of evolution exist.  I commend The Washington Post for bringing these gaps to light, so that future scientists can be inspired to close those gaps without being ostracized.

My only critique of the article is the following sentence:
"The origin of the human species via evolution from earlier primates is beyond scientific dispute."
 This my be true within the science community in general, but reality is different.  If evolution was beyond scientific dispute, it would be a law.  That is how science works.  It is a Law of Gravity not a Theory of Gravity.

Sage advice from a great American President

This is great advice from America's best President.  This is exactly what the country needs to read and heed.  Where did things go awry over the past century?  Get back to the basics of what made America strong.

Going to Jail for Not Buying Healthcare

Joint Committee for Taxation Response to Sen. Ensign

Going to jail for a year and getting fined $25k for not paying for the healthcare insurance that you don't want to buy.  This is outrageous for the government to even think this is legitimate.  Our government is taking control and has no idea how America should work and has worked for over 200 years.  This will cause a revolution if it is ever enforced.

Partisanship Getting Worse: It Is All About Perceived Fairness

It is clear that meaningful and dignified conversations are hard to come by.  A good political conversation without leading to blows, shouting or even profanity is a rare event.  I contend that the media are to blame due to the long-term lack of fairness.  It started back in the 60's, but did not start creating contention until the backlash was initiated in the late '80's.  It has been an ever increasing chasm of civility ever since.

All Americans value fairness.  It is naturally human to want fairness and equity in life.  If the American public viewed the mainstream media (MSM) outlets as fair, Fox News would not be a dominant news channel.  If a person sees events as being fair, there is a sense of decorum.  Even if negative events occur, if they are deemed as being judged fairly, then emotions are held in check.  For instance, if someone steals your car.  You are mad.  If the person gets caught and put in jail, you are annoyed, but your emotions are more subdued.  Justice was served.  That is the same thing happening in today's media.  Americans believe the MSM is not fair and key facts and perspectives are ignored.  Thus, they are mad.  The advent of alternative media such as talk radio, internet and Fox News become the method of delivering justice.

The liberal media controlled the message in the 1960's.  Network news had a monopoly.  They had everything their way.  What the network anchors said was gospel.  No one considered countering that message.  It would not have been appropriate.  Even if there was a counter to the networks, where would it get any coverage, interest or facts to generate a message contrary to the networks? 

Slowly, but surely, another voice was bound to be let loose.  Talk radio and Fox News created news outlets that counter the liberal mainstream mantra.  The success of Fox News proves the pent up demand for this type of news source.  Meanwhile, multiple events added up to announce the end of the mainstream monopoly.  Corrections of mainstream reporting by internet bloggers, breaking stories from internet sources, plagiarism, completely ignored news events and blatantly false reporting created the demise of the liberal stronghold on the nation's thoughts.

There is no longer one authoritative source.  As much as network news would like to be considered the reference point for news, that is just not true anymore.  However, no one seems to have told the mainstream media.  After being in control for so many years, the media are unable to acknowledge or comprehend their lack of power.  The MSM perspective is that things are not fair anymore.  They need their sense of justice restored.  This results in programming and decisions that reflect the MSM view of fairness.  Justice to MSM outlets is to never have to hear about Fox News or Rush Limbaugh unless it is in a pejorative sense.

Thus, the mainstream outlets have only gone more liberal.  They simply refuse to even report on events if they have been scooped by the bloggers or Fox News.  They refuse to acknowledge events that do not fit their ideology.  As such, Americans take notice, they get more upset and MSM ratings continue to decline.  A good solution would be for the MSM to generate a more fair stance on all reportable events, but for some reason that might be considered admitting defeat.  So, the opposite occurs.  The MSM does one of two things: 1) Lash out at the alternative media (which is insulting to the people they want to gain as viewers) or 2) Ignore them in hopes that they will go away (which is even more insulting).  Both are recipes for continued failure.  Americans continue to see even more unfairness and emotions get more accentuated.  The cycle continues and has continued for a decade.  The lack of civility gets worse.

The best way to get civility back is to get the MSM to cover all perspectives in their reporting.  This would also concurrently start to get their ratings back on track.  I am sure they believe they are covering the proper topics, but when three liberal editors review the day's news pages, the outcome will only be a liberal result.  Hire conservative editors and give them authority to make changes and decisions.  This will draw the demand for all perspectives from the alternative sources.  A smart business person would make these changes, but apparently there are no smart business people in charge at NBC, ABC or CBS.

Are we better off?  In short, the answer is: Yes, all perspectives are on display.  However, it comes at a cost.  That cost is civility.

When Bush spoke to students, Democrats investigated, held hearings

When Bush spoke to students, Democrats investigated, held hearings | Washington Examiner

Where is the common sense?  It seems that liberals always get more irrational and demand more reaction to their emotions than do conservatives.  Yes, conservatives were against Obama speaking to a nation of school children, but they did not call for Congressional hearings.

Holder and his team are not defending justice

Eric Holder and the Justice Department have killed investigations into high powered Democrats.
Justice Drops Bill Richardson Case

They have killed investigations into the Black Panther organization on voter intimidation on election day. 
Holder's Team Drops Black Panther Case

BUT, they investigate the CIA even though both Obama and Holder say they don't want to?  
US justice department to investigate CIA over interrogation methods 

You have to wonder if justice to Holder means, "Whatever is good for Democrats and their cronies.  Don't worry about America."

Common Sense Approach to Healthcare

The current debate on healthcare has become ideological and not helpful. Let us set some guidelines and find a solution.
     First: Focus on the uninsured. Not the 47 million bantered around in the press, but the actual uninsured that need healthcare. That number is more in the 10 million range. The goal should be to provide quality care and keep a patient from being forced into dire financial straits.
     Second: Don’t force anyone to buy insurance. If based on means, the citizen can afford the services or has insurance, that citizen or the insurance should pay for the service. If the citizen is unable to pay, then this proposal will support that uninsured citizen.
     Third: Keep the decision-making in the hands of the doctors and hospitals.
     Fourth: Don’t try to solve all aspects of the problem. Start with the labor portion. In other words, let’s make sure quality healthcare professionals are available to treat those needing attention. If the government solves all aspects (labor, materials, medicine) then this opens the door to more abuse and the possibility patients will drop private insurance for the ease of the government plan.
     Fifth: Since the government is getting involved, let’s only trust the government to manage something that it has proven to be able to do successfully.

Proposal: Provide education and training for Health Service Professionals (HSP) that utilizes already existing medical schools and programs. These resources will have their tuition paid for while in school in return for a pre-determined commitment to serve on government salary.

     Given the above guidance, this proposal starts with the fourth and fifth axioms. Don’t try to solve everything. Focus on the labor costs with the goal of providing services for those that need it. From the fifth axiom, we need to ask, “Where has the government ever proven itself to successfully manage a complex issue?” The answer is found in the defense of the country. More specifically, the leadership and training of the men and women serving in the armed forces is nothing short of a huge success story for this country. ROTC, Academy and myriad enlisted training programs have produced the world’s #1 military. This model can be used to generate a government salaried healthcare workforce. At a minimum, the government has a successful history of managing this type of endeavor.

How many HSPs are needed? Studies will need to be done, but roughly speaking in order to cover 10 million of 300 million Americans, approximately 3-5% of the healthcare workforce will need to be part of this plan.
Is this program only for Doctors and Surgeons? No, any healthcare requirement will need a certain percentage of HSP employees. There will be a different pre-determined commitment period based on what field was paid for by the government.  Physical Therapy, Radiology, Occupational Therapy, etc... all need HSPs.
Who gets to be a part of this program? It will be competitively decided similar to applying to a university for acceptance. Applicants from all over the country will be desired. This will mitigate issues with assigning personnel to remote locations after graduation. A component of the plan will include HSPs agreeing to be assigned to locations in the United States most in need of their services during their commitment period.
The competitive nature of this plan also insures a high quality of service to uninsured Americans. The best and the brightest will be drawn to this program and they will deliver quality service upon graduation.
Who manages the health service professional? The personnel will indistinguishable from any other private practice professional. Health service professionals can work for hospitals, private practice, group practice or any other health provider. All issues on case load and decisions will be between the doctor and the patient. There will be no government intervention on what services are provided and to who they are provided.
Who pays the salary of the health service professional? The government will pay the salary of the health service professional. The salary during the commitment period will be less than the prevailing market rate and will be paid by the government. None of the HSP labor can be billed to the patient or the insurance company.
Can the HSP treat insured patients? Yes, this aspect of the plan will reduce healthcare costs to the insurance company and subsequently to the insured population of patients. Thus, there is a direct benefit to taxpaying and insurance covered American citizens. The HSP can and should also be used to treat Medicare and Medicaid patients. This will lower the costs of those programs to the government, too.
What if there are more uninsured patients than can be handled by the resident HSPs? The program will self-regulate by assigning needed HSPs to areas with high demand for the services. During the ramp-up period, the government can decide to cover these costs as an interim solution.
How long will this program take to become fully implemented? It could reasonably take ten years to be completely fielded from incoming students to fully certified HSPs. Two interim programs can be put in place to alleviate the healthcare problem while the program and HSPs progress through the pipeline. The first interim plan would be to enroll current healthcare professionals into the program with the benefit of paying off school loans and covering malpractice insurance requirements. The second interim plan would be to cover the requirements at current costs until the HSP program can provide the service. Each of the above is a short-term ramp-up transition method to cover the uninsured.
What will keep currently insured citizens from dropping their insurance and being covered by this program? An assessment of employment and access to insurance from the employer must be made. If the person is not employed or the employer does not provide healthcare, the person will be eligible only if annual income is below a level that would not support private insurance. This last element will keep independently wealthy personnel from not getting insurance that they can afford. Additionally, the HSP plan does not cover all costs, so a citizen will not desire to drop coverage knowing there are additional costs to be covered.
What will stop employers from dropping insurance knowing that the HSP option exists? The labor market will keep employers from dropping insurance. Prospective employees will desire to work for a company that provides comprehensive healthcare. The HSP plan does not cover all aspects of costs. Thus, market forces will drive quality labor to the companies that provide better benefit packages.
What happens to the HSP after the pre-determined commitment period? It will be a mutual decision between the HSP and the government as to whether the HSP stays in the government service or goes into the private market. A certain number of senior HSPs is desired and will be managed similar to the officer corps of the military.
Benefits: There are many aspects to this plan that are based on common sense and a desire to solve the problem. These include:
• Focusing and solving the problem of the uninsured patient. The program covers a large portion of the costs (labor) to the uninsured patient. This plan will preclude going bankrupt due to a health issue.
• Doctor-Patient decisions remain personal and within the control of the patient.
• Costs of Medicare, Medicaid and Private Insurance programs will be reduced.
• Quality service will be guaranteed base on the program being a highly competitive program that will include the best and brightest.
• Private practice, hospitals and group practices will all benefit from a government salaried employee as a part of their system. These resources will cover the uninsured and Medicare/Medicaid providers. This will make billing easier to manage and allow private healthcare professionals the ability to treat fully insured patients.
• Taxpayers receive a benefit based on insurance cost decreases due to the HSPs providing treatment to insured individuals. These costs are not billed to the insurance company. These savings will result in lower overall insurance costs spread across the total insured population.
• The taxpayer can be comforted that this type of program has been successful in the government as is not a new untested bureaucracy.
• The taxpayer can also understand that the costs are not going to a government program or a private company. The costs are directly going into the education and training of American citizens to treat and care for American citizens.

Washington Post Editorial Board Fails to Disprove Dr. Death exists

The Washington Post attempted to portray Death Panel and Dr. Death comments as pure fear-mongering by Republicans in the following editorial (21 August 2009). They missed their mark and even proved the possibility.

The 'Dr. Death' Distortion

The mere fact that Dr. Emmanuel discussed abhorrent options while he was "grappling" with difficult issues shows that he considers these options as valid. Thus, referring to him as Dr. Death is not a stretch. Even more frightening is that he is an Obama advisor.

Healthcare Editorials in the Mainstream Media Selectively Favor Obama

Live or Die? That was for the Doctor to Decide
I was open-minded about this editorial until the last sentence. "Federal involvement has never led to death panels. It has only ended them." Not true

This editorial attempts to equate America's ability to fund kidney dialysis with the ability to cover every facet of American healthcare.

Of course, America can absorb more money on kidney dialysis, but America cannot support a Universal Public Option healthcare without going bankrupt. Government healthcare without unlimited resources to support the program will result in scarcity. Scarcity of resources will result in decisions being made about who gets those scarce resources (a.k.a. Death Panels). It is not outrageous to go down this path as countries have and do ration healthcare to the detriment of citizens - - - no matter what Mr. Buntin would like us to believe.

A Great Quote

"Why would you guys try to stuff a health care bill down our throats in three to four weeks, when the President took six months to pick a dog for his kids?!" said Jeror.

Minimum Wage Increases Defy Common Sense

The minimum wage increase will hurt jobs among those we are attempting to help. No debate required. I guess it just feels good to a liberal when they "help" the poor with other people's money. The liberal can drink his wine and feel good about himself while the intended beneficiary looks for a new job ---- somewhere.

Obama's Agenda is Frightening

Getting more scared about where we are headed every day. Debate and common sense are needed now more than ever.



Glenn has it right.

Conservatives and Their Religious Views

Conservatives will be more widely accepted if they can live their lives in a manner that attends to their personal beliefs, while also keeping those beliefs private. Do not proselytize and the majority of Americans (even those deeply religious) will be much more accepting of the conservative message.

The term "Religious Right" has become synonymous with the Republican Party and conservatism. This term is not a term of endearment for most Americans. It is has come to mean intolerance and holier-than-thou snobbishness. Personally, I know this meaning is not accurate, but this image prevails when the term "Religious Right" is used.

For me, religion is a deeply personal topic. I am significantly influenced by my upbringing and belief in Christianity. However, I do not impart my views on others. My relationship with God is MY relationship. I do not need an organization to monitor or facilitate my religious views about what I believe. I do not need a middle man to act as a portal to God for me.

I married a woman from a Jewish family. I accept her religion. She accepts my religion. Our children have been educated on the traditions and meaning of both Christianity and Judaism. Our children are primed to make a decision on religion when they are old enough to fully understand and develop their own views. My advice to the devoted evangelical is that even if a you believe a person will "go to hell" for not being Christian - - let them do it. Let people live their lives and respect them for what they believe. As long as their belief is not infringing on human rights or promotes violence, then let them believe what they want to believe. The best example of how to apply this in real terms is the same-sex marriage debate. Let the marriage happen. Accept the lifestyle of others and as long as their lifestyle is not forced on you, then everything is OK.

I am confirmed as a Presbyterian, but have attended many Catholic masses, Jewish services, Baptist and Unity services. There is one God with many paths to that God. Let people have their path and use the founding principles of respect, human rights, dignity, honesty, integrity and good citizenry to base decisions on. These principles can come from any religion. Factions within religions that are intolerant should be exposed. The method to do this is through discussion and debate. Discussion and debate will show objective individuals that the radical factions are not worth following.

Religion and Public Policy

A strong cultural divide exists on the topic of religion in the public square and the definition of separate of church and state. The conservative mantra is "Freedom of religion not freedom from religion." The liberal agenda is geared toward erasing every reference to religion and all influence of religion from anything public (past, present and future).

These positions are seemingly mutually exclusive and for the far left and far right they are irreconcilable. However, for those interested in common ground, it is easy to find.

Let's start with basic assumptions: 1) The United States of America was predominantly founded on Judeo-Christian values based on individual rights. 2) The USA of the 21st Century has a widely diverse citizenry with regard to religious beliefs. 3) The government can make no law establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Taking in consideration the first assumption, it is easy to see how government documents, memorials and buildings can legitimately contain words such as "In God We Trust" and "Under God." These should remain in place as a reference to the history of this nation. Actions to erase this history, tradition and remembrance of the impact of God on our country result in the cultural war we are in.

Combining assumption one and two from above, it is easy to see why we have a culture war at this time in history. The answer is simple. Acknowledge the country's history, but accept the future as a diverse nation of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus and a host of other religions. To do this, we should stop trying to change the past and simply focus on the future. Putting this into pragmatic terms, commercial organizations should feel free to celebrate and honor any and all religious holidays it deems beneficial to its commercial entity. Christmas, Hanukkah and Kwanzaa can be treated the same or differently as deemed necessary by the commercial entity. However, the government should honor the religions equally as its constituents see fit. If a constituency is left out and is not embraced, then the government should amend its position. This does not mean that Sikh holidays need to be honored in a town that has no Sikh citizens. It does not mean schools should only sing Christmas Carols about snow and Santa. Jesus is not a bad word in the public square. Abraham and Mohammad are not poison either.

Finally, the last assumption paraphrased from the Constitution gives ambiguous guidance that needs a dose of common sense. Government cannot make laws, rules, regulations, policies or other guidance that supports one religion over another. Additionally, government cannot stop anyone from expressing their right of religious expression. Again, let's put this in pragmatic terms. The government is not in the business of accommodating religions. This includes not putting foot baths in public areas for Muslims at taxpayer expense. However, it also means that banning of women wearing headdresses is also unconstitutional. Both of these violate the Constitution. Commercial entities can make their own rules subject to public reaction that would then benefit or harm their shareholder goals, but government cannot make any policy (period). This also means government cannot punish commercial entities from making their own decisions on this topic.

At least for those actually religious, these three basic assumptions when combined with common sense and a desire for agreement will put an end to this culture war.

That leaves atheists and agnostics as constituents that need to be addressed. For this group, any reference to any religion can leave them feeling left out. There is no easy answer for this group. Militant atheists and agnostics are the minority group that drives the culture war. Their activities get the religious right up in arms. This upheaval may actually be the objective and in that case no middle ground is possible. However, this group can gain solace in the fact that the USA is a secular nation. They are protected by the establishment clause of the Constitution to be free to do whatever they want, but unless there is a way to "celebrate" their lack of religious affiliation there is no way they can be treated fairly. Without an instrument to be equal, atheists and agnostics may continue to feel left out. My suggestion is to not deny religious events that are Constitutional and find a way that their beliefs can be treated on equal terms. This argument will not appeal to all members of this group, but the alternative is an unending culture war.

Alienating others is not a form of maintaining standards

Why do conservatives feel that holding back the rights of other individuals is somehow holding up a standard. Same-sex marriage is an inevitable trend that will make its way through the 50 states within the next 15 years. It is a tidal wave that cannot and should not be held back. Voters under the age of 30 overwhelming support same-sex marriage. Conservatives that believe they are standing up for decency and withholding rights of others are simply on the wrong side of history. They are presenting themselves and subsequently Republicans and conservatives in general as intolerant religious bigots. This attitude disenfranchises new voters and socially moderate voters. There is no perceived upside to maintaining this posture.

Let's use common sense when making decisions. Religion is certainly a framework for making decisions. It provides a moral compass and basis for making decisions. For government officials this is a starting point for discussions and decisions on policy. A religious framework is just one example of a framework that should influence decisions. The bias and background of all Members of Congress come into play when making decisions (as it should). This includes backgrounds and frameworks associated with black, female, homosexual, Hispanic and other minority Members.

At no point, should any of these frameworks be used to exclude, denigrate, or de-legitimize American citizens. I say this without reservation as it applies uniformly to both sides of the aisle. If any of the above frameworks is used for that purpose, the Member or coalition using these tactics should lose credibility and suffer an overall loss of voter support. This applies to religion as a decision making process and also Congressional Black Caucus frameworks for making decisions. Decide based on your moral background, your individual upbringing, but discrimination or alienation of a constituency is not acceptable.

The government should not force churches to perform same-sex marriage. That is the jurisdiction of the church. There will be churches that will perform the ceremony, so no individual church should be forced to compromise on its religious belief.

Conservatives do not have to abandon their beliefs, but they do need to stop imparting their beliefs on others. Similarly, supporters of same-sex marriage should not force their lifestyle into the public discourse in order to gain acceptance. They demean their own cause by being militant about needing to be accepted. A perfect example is a recent "research" study about Disney films that only portray heterosexual relationships. Warning: A push to change Disney films to be homosexual will inherently cause harm to the Gay Rights movement. Moderates that might accept same-sex marriage will be turned off by this militant approach to changing mainstream pop culture toward homosexual positions.

Adultery and Public Office

There has been a lot of debate about recent events associated with affairs and adultery among government officials. Should they resign? Are they hypocrites? Can they be trusted in office when they cannot be trusted to stay faithful?

The answers: Common sense should prevail. Republicans need to stop "preaching" to America.

Common sense approach: Public officials, especially elected public officials, should be held to a high standard. We should expect that of our leaders of this great country. One would hope we can find 50 Governors, 435 Congress members and 100 Senators that can meet this standard, but obviously that is not the case. That high standard should include staying focused on the job of solving the problems of their constituents. An affair is a distraction. I personally cannot imagine trying to keep two woman happy. I have a hard enough time keeping one woman happy. An affair increases stress as the person lives a lie. An affair opens the official up to bribery and extortion possibilities. (Reference article on Sen. Ensign - - http://www.mysanantonio.com/50389872.html). An affair can lead to additional mistakes to try and cover-up the situation. An affair shows lack of judgment. For all of the above reasons, an elected government official should step down from any significant leadership roles. Certainly, a Governor should step-down. A Congress member should resign committee leadership positions, but can still be a legitimate Member of Congress. This position is NOT based on a religious superiority or "holier-than-thou" belief. It is a pragmatic position that also is based on the assumption that elected officials have an important job to do and must be held to a high standard. If the elected official makes peace with his family, stops the affair and is reelected by his/her constituency, then remaining in office is viable. At no point does this position tell a person not to have an affair. That is not the jurisdiction of anyone in government. If a person wants to have an affair, do it when you are not a public servant. Do it when a lack of focus, bad judgment or susceptibility to extortion are not going to impact Americans.

How Republicans should address this topic: Stop putting yourself on a pedestal. Democrats do not preach and when a Democrat has an affair it gets washed away. Republicans take the high ground in such an absolute manner, such that when the inevitable occurs the world laughs at the hypocrisy. Republicans need to maintain a high standard in concert with the above common sense approach, but no one should be scorned for committing sins. The truly religious will embrace and pray for a sinner instead of cast out and shame the sinner. Be inclusive. Personally hold the standard, but do not put yourself on a pedestal to be knocked off with a hard fall.

Common ground on Abortion: Can we find it?

Abortion is clearly one of the most polarizing debates in American history. Is there common ground? I can guarantee the below debate will not sit well with 15% on the right and 15% on the left, but for most American’s it makes common sense and is better than the current situation we have right now.

Let’s start with a couple basic assumptions – 1) Children cannot be killed and 2) once a child exists, it has rights. If anyone does not agree with these assumptions, common ground cannot be achieved. However, if we assume a rational audience, the next step is to determine when a fetus becomes a child. To do this, we’ll look at the opposite end of the life spectrum – death. A person is pronounced dead when the heart stops beating for a sufficient period of time. Cells may still be “alive” and the body may even still have a temperature, but the body is pronounced dead. We should apply this logic to the birth of a child. When the heart starts beating, there is a child. Prior to the heart beating, it is a collection of cells with the ability to produce life, but a child does not yet exist. A beating heart will typically occur in the third or fourth month. A child exists at that point and has rights. The hardcore belief that life begins at inception is just not accurate in the context of true life. Life at conception is predominantly a religious based belief and should not be a determining factor for government policy.

Once there is a child, the last step is to determine if there are circumstances that would require the killing of the child. There are some circumstances that are worth debating, such as incest, rape, health of the mother, birth defects that were detected. I have my own opinion, but believe these specifics should be left to the state to decide individually.

I do believe that partial birth abortion is never a necessity and should never be performed. Anyone that believes otherwise falls into one of two categories: 1) They don’t understand the procedure, or 2) They are radically committed to abortion as a right with no regard for the child and are afraid of the proverbial “slippery slope” to include horrific destruction of a child.

The above concept will lend itself to be a policy in which abortion can occur legally in the first 3-4 months. After that point, it becomes a procedure that individual states can regulate on a rare exception basis, but only for a period of time that the child cannot sustain life outside the womb.

Why Blog on Pragmatic Conservatism?

Conservatism and its close sister, the Republican Party, have been branded as intolerant, old and out-of-touch. Common sense and pragmatism when inserted into the cultural debate can transform the conservative image and be a rallying cry for all Americans of any race, color, religion, gender or sexual orientation. Conservative ideals do not have to be polarizing. These ideals simply need to be openly discussed and not proselytized.