by

Southern Baptists Espousing Racism?


First, I am obligated to give credit to the Sunday Boston Globe (June 13, 2021) for certain of the beginning thoughts here.

Tennessee and Oklahoma have recently passed certain laws in regard to what is taught in public schools about race and racism. At the heart of these laws is a restriction in how racism is taught. This is the result of many factors, not the least of which is the political divide of the very conservative wing of the Republican party and its evangelical proponents. This coming week there is a meeting of the white Southern Baptist ministers in Nashville. These far-right wingers claim to be strict adherants to Biblical law. The difficulty here, of course, is the very definition of Biblical law, every church having its own interpretation.

The Baptist Church of the south split from its northern bretheren in 1848 over the issue of slavery. The historical boundary was laid in place and where the northern churches have been far more inclusive, the southern churches have clung to “old south” ideas. But problematic here is the very nature of church and state. Everyone thinks of the 1st Amendment as the “freedom of speech” amendment, which it is and includes religion, however, within that amendment is a bar against making laws that support any single religious idea. And so, it would seem that the newly enacted laws in Tennessee, Oklahoma and Idaho, along with a dozen more southern states with plans to enact similar laws, fly in the face of the 1st Amendment.

What bothers me most about these very conservative churches is that while they swear they are following Biblical Law, it sounds like their tendency is more towards Mosaic Law, Old Testament, than New Testament Law. Two phrases in the Gospels of the New Testament have always been a guide to me as to how Jesus meant us to live our lives. He was asked twice about how to act and said, in so many words, do unto others as you would have others do unto you, and, whatever you do unto the least of my children, you do unto Me. As far as I can tell, conservative southerners do not follow either of these principles. They seem more comfortable with the “eye for an eye” concept, as rendered in the Old Testament. But they are unwilling to accept that highly educated theologians of all walks have long argued over the veracity of both Old and New Testament verses. The best example of this comes under the guise of Moses. The problem here is that there is no proof that a person by the name of Moses ever lived. To wit, the Egyptians of those days kept very exacting records of events and no where is the name of Moses or anyone akin to him mentioned. This in turn puts into doubt all stories about the Ten Commandments which many historical theologians have placed at more along the lines of 500 commandments.

I only bring up those Biblical references as examples of religious dogma and its affect upon modern society. In our country, Christianity makes up 67% of all beliefs in the U.S. No other religion commands more 2% to include atheists. Of the Christian religions, 25% of all are Evangelicals, 21% are mainline and black protestants, and 21% are Catholic. But, according to today’s Bostn Globe, Evangelical religions have been enduring a decreasing membership which have the southern bishops fearing they are losing out to more centrists beliefs. But, since Evangelicals hold substatial polical sway in all southern capitals, they are doubling down of their efforts to stem the tide. This, as shown above, is coming at the expense of truth in history and society. The 1925 Scopes Trials first brought into view the problems with religion dictating what is taught in our schools. It would seem that nearly 100 years has put this landmark decision into the fog of history and allowed those who have forgotten it to return to more primitive times. It would seem the time has arisen for a second Scopes trial, only this time it must be brought before the U.S. Supreme Court to stem religion’s hold on public education.

It is our responsibility to allow our children the full view of both history and society, and to allow them the purview to make up their own minds as the progress in life. It is ill-advised to allow blinders to be put on our children to hide inconvenient truths, to the stains of our past, the the need for civility and acceptance of all people regardless of their beliefs for if we do not, the ability of our democracy to survive will be put on trial.

by

U.S. History and the Tulsa Massacre


Let me first quality myself. I have a masters degree in U.S. History from Harvard and I only mention the school for the level of difficulty in getting that degree.

The Tulsa massacre is just the latest piece of history that people are saying is forgotten. But that is not the case. The incident in Tulsa deserves a place in history book but only when it is part of many more such events. What do I mean?

If I were to write a comprehensive history of America, I could easily fill ten volumes at 1000 pages per volume and minimal pictures, maps and other such things. Decades ago a sociologist suggested that the approach to history was too thin and suggested a thick interpretation. That means, when you look at an event, such as the Battle of Lexington and Concord, you cannot give it a full explanation without including everything which was involved in that event. That means you must include weather conditions, what the mission of the British military was, who their commanders were and their level of education and experience. You must talk about the size of the villiages they traveled through and of course the population of Lexington and Concord vs. the military forces which descended upon them. Having studied this event closely, I can tell you that this lone event would easily take 100 pages if were truly use a thick interpretation of the event itself and all the tangental events. That is an unreasonable amount of time and presentation for this event.

The Revolution itself had many stories of individuals and their effect on history. There is the story of Deborah Samson, a woman who join the militia saying she was a man. She successfully evaded detection for almost two years and that was only because she was wounded at a conflict which required the attention of a doctor. She had been able to handle other injuries successfully without being detected. But she represents women in history, most of whom are never mentioned in our history books. Women such as Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Emma Goldman, Margaret Sanger and many others who played very important roles in our history. Why do we not include them.

The Civil War could easily take up five volumes of 1000 pages each. And that is true of every conflict our nation was ever in, each deserving mention in our history books. The incident in Tulsa, ugly as it was, is far from the only incident of that type. Many other similar events happened throughout the south.

We must include black history, Spanish history, French history, the history of suffrage, of reform movements, of strikes, of labor unions, of a segregated military, of each president, of immigration, and so on and so forth. My listing out the various events here should give anyone pause to consider how to present a full accounting of our nation’s history. But that is an impossible task. Who what do include and what do we not include? It does not matter who you leave out or what you leave out, someone is going to feel shorted in the tell of our history. But unless the public suddenly accepts telling history in 10,000 pages, a comprehensive telling of our history is impossible.

by

Where Have All the Decent Republicans Gone?


I just watched a salute to Bob Dole, former senator from Kansas, who is now 98 and dying from cancer. I never voted for Bob Dole, but I recongnized him as a very decent person, a veteran who was a hero, as a good man. In 1997, President Bill Clinton bestowed upon him the highest honor a civilian can get from the government. In those moments, there was no Republican-Democrat divide. It was the simple acknowledgement of a member of one party to another that his sevice must be recognized.

I have never voted strictly party line, Democrat, simply because I recognized the huge failings of certain Democrats and would vote for their Republican opponent. In Massachusetts, where I spent most of my life, I am now living in North Carolina, I can remember as a teenager when Ted Kennedy first won a seat in the senate, there was something about him which I did not like, even though I could not put my finger on it. The, in 1967, when he caused the death of MaryJoe Kopeckne, my mistrust of him and his ability to escape prosecution he so richly deserved, was solidified. Not once did I ever vote for him.

I spent 11 years on active duty in the Army and was stationed in states such as Louisiana, Texas and Georgia, all of which had seen the old Dixie-crats (Democrats) switch parties in 1968. And even though I do not remember who I voted for in those states, they were solidly Republican. That never bothered me. Most of the senators and representatives for both parties were largely centrists.

Then in 1996, the Senator Newt Gingrich decided it was time to become devisive with his “Contract to America.” That piece of legislation, with the Republican controlled house, was passed into law and pushed the Republican party a little further to the right. Also at the time there were people like Pat Robertson, a man from the far right, who were trying to pull the party further to the right. It was Gingrich who first introduced the “us against them” sentament. And then when they decided to get rid of the most hated Democrat, Bill Clinton, they spent millions of dollars, with Ken Starr in the lead, to convict Clinton of an abuse of power charge. It failed by a single vote, as most have, but it set into motion a move that continues to this day.

But even in those days, the majority of Republicans were decent people. In the 2000 election, which the Republican party started using dirty tricks to win, George Bush won when Republicans usurped the power of the Florida State Supreme Court, and got a decision they desired to give George Bush the win. I never voted for George Bush, but even so, I found myself defending him against Democrats who liked to call him a draft dodger and druggie. I reminded them that Bush was a member of the Texas Air National Guard during Vietnam and was subject to activation to Vietnam just like so many National Guard units had been. He is a veteran and I almost always defend veterans against those who choose to demean them by spurious lies. That exact thing happened to John Kerry, a silver star awardee for his service in Vietnam, when a group called the “Swift Boaters” mounted a series of lies about Kerry to insure Bush’s win. I thing George Bush would have won anyway, but this was Karl Rover, the Republican architect of the early 2000s, working his dirt.

And now Republicans are giving homage to a man who is probably the worst president we have ever had, even worse than John Quincy Adams and Andrew Johnson, both of whom scholars show them as complete failures as president. But in the case of Adams, he returned to the U.S. House and became an extremely successful leader there. And so it is not unheard of for an former president to continue public service. William Howard Taft became a member of the U.S. Supreme Court after his defeat for re-election, and eventually became the chief justice and an admired member. I only wish the George Bush would consider doing the same in Texas.

The term “Moderate Republican” is fast becoming a name difficult to assigned to any Republican in either the house or senate. Why is that? Donald Trump managed to so polarize the American republic, they fear that to speak out against him will cause their defeat for re-election. Why are they cowtowing to the will of a single man over the greater good of their contituents? Why do they find it so difficult to speak the truth over perpetuating the great lie of 2020 that the election was somehow stolen from Trump even though Republican jurists around the nation have declared Joe Biden to be the legitamite winner?

To those few Republican who still stand for something, the truth, Liz Cheney, Chuck Grassely, Mitt Romney, Susan Collans and a few others, I truly hope they will rescue the Republican party from its death wish.

by

Time to Change Term Lengths for U.S. Representatives Plus Term Limits


Our Constitution sets out the terms for both senators and representatives. But these were laid out in an era when campaign financing was insignificant and a mistrustful nation felt representatives should run every two years. But times have changed. Campaign funding, at all levels, is big business. For those who are members of the house, they get elected and almost immediately must think of getting re-elected. That is because they have to find the funds to be able to run ads for their next term and to pay for other re-election expenses. This necessarily takes away from their ability to serve their constituency as well as they could.

The solution is to change their term from 2-year to 4-year terms. This would require an Constitutional amendment but it should not be that difficult. By increasing the term to 4 years, representatives would be able to serve their constituents better.

The change would happen as a representative came up for re-election. It would take six years to cycle through every representative but in the end, you would still have elections every two years, 1/3 of the house vying for re-election, as presently happens.

Secondly, both the house and senate should be allowed to serve a total of 18 years in either the house or senate. That means someone could serve in the house for 18 years and then continue in the senate for another 18 years, 36 years total. And by not allow any present member to be grandfathered, meaning they would immediately fall under this rule, a total of 18 senators, mostly democrats, would be required to retire when their present term ends.

by

U.S. Government and UFOs


On Sunday evening 60 Minutes had a portion of its show devoted to UFOs or as the Federal Government calls the UAPs (Unidentified Aerial Phenomena). In 1969 the U.S. Government ended a project named “Blue Book” which looked into these sightings claiming there was nothing to them. But since the end of World War 2, U.S. citizens and a multitude of commercial and military pilots have reported sightings on a fairly regular basis.

On 60 Minutes, two Naval aviators told of seeing an “aerial phonomena” which defied explanation. The government now admits to one of three possibilites that such objects are extraterrestial. But from where do they come?

The physics behind interstella space travel makes an excellent case for the extreme unlikeliness of making the trip from our nearest neighboring star to Earth. That star is known as Proxima Centauri and is a mere 4.2 light years distant. But a single light year is 9.3 trillion miles making Proxima Centauri on the order of 37 trillion miles distant. The case against such travel is a simple one. The faster you want to go, the more energy you need to produce. Think of it this way; if you want to go in your automobile from zero to 60 it will take a certain amount of fuel. Now double that and you know the fuel necessary is greater. The escape velocity from Earth, that amount of energy needed to defeat gravity, requires the rocket to accelerate to 17,500 miles an hour. Simple observations of the rockets used in attaining that speed show very large rocket fuel expended.

Our galaxy has somewhere between 200 and 300 billion stars, all of which are much further distant. But as you move toward the center of our galaxy, the possibility of life existing near a star becomes more and more unlikely. This is because of the amount of radiation present.

And intergalactic travel is something close to an impossibility. Our nearest galaxy, Andromeda, is 2.5 million light years from Earth!

Our present knowledge of physics states that we can never reach the speed of light because it would require an infinite amount of energy to do so. Even half that speed requires more energy than we presently know how to produce. Then, saying that speed is attained, additional energy is needed for that interstellar travel just to keep the ship’s inhabitants alive, not to mention sufficient oxygen and water. Then there is energy needed to slow down once in close proximity to the star. And then there is the return trip.

There is one possible solution. It is not quite a worm hole style of travel but more the matter of figuring out how to navigate space-time by folding one point towards another. Think of it as a piece of paper. Now, if you fold the paper to represent space-time, you must figure out how to get your vessel to jump from your point on that continuum to the other side of the paper. We have no idea how to do such a thing but a very ancient and now extremely advanced civilization may know how to do it.

The final question/quandry, is, how do they know we are even here? We are sort of a backwater solar system on the outer portion of our galaxy.

by

Republicans Abandon Truth for the Big Lie


What has happened to the Republican party? Their focus used to be on economics, smaller government and lower taxes. Today they are entirely focused on continuing Donald Trump’s big lie that the election was somehow stolen from him. Why do they not believe the Trump federal court judges and the U.S. Supreme Court who declared that the election was entirely without any substantial issues with the vote count. Did they not see the election results where Biden beat Trump quite decisively by 7 million votes?

Trump’s appeal while in office was to the dark base feelings of white America who fear non-white immigrants and who believe that Democrats have suddenly become socialists. If you hear Republican senators and congressmen speak you will hear them refer to Democrats as being socialists and that their socialist agenda is on display now. Really? The only person do declare himself as a socialist is Bernie Sanders. And now they use him in painting the entire Democratic Party as being a bunch of socialists!

Republicans are panning Biden’s entire $2.3 trillion infrastructure request as somehow being socialist. There is a problem in doing that: the portion of the bill which might be called socialist can easily be deleted if only they brought to the table a true compromise bill, something larger the the $600 billion they proposed.

All that aside, a thinking person has to ask why Republicans are still giving fealty to Trump? Simply put, he still appeals to that base of white America who believes everything that ever came out of his mouth. The exceptions in the party who have decided the truth is more important, Liz Cheney, Mitt Romney and a few others, are being criticized as being out of step with party unity! Hence, people like McCarthy, have decided to stick with the lie in the name of party unity. They believe they can take back the house this way.

If you look into their backgrounds you will find a common theme, they are all highly educated, many from institution which they describe as institutions of liberal education. That liberal education somehow did not affect their ideals as Republicans. They should all, and probably do, know that the truth must prevail. Our country depends upon that. But they are now fearful and have decided that they re-election is more important than the truth. They are highly intelligent people making horrible decisions.

I do believe that in time, hopefully long before the 2024 presidential elections, that the Republican party will return to its roots and that Trump will have faded into the background and be seen for what he is, a huckster who sold too many Americans a bill of goods that goes against all common sense.

by

Trump’s Latest Lie; Republican Sycophants Bow


Donald Trump declared that Facebook is hindering his First Amendment rights. That is an absolute lie. His right to free speech extends to what he writes, public speaking, except in fraud, libel, slander, child pornography, purgury, blackmail, incitement to lawless actions, true threats and solicitation to commit crimes. On privately owned platforms there is no First Amendment priveledge. Facebook, and other platforms, have the absolute right to control the type of speech on their platforms. One of the more infamous type of barred speech comes from insider trading on Wall Street where one party knows of something that is going to affect his company and tells outsides to buy or sell stocks based on that knowldge.

McCarthy and Cruz have blasted these platforms claiming they are part of a liberal bias against conservatives. Nothing could be further from the truth, and they know it however they are cowtowing to a still popular former president who has a large and loyal base. They are far more interested in the political funding they get from siding with Trump then speaking against him.

But there are two Republican centrists who advocate the truth, have spoken out against Trump’s lies and know are pariahs in their own party rather than be touted as heros of the party. They are Liz Cheney and Mitt Romney. McCarthy is so incensed with Cheney’s sticking to the truth that he has arbitrarily decided that she must be removed from power. He decided this without conferring with other members of his party. But he is probably on safe ground as a large portion of Republicans either agree with Trump or are too fearful to speak against him.

It would seem that Republicans themselves are more against free speech than they are in protecting it. They seem cowed by the lingering presence of an out-of-office president who is probably the most devisive personality since Andrew Johnson. I do hope that in the near future cooler heads will prevail, that truth will prevail and that Republicans will get their heads out of their butts and just do the right thing!

by

Five New States? Why Not!


The United States possesses four territories plus the District of Columbia. The territories are the American Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam and Puerto Rice. The United States has held the territories for over 100 years. And in the case of Guam, this territory cannot exist on its own.

The District of Columbia is a special case since it has always existed entirely on American soil. The idea of it, as proposed by George Washington, was to provide a neutral place for our nation’s Capitol. It was established in 1790 but the Capitol Building itself was not finished until 1800, along with other supporting buildings. The city’s population in 1800 was a little over 14,000 people. Today the city’s population is about 690,000 people. Contrast that with Wyoming’s population of 578,000, Vermont with 626,000 and North Dakota with 760,000. Washington has a larger population than 2 states and is close the a third. Why are the people of Washington kept from having a voting representative and two senators?

It was not until 1971 that Congress allowed the district to have a non-voting representative to Congress. From its earliest days, Congress has been the presiding power over Washington DC. The city of Washington has an elected mayor who with her city council passes ordinances. From time-to-time, Congress acts to overturn certain of these ordinances as it sees fit and the city has no right to redress. Clearly a violation of our Constitution.

The Spanish-American war allowed the United States to gain province over the aforementioned territories. The population of American Samoa is 55,300, of Puerto Rico 3.2 million, of Guam 167,000, and of the American Virgin Islands 106,000 people. Together they represent 3.5 million people with no say in their administration. When Arizona was admitted to the union in 1912 it had about 200,000, and when Wyoming was admitted it had barely 56,000. To argue size is made irrelevent by these numbers. One of the most recently admitted states, Alaska had only about 200,000 people.

These four territories plus D.C. have a legitimate complaint about not being properly represented in Congress. Each has one non-voting member of the House of Representatives. They get to be heard but are not allowed to vote on laws which deeply affect their constituents. The present U.S. Government is doing exactly what the British Parliment did prior to the Revolution. And the colonists vocally decried that lack of representation to Partliment. In a final try to gain that representations, Benjamin Franklin eloquently laid forth his case for the representation only to be mocked and laughed at. This was one of the final acts which lead to the revolution.

The people of Washington DC and Puerto Rico have been quite vocal in the same way. But their complaints have long gallen on deaf ears. It is wrong and it must be corrected. Republicans have long voted against statehood only because they fear these two areas would only send Democrats to Congress. They have shown no concern for the people who live there. It is time for Congress to act and for Congressional Republican to stop being obstructionists.

by

Biden’s Horrible Decision About Afghanistan


President Biden has pledged to take all of our troops out of Afghanistan by September. His generals in Afghanistan have been vocal about this being a mistake and President Biden needs to listen to them!

I have heard it said that our country is not about “nation building.” Nothing could be further from the truth. At the end of World War 2, we left a very sizable number of troops in Germany, Italy, Japan and Korea. Of those four countries, all still have U.S. troops stationed there to help maintain the peace. Other countries which host a contingent of U.S. troops are Poland, Turkey, Greece and Spain. It has been 76 years since the end of that war, so why do we keep troops there? In the cases of Germany and Japan, the U.S. insisted in 1945-6 that those countries write into their constitutions that they will only maintain a defensive force, although in recent years both countries have built their military to a size where they could easily become offensive. For the most part, those countries have become very stable and their contributions to the world of innovation, science and industry have been huge.

In both Afghanistan and Iraq at the beginning of this month there were about 2,500 troops each. The stability of each is quite precarious to the extent that U.S. troops could do little to stop ISIS when it terrorized that region and is still lurking in the background. In Afghanistan, the Taliban are an even greater threat to the security of that country. By and large, the people of Afghanistan are quite happy to have U.S. forces present. Not withstanding that, the Taliban have taken a sizeably portion of the country and returned it to the brutal subugation it held prior to the war. It does not take much intellect to know that when the U.S. creates a military vacuum, one which Afghany forces are not prepared to defend, the Taliban will quickly take over.

If anything, the U.S. needs to increase its forces in Afghanistan and maintain a presence for the foreseeable future. Afghanistan has tremendous agricultural potential but that will be minimal if the Taliban are allowed to return. History dictates that it must be remembered. When the U.S. and other allied forces were victorious in World War 1, no troops were left in Germany to insure its stability. There existed several far right wing groups who did not care for the new regime and from the early 20s until 1933, they engaged in political war with the ruling government only to have it taken over by the Nazis. Other huge mistakes were made, ridiculous reparation demands of Germany cause the country to remain bankrupt until Hitler took over and refused to pay. Would things have been different had the allied forces maintained a presence in Germany? We can only speculate but at the very least it would have put a damper on right wing efforts to overthrow the ruling government.

It is very unlikely that Afghanistan will ever reach the economies of Germany and Japan, but it can become a very stable country if it is allow to find its own way with inteferance from the Taliban. And even more importantly, the work is far from done in Afghanistan for the U.S. as long as the Taliban is allowed to maintain its current strength. I can only hope that someone in Biden’s circle will read and take to heart this article, or, that he will heed his generals and stop removing troops.

by

Keep Your Religion Out of My Government!


Everyone knows the First Amendment, right? I kind of doubt it because most people believe it is all about freedom of the press and the right to assemble. It is but that is just the first part. The First Amendment reads in its first part, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The is the first portion. It is not until the second part that freedom of speech is address as-well-as the freedom of assembly and to petition the government with its grievances. During colonial times, Americans had a long running battle with the British over their right to assemble, have a free press, and to demonstrate their grievances.

When it came time to write the Constitution, all of the first 10 Amendments we left out as an expediance to getting it passed by at least 10 states, the minimum required. They knew that when the government was officially formed in 1789, they could present amendments to the constitution. To show how almost paranoid the early leader were about establishing their personal freedoms, that one amendment seems a bit of an anathema today, the third amendment. It deals with the quartering of military forces in private residences. Why did they put this one in as anyone today knows that it seems a bit ridiculous. Back then it was not. The British has passed a law called the “Quartering Act” which allowed exactly that.

It took two years for the states to agree on what we call “The Bill of Rights,” but they knew these amendments had to be faultless. The second amendment, always of great discussion, was a direct response to General Gage’s numerous attempts to capture gun power the various town militias kept as they felt their right. Again, in colonial times, all men from 18 to 60 were considered a part of that town’s militia and were required to purchase their own gun and to partake in regular exercises as the town saw fit. The very first part of the amendment states, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to to secure a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” The idea of a regular military, today’s active duty, was held by a minority, George Washington being its most fervent supporter and Thomas Jefferson stating that he believe only act active navy was necessary. Still, the idea behind this was that no one could ever keep our country from being well-armed. Even the NRA, as recently as 1939, believed that to be the truth. But in recent years the US Supreme Court has ruled that it does indeed extend to private individuals. I only bring this up to show that we have differences about what the amendments mean, and the 2nd Amendment has been the most visible.

My ancesters were Puritans who arrived here, at Ipswich Massachusetts in 1638. The very word “Puritan” came from the idea that these people had about “purifying” the Church of England which they believed to be too “papist.” The Puritans of Boston who moved to New Town, a portion later known as Cambridge, founded Harvard College, as a non-sectarian seminary. To this day, the Harvard Divinity School retains that ideal. But this is import to recognize because these Puritans to a man believed that religion was a personal thing which each man had to decide for himself. These beliefs brought about the founding of the Congregational Church which allowed for no hierachy. And later the founding of the Unitarian Church but the transcendentalists. To differentiate the Puritans from the Pilgrims, a mistake often made, the two groups were at odds with each other. John Brewster, the leader of the Pilgrims, was the leader of a seperatist group. A radical group who did not believe the Church of England could be reformed. They were Calvanists who believed in predestination. But Roger Williams, a Calvanist preacher with the Pilgrims, split of and founded Rhode Island and the first Baptist church in America.

The British were always upset that the Americans refused to be a part of the Church of England although there was little the could do about it. But the British had the Church of England at the center of their government. The colonists hate that ideal and refused to abide by it in America. This feeling was even stronger at the writing of the Constitution. Among them were the atheist, Benjamin Franklin, and the indifferent, Thomas Jefferson, who called himself a “Theist,” to George Washington who was an Anglican, and others who were Roman Catholic, Presbytarian, Congregationalists, and others. To them, it was obvious that the inclusion of religion in matters or state was against all they held true. Their differences were on display at the Constituional Conventions, and none tried to claim their religion over all others. That they knew of Britains efforts to force the Church on England on them allowed them to understand the need to keep all religion, without exception, out of their government.

It is ironic that the Republican Party, whose adherents claim often to be originalist, fail to apply that to religion in government and are frequently trying to put conservative Christian beliefs into law, or to defeat laws they dislike or claim to be against their religion. Now they will never say it is against their religion but instead state their belief and tell all who will list that to thing otherwise is unpatriotic. Their efforts to ban abortion are absolutely of religous belief. What they fail to realize that they are doing exactly what they claim to be against, defining morality on certain issues. Morality, or lack thereof, is the right of the individual to decide and must remain out of our government!

The right wing attack of Planned Parenthood is an abortion unto itself. Ninety percent of everything Planned Parenthood is about is helping to educate women about sex and their bodies. That the Federal Government would fund an organization whose main task is to educate any portion of our society is against all reason. For example, Ted Cruz, who is a Southern Baptist, and claims the moral high ground, speaks for on 6.7% of American when calling upon his religous beliefs. He does this often. Our founding fathers knew full well the danger of this. Why cannot right wing Republicans do the same. Republican claim to be the party of Lincoln. Did they ever look to see that Lincoln did not care for any formal religion. The great minds of our early country usually believe in a power greater than themselves, a God who above all, and for no one in particular. Why cannot those who seek to push religion into our government see that?