Where The Rubbers Meet The Road

Folks that assume they know "The Truth" about touchy subjects are self absorbed. Meaning that they are not interested in...

I have written about misinformed certitude extensively. Why? Because folks who are absolute about their beliefs are difficult to communicate with. Folks that assume they know "The Truth" about touchy subjects are self absorbed. Meaning that they are not interested in what you think.

Which begs the question…do we need those people to be involved in our community? Can we afford to give them equity in our processes, our decision making? 
Isn't it a requirement for democracy to allow everyone to be heard, no matter what they think, or what their beliefs are?

I think it is. I think operating a free society, where everyone plays a part, demands we accommodate what might be described as whacky ideas. 

Here is where it gets sticky: We don't let children vote. We don't let foreigners vote. If we are holding a homeowners meeting to decide if our condominium complex needs a new roof, should we allow a few strangers who don't own a unit in the building complex to vote in our survey?

Of course not. Those who contribute to the decision making process must be of a certain age, where presumably they have matured enough to be able to process information and make informed decisions. It is obviously OK to discriminate. It is obviously wise to discriminate. Anything else would create utter chaos.

Those who have skin in the game, who have invested in property ownership, who pay their homeowners fees, taxes, insurance, and actually live in their units, should be the only ones allowed to vote. The HOA doesn't allow renters to participate in their surveys or final voting processes. Why should a nation operate any differently?

Additionally, why would a nation allow anyone that is unable to present some acceptable form of identification (do they live here, or are they old enough?)  to help make important decisions about the rules and regulations we all live by?

The obvious next question has to be what about that "identification" we agree needs to be a part of the decision making process. What if, for example, it is fraudulent? What if it isn't a real and verified characterization of that citizen? What if it is counterfeit
I have also written extensively about counterfeiting and how it is not just a financial crime, but can also be applied to misappropriation of property and other forms of white collar crimes. 
It all starts with misrepresentation, or lying. Whether it is in the form of speaking, writing or acting, a lie is a lie. From the first one on, it can become a landslide that can often cascade over the lives of innocent bystanders, causing them misery they did not deserve.
Making whacky claims when speaking in a group, on social media, or at a party is one thing. But when you misuse your authority or expertise to make unsupported statements (to lie) is unacceptable and those folks must be held accountable. We can't turn the other cheek to counterfeit leadership.
When highly influential people in politics present false information, people then invest in them, and with no reason to be suspicious, then pass along the falsehood, just like passing counterfeit bills. And though they may have never realized what they were doing was complicit, it was. Because it continued the lie, it joined the momentum of the landslide and contributed to the damages the cascading misinformation causes as it consumes the truth and builds a false impression of an accepted lie.
Billy Tipton was born Dorothy Lucille Tipton in 1914. After changing her name and presenting herself as a male at the age of 24, Billy had a long and reasonably successful career as a male musician. Along the way he formed serious relationships with five women, but never got married or consummated his partnerships sexually, covering his secret with a story about being seriously injured in an accident that mangled his private parts.
The point is, his treatment of his partners, his musical associates, his friends and business partners, was not necessarily illegal. But he was committing a crime of fraud on everyone around him by lying about his gender. That would be classified as a violation of an implied contract. 
I would argue that this moral question is symbolic of a fundamental challenge to the future of America. That question is, "do we Americans owe a certain adherence to the implied contract that our Founding Fathers made with their siblings and all future American Citizens? A contract they called the Constitution and first Ten Amendments to it".
You might say, "What? Are you serious? Why does this kind of human conundrum matter to you?" I would say it represents the crisis in truth we face in modern society.
You might say, "Truth? How can you make that reach? Isn't truth just an abstract fantasy anyway? If we never know the truth about ANYTHING, who cares?" As Hillary Clinton so famously said about the deaths of an American ambassador and five Navy Seals in Benghazi Lebanon, "What difference does it really make?"
It may not, in certain cases make any difference at all. But in other cases, it may make life altering differences, not just to some people, but to millions, or even billions of people.
If the Captain of the Titanic hadn't been so consumed with misinformed certitude that the super ship was 'Unsinkable' he probably would have taken a safer route and avoided the worst seafaring tragedy in history. 
In 2008, Americans tossed caution and reason to the wind in favor of projecting a sense of "socially responsible certitude" that electing a young, handsome and articulate black man to the Presidency, would send a Progressive message to the World that right makes strength, and social justice would lead to peace, even though the man had zero experience in foreign affairs or in running a giant enterprise like the Government of the United States of America. 
Instead, America continues to be torn apart by tribal hatred, psychological conflict brought on by relentless electronic digital overload and bankrupted by endless unsustainable spending to protect people from themselves.


Since the ascension of Barack Obama to the Whitehouse, the Democrat Party has veered dramatically left. So much so that even some longtime Democrats have had too much. The Party now supports administrator rights over parental rights in public schools. They have essentially abandoned Israel as Americas strongest ally. Democrats favor illegals over citizens rights. It is inarguable when you see border violators receiving free housing in luxury hotels, $1000 debit cards, free cell phones and free airfare to their chosen city. All while homeless veterans sleep under tarps in major cities all around the nation.
But the rubber meets the road when it comes to LGBTQ and missing children issues. Barack initiated the now SOP policies of acceptance and promotion of what has traditionally been considered deviant behavior by television actors, school administrators and teacher unions, by social media influencers, and even government officials. Cross dressing, wearing skanky lingerie clothing, extreme makeup, and undergoing physical modifications through chemical/hormonal treatments and surgical transformations is encouraged and sometimes Democrats have gone so far as to offer legislation to get public funding for the LGBTQ friends gender adventures.
Barack appeared to favor trade policy over holding officials feet to the fire in countries that had been ranked as some of the worst human trafficking offenders. In a 2015 Reuters examination. Documents showed that the State Department office set up to independently grade global efforts to fight human trafficking was repeatedly overruled by senior diplomats and pressured into inflating assessments of 14 countries in this year’s report. Among the countries that received higher rankings than recommended by the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons were Malaysia, Cuba, China, India, Uzbekistan and Mexico."
If you look at the direction the Democrats have been moving the country, during the Obama term, and since the installation of Biden, the US is strongly supporting every organization that supports Diversity, Equity and Inclusion policies and programs, in every state and country it deals with. In fact, there are few if any legislative initiatives that have come before Congress since 2020 that don't include some funding and policy initiatives that reach out to and promote DEI platforms.
When you boil it all down, LGBTQ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer) is essentially a sex-driven movement. It's core beliefs are based on what many would consider abhorrent sexual proclivities. Those involved are demanding society embrace their CULTural integration. In fact, most of their demands include punishments for anyone that rejects their lifestyle, and broad efforts to inculcate those lifestyle habits in young children.
Recent news stories about Drag Queen shows offered to elementary school aged children in public school facilities begs the question: Why do these queers insist on promoting themselves and their lifestyles in front of immature children? Why would adults feel the need to pole dance wearing skimpy clothing, and bright colored lipstick, inch long eyelashes and fingernails, and singing nasty and sometimes vulgar lyrics to a group of captive kids in 6th grade? Then passing out "Children's Books" filled with directions on how to have anal sex with or offer blowjobs to your friends?
Biden has gone so far as to hold DEI/LGBTQ Liberation Parties on the White House lawn! You have to ask, why is it so important for this political party to push the "Queer" agenda at every conceivable opportunity?
This is far from normal and could be classified as abusive behavior, except that the Biden Administration is made up of queers. Biden himself proclaimed his administration is the most LGBTQ friendly administration in American history. He claims nearly 14% of his 1500 federal office appointments are "Queer". 

I have seen some, since repressed, video of Joey Bananas sexually abusing teenage females. We know his daughter had inappropriate activities with her dad. She wrote about it in her diary. His family dynamic has all the symptoms of family dysfunction. His administration is full of people who should have enrolled on the Sexual Offender Online Registry.

As for the federal effort to stop human trafficking, especially with children, the numbers are horrific. It is believed that close to 50 million people are currently trapped by involuntary servitude. About 12 million of those folks are children. More than half of them are females. Human trafficking is worth $150 billion annually. That puts the criminal enterprise in the economic neighborhood of companies like Tesla, Mega and Uber.
Remember, any statistics about criminal behaviors are only estimates. So it is probably safe to assume it is much worse than what is being reported.
The Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 was designed to underwrite an improved effort to mount a comprehensive and coordinated campaign "to eliminate modern forms of slavery domestically and internationally” according to PR releases from the US Department of Justice.
But we have to face the facts: Human slavery still exists around the world. Approximately 1.4M people are trafficked (bought, sold, traded or exploited) every single day. One in four victims of trafficking are children (under 18 years of age).
And here is the really sick statistic: 60% of children trafficked in America were at one point involved in our welfare system!
It has been 24 years since the TVP Act was passed. Can we keep a straight face and say we are winning this battle? It seems the industry is a growth industry. Our government can sue big businesses for anti competitive practices or failing to enforce fair hiring standards, but how do we deal with a rapidly growing, totally brutal criminal enterprise that operates in the shadows, and appears to serve millions of citizens in every country on Earth?
Even countries with authoritarian regimes appear to be helpless to stop the human trafficking cartels. Why?

Could it be the dark side of the Progressive Personal Profile is just as sick as the profile of the worst cartel honchos who feel no sympathy for their victims, because in their mind the pursuit of wealth is no worse act than the pursuit of sexual gratification. The folks that will kill at the drop of a hat, and those that enjoy using children for sexual excitement can't be separated by more than a few degrees and they are both OK with that.
​
It's where their rubbers meet the road.