They come to America

Regarding illegal immigrants, their protests, and the expectation of United States of America citizens:

Immigration is not a right of entitlement...it is a plea for inclusion. To be included there is a price. Fortunately for those who are born citizens, someone in their ancestry paid that price and to them they should be thankful but the remainder of the price is working within the system to the pursuit of happiness.

People who enter the USA contrary to its laws of citizenship have no ancestry that paid for the right to live here and enjoy the advantages; and those that further seek to enjoy the advantages without paying the price are thieves.
Part of my motivation to work within the system, to serve in our military, to pay taxes, to vote for leaders and improvements in the law, to contribute to our society is to secure a future of these advantages for my children and my children's children.

It may be unfortunate for some to be born of a family in a impoverished country. However, the great majority of mankind is so born. However, there is still an opportunity to join another country and live according to that society's laws and expectations...and many do so to enter the United States of America. It may be that this is an extension of the "survival of the most fit" among societies. The genetic offspring of those willing to work to succeed, would seem best to begin their lives as members of their society.

It is within this framework that I ask those who steal from my ancestors, why they cannot work to succeed within their own country and pass down to their children the resulting advantages. It is within this framework that I ask those who take from this society, why they do not contribute to the welfare of all within it.

Remember the USA was also a colony. It was not a land of great wealth, advanced medical care, or advantages equal to the society from which colonists left. The majority of citizens of this colony did not return to their native country to spend their earnings and support their families there. They did invest themselves and their earnings in improving this society; they did fight tyrants to secure and maintain this country; and they did welcome others who wished to do the same for their lives and a future for their children. Other countries in the Americas began much the same. Why are they not equal to the US in advantage to their citizens?

At this point in history, there are other countries in the Americas with great resources, who could develop within their societies much improved lives for themselves and their offspring.

Herein I have asked many questions. All men are not born equal, nor do they have equal opportunity and it is merely a romantic notion to think otherwise. I do not advocate that all mankind should propagate. I do advocate that the survival of mankind depends upon the advance of the brightest, the best and the most capable willing to work for the survival of those societies that have evolved successfully. Let those who can do this in the United States of America live here and come here. Let others fend for themselves in their society.

My concern is that the USA is not fending for itself when it advances the less than bright, welcomes the less than best, supports too many less capable and sustains those unwilling to work in contribution.

New Orleans : How did we get here?

I received this in an email and checked the authenticity of the author and this article - and it is valid.
I add my comment at the end.

Moral poverty cost blacks in New Orleans

Posted: September 21, 2005

1:00 a.m.Eastern

REV Jesse Lee Peterson


Say a hurricane is about to destroy the city you live in. Two questions:

What would you do?

What would you do if you were black?

Sadly, the two questions don't have the same answer.

To the first: Most of us would take our families out of that city quickly to protect them from danger.


Then, able-bodied men would return to help others in need, as wives and others cared for children, elderly, infirm and the like.
For better or worse, Hurricane Katrina has told us the answer to the second question. If you're black and a hurricane is about to destroy your city, you'll probably wait for the government to save you.
This was not always the case. Prior to 40 years ago, such a pathetic performance by the black community in a time of crisis would have been inconceivable. The first response would have come from black men. They would take care of their families, bring them to safety, and then help the rest of the community. Then local government would come in.
No longer. When 75 percent of New Orleans residents had left the city, it was primarily immoral, welfare-pampered blacks that stayed behind and waited for the government to bail them out.
This, as we know, did not turn out good results.

Enter Jesse Jackson and Louis Farrakhan. Jackson and Farrakhan laid blame on "racist" President Bush. Farrakhan actually proposed the idea that the government blew up a levee so as to kill blacks and save whites. The two demanded massive governmental spending to rebuild New Orleans, above and beyond the federal government's proposed $60 billion. Not only that these two were positioning themselves as the gatekeepers to supervise the dispersion of funds. ?/FONT≈ap;a?p;g;
Perfect: Two of the most dishonest elite blacks in America, "overseeing" billions of dollars. I wonder where that money will end up.
Of course, if these two were really serious about laying blame on government, they should blame the local one. Responsibility to perform ? legally and practically ? fell first on the mayor of New Orleans.
We are now all familiar with Mayor Ray Nagin ? the black Democrat who likes to yell at President Bush for failing to do Nagin's job. The facts, unfortunately, do not support Nagin's wailing. As the Washington Times puts it, "recent reports show [Nagin] failed to follow through on his own city's emergency-response plan, which acknowledged that thousands of the city's poorest residents would have no way to evacuate the city."
One wonders how there was "no way" for these people to evacuate the city. We have photographic evidence telling us otherwise. You've probably seen it by now ? the photo showing 2,000 parked school buses, unused and underwater. How much planning does it require to put people on a bus and leave town, Mayor Nagin?
Instead of doing the obvious, Mayor Nagin (with no positive contribution from Democratic Gov. Kathleen Blanco, the other major leader vested with responsibility to address the hurricane disaster) loaded remaining New Orleans residents into the Superdome and the city's convention center.
We know how that plan turned out.

About five years ago, in a debate before the National Association of Black Journalists, I stated that if whites were to just leave the United States and let blacks run the country, they would turn America into a ghetto within 10 years. The audience, shall we say, disagreed with me strongly. Now I have to disagree with me. I gave blacks too much credit. It took a mere three days for blacks to turn the Superdome and the convention center into ghettos, rampant with theft, rape and murder.
President Bush is not to blame for the rampant immorality of blacks. Had New Orleans ' black community taken action, most would have been out of harm's way. But most were too lazy, immoral and trifling to do anything productive for themselves.
All Americans must tell blacks this truth. It was blacks' moral poverty ? not their material poverty ? that cost them dearly in New Orleans.
Farrakhan, Jackson, and other race hustlers are to be repudiated ? they will only perpetuate this problem by stirring up hatred and applauding moral corruption.
New Orleans, to the extent it is to be rebuilt, should be remade into a dependency-free, morally strong city where corruption is opposed and success is applauded. Blacks are obligated to help themselves and not depend on the government to care for them. We are all obligated to tell them so.

---

The Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson is founder and president of BOND, the Brotherhood Organization of A New Destiny, and author of "Scam: How the Black Leadership Exploits Black America.
Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson is a black man.

---

Now let's take race out as the issue. Other races in New Orleans behaved poorly like this also, just as there were blacks who took responsibility for their own safety and that of their community. White or black isn't the issue. We have developed an attitude of "victim" for all things bad. We have enabled too many to depend upon the providence of government, society and charity for their lifelong sustenance. The result is we are victims of government, society and charities which thus are all bad.
I have been reminded that there is no biblical reference to support the idea that God helps those who help themselves, but I believe we should, and only help those who help themselves.


How did we get here? Irresponsible, missplaced and indulgent charity. The victim as excuse.


How do we get better? Remove the middleman in charity. Help your immediate neighbor up front and personally.

To be honest

P.S.
I've come to adopt a perspective now, with such religious conviction, that truly you cannot cheat an honest man...and that given time and opportunity, most people will do the right thing. It's a comforting feeling to know there is a protective God present at every human endeavor. I think you would agree.

However, I'm practical enough to know that doesn't mean one might consider having been cheated in an exchange, if you didn't at least receive an education and at least learn who not to associate with. But you know God promises to avenge our pain, that he will repay, and I shudder to realize the enormity of that. I cannot fathom what resources are available to an avenging God nor the extremes he is capable of...if they could but be measured. Nothing I could do as revenge could approach that rendered by God.

Just believing is what makes an honest man succeed. Learning that another cannot be trusted, early instead of later when the damage would be worse...improves his odds.

while we know "that not a sparrow falls to the earth...and unto the least of these" to be truths...no interpretation of those words excludes the "most and best", to share in his promise...and you are certainly that.

Advanced citizenship

You are warned.
What follows is a plethora of perspectives which originate from or are promulgated by one single person and his pursuit of the meaning of life. If there is one.

I decide.
I may include items which not only seem but are inconsistent with my views. Do not be alarmed, but do be aware, that in consulting other views one often finds answers or clarification in that other source’s pursuit. This then becomes a matter of interpretation, the lens through which we view data to become “information” in a sense of factual analysis. I see no irony in the observation of police investigators that a crowd viewing a crime in progress later has a thousand variations of what occurred that they can recall and some in complete contrast. I am but one person in the crowd.

I am arrogant in this effort.
I decide what to present as though my perceptions are better than others. I want to think by the inclusion of “materials inconsistent with my analysis” I gain a high degree of accuracy, because I can steer this pursuit against the flow by examining any differences between what I see against what another sees. I can change course based upon the best analysis even if not my own.

So I decide and I am arrogant. It is possible that I offer value in my pursuit. If so, it is logical to assume that some other mind’s pursuit will view my perspectives in equal manner and also achieve a higher degree of accuracy.

I am also kind hearted.
I share what I see with any who finds it of value…even…perhaps specially so, those who disagree and will present it as example of inaccuracy. That is another person in the crowd. He is also fallible. However, I must grant the possibility their analysis is accurate and mine is not. Therefore you are warned.

My first concept is that if such individual views and analysis were codified and linked via our existing means of communication medium, it would be possible to arrive at the best decisions of many persons. This concept suggests that it would be possible to not only achieve a government for the people, but a government of and by the people. I believe that the consensus of our personal beliefs and a decision process of our best minds in aggregate can achieve more (or less) in legislation than the representatives in our government houses; more justice in our courts; and much more oversight of the Executives we appoint.

If you can imagine the body politic as a human body, the concept becomes easier to understand.
We have sensors throughout our body that can instantly advise our brains via a nerve system.
Technology can provide a similar communication system that would enable each of us as sensors. My point is not that a majority rule can run our world quickly now. My concept is a system that can be capable of advanced consult with the best of us in making decisions for the public good and individual rights.

History has documented human behavior that government revolution arises eventually when the desires of the citizens are not in the rule of the country.

One argument is the degree and relative environment of dissent necessary to ignite the effort of change.

Another argument is that the means to present the desires of citizens is and has been too slow to effectively steer the course of government.

A third argument is that not every sensor in the body is capable of addressing the variety of input that is presented to our consciousness. Democracy is fine, but we don't seek the advice of every neighbor to determine a majority in making a medical diagnosis for surgery. However, in fact, a majority of some group does determine medical diagnosis and treatment. In fact a majority of some group does make the decisions. My thought is that whatever group that does it is often much less than the available intelligence for any specific discipline.

A fourth argument can be demonstrated as a desire to permit all persons to have their turn at being right - to decide what and how. Their sense of fairness suggests that out of every one hundred decisions, they get to make at least one with no other justification for their decision.
All decisions are arbitrary anyway, so why can't theirs be? Or why do all decisions have to be justified anyway, can't you have some made purely from sentiment, charity or mercy? Their decisions would not necessarily be in the best interest of all of the people.

A fifth argument is that the flaws of government merely reflect the flaws of humanity. This is my thought. The flaws of government are that the reflection of the governed seen by the governing, is a poor one. Further, even seen accurately, some of the governing choose to ignore what they don't want to see. sometimes even for personal gain. It would seem as though any human group is inevitably doomed to flawed government. My thought is that within any area of expertise there are large numbers of people who excel in one or more specific disciplines. Why is it that given a decision to be made, we can't get the best answer from the best mind available for that data analysis? None of us is perfect, yet the sum of our collective best decisions would enable a best of all worlds if not perfect progress in our pursuits.

This concept and details of topics could be expanded in many directions. It is a search or journey as you wish. If you have no interest or expertise in a topic I have presented, do not reply or comment...be quiet and learn. If you do have some degree of interest or expertise then I welcome your input. You extend your ability to form the sensors of government in my concept by the degree of attention or importance a pursuit should receive and provide the most informed decisions and thereafter monitored by everyone.

Although I said I would decide, eventually you decide. You who read these commentaries and post your thought and observations decide and so do I as just one in the crowd and perhaps a more attentive observer.

One of my mentors described systems as a balloon When you push your finger into the balloon in one place, the air just pushes out at another. The bigger the balloon the less effect of a single finger pushing will shape it. His point was that in resolving any specific problem, a resulting problem arises or is created.

What I see is another aspect. If the sum of the areas to be pushed can communicate and be collectively advised...the shape of the balloon will not necessarily be round. The analogy further portrays that while the shape achieved will not be exactly as intended, it will be as close as you could expect overall. In this fashion we could shape the governing and their reach and advantage into our lives.

All of this presupposes advanced citizenship - citizens who contribute their best answers in areas they have interest or expertise. To be unselfishly honest.

I imagine. If I have an automobile accident, I can reliably get the best advice from all those who reported having had an accident, and determine thereby what to do and who best to do it with.
Imagine knowing that you could trust what needed to be fixed was fairly fixed by a competent mechanic. ..because you elected to go in the direction experts advised if you wanted.
I imagine. When an individual asks you for the job as county commissioner you can get the knowledge of everyone who knows him well regarding his ability etc. Not the guy who looks good in a campaign or got the most money to advertise. Not a mouthpiece for one organization special interest group or another. Well, you might get a lot of honest genuinely good candidates who have the ability to do the job... Then you decide. If you have no interest or expertise don't vote. If you do and you've consulted the information of other experts in deciding, then vote.
I imagine. This system would invariably identify dishonesty...people who like sensors that consistently send false reports and thus are ignored. This system does the same regarding accuracy and excellence.