The New York Abortion Law and Religious Values

The New York Abortion Law and Religious Values

A new abortion law in New York gives unrestricted abortion rights to women even up to the point of birth even if she is in labor. Surveys show that the majority of Americans want to preserve the right to abortion but also support restrictions so that abortion only takes place in the early months of pregnancy. Defenders of the new law say that such abortions only occur if the child is very deformed and unlikely to live or if the birth will be a real health detriment for the mother (though other doctors say that there is no health detriment to the mother in giving birth at that point, and that third trimester abortions are almost never needed.) Amazingly the legislature broke out in cheers after passage. Imagine cheering for having a right to kill a fully formed baby. God must be weeping and indeed ready to judge.

The reaction of conservatives and committed Christians was pronounced. Many Catholics said that Andrew Coumo should be ex-communicated. What is his defense? It is the same as his father. Though he is a Catholic, he cannot make religion a basis for what he supports in law for the larger society. This is a wrong view indeed. In a pluralistic society law reflects the moral consensus of the society. Different populations in the society form their moral views on the basis of their world views, whether Christian, Jewish, Muslim, secular, or Eastern religious. A society thus has morals, and all the streams of that society contribute toward that moral consensus. Than that consensus is reflected in the law. Since in the United States there is no one religious foundation for our laws, the law reflects the popular consensus, unlike in the past when Biblical morals were the foundation and unlike ancient Israel where God’s revelation was the law. However, the Biblical world view is a legitimate ground for our contribution to that consensus, and we seek to influence society so that the consensus would move toward the Biblical world view.

The law of a society is based in the morals of that society. This is the issue. For Hitler, the morals of Nazism allowed that you could kill those then called retarded or today challenged children. Because they society rejected that all human beings were created in the image of God, some human beings were not worthy of life. Professor Singer at Princeton supports killing fully born babies if they do not measure up and says they have less worth as developed dogs. If Governor Cuomo was a good Catholic, he would seek to see Catholic morals influence the moral consensus and thus the law. I note that killing the baby at the point of birth is not the moral consensus in the United States. It is tragic.

The religious basis of much of the law in the West goes back to the idea of the equal worth of every human being which is a Biblical idea. In classic Indian society, the poor and most needy are that way because they deserve it in their re-incarnation. In the Bible we are called to lift the poor and needy because they have equal dignity and worth. In Communism large populations were killed as a necessary step toward the classless society. The idea that our laws are decoupled from religious values is an incoherent idea. And when that decoupling more and more takes place, we will see society slip to greater barbarism, especially to those who are vulnerable.

Universal Medicare and Universal Free College

Leaders of the Democratic Party (some of whom are announced candidates for president) are calling for Universal Medicare including doctors’ visits and hospitalization. The same ones also call for free College for all who qualify. The bar is pretty low for qualifying. Here are my responses.

I understand the justified emotion on the issue of medical coverage. As a pastor I had congregants who were financially ruined after their coverage for chronic and serious medical conditions ended. We have to solve this problem. This is not a new idea or so radical an idea since some nations do have such coverage. This was part of the platform of Harry Truman in 1948i Those who oppose this talk about it adding tens of trillions to the national budget. However, this does not always take into account that the money put into private insurance would be switched into the government program, and if it is like Israel, the families pay the insurance tax on a sliding scale according to income. Yet there are several issues.

I don’t know why liberals never seem to face the terrible inefficiency of government programs. In addition, the fraud in Medicate is quite alarming. This plan will lead to rationing since the government never can pay for all that is needed in a fast and efficient way. We have this issue in Israel and have to use private insurance to overcome long waiting times even if the situation is serious. This plan will also continue to inflate costs and produce great pressure to expand spending. My view is that those who propose this too quickly seek solutions through bigger and bigger government. Again, I would like to see private insurance and real competition as over against todays cartel like situation with insurance companies, hospitals and the present domination of trial lawyers also increasing costs. If there were different kinds of medical accreditation which would qualify plans, even for some alternative medicine, people could be given vouchers when they cannot afford insurance. Genuine competition could bring down costs. And, yes, I think taxing heavily those that do not buy into insurance is important since we need all in the system to lower costs The state can back up catastrophic situations beyond the ability of the private insurance.

Free college is a terrible idea for several reasons. First, the money could much better be spent in elementary and high schools by giving vouchers to families to choose the school of their desire for their children. The public system has declined even in so called good schools. We need to equalize educational quality for children. Real justice requires a real choice giving real justice opportunity for children. Better to support vocational training for young adults as well.

In addition, accept for the hard sciences, much of today’s education is bankrupt. Do we really want to spend money for young people to study leftist sociological theories, or liberal arts that dismiss the great classics of western literature and philosophy and study drivel. I have great doubt about the worth of college education in all but some exceptional colleges that really preserve classical education. I actually believe that the present colleges and universities outside of hard sciences mostly need to die and that alternative higher education needs to be reinvented.

Real education has largely died in the leftist post-modern attack on classical education. So much of the cost of college is an unbelievable expansion of administrators and bureaucracy. There are better ways to lift the poor into opportunity than to have them sit in classrooms where education really is not happening.

Kate Hudson and Raising Children as Genderless

This week, Kate Hudson took objection to a misunderstanding of what she meant in not raising her youngest child, a daughter, as genderless. She claimed that she is not doing this. She only was saying that she wanted the child to develop naturally without fostering stereotyped roles. In fact, her child acts with feminine traits and is quite different than the boys. What do we think of the culture in the west going toward gender fluidity in defining sexual relationships.

One of the sad facts of western culture is not only the rejection of the historic standards derived from the influence of the Bible, but also from the wisdom of almost all developed cultures and even the wisdom of primitive cultures. That wisdom not only perceived the given distinction of male and female but sought to accentuate this distinction and to make the distinction more pronounced. Somehow it was perceived that the prosperity of the people, the tribe, or the nation required fostering the distinction. Why is that? It is that the bonding of male and female together in marriage requires significant distinction. It is that this very distinction attracts the sexes to one another and blurring the distinction undercuts this. The bonding of distinct males and females is a priority of all cultures. It is somehow perceived that not enhancing and fostering the distinction is destructive to society. We see this not only in biblical societies, but also India, China, Africa, Middle Eastern culture, Muslim cultures, Native American cultures and more. The intensity of attraction and last in relationship between the sexes in committed bonds require a strong distinction.

Sometimes the pattern of distinctions fostered by a culture are oppressive. The Chinese bound the feet of women in very painful processes so that they would take what they consider attractive little steps. Many times the Muslim world placed women in an enslaved position. It was not just to preclude women from careers of their interest in medicine, the sciences, and business. However, that boys learn to be men, handsome and strong, and women to be feminine, move with grace and to show that quality we know as feminine loveliness, is not oppressive. Yes, young girls will sometimes be tom boys, but they eventually and mostly grow out of this.

One of the great rebellions of our culture, and it is unprecedented in world history, is the attempt to break down the distinction of male and female. This will have a significant negative effect on marriages. The question on why the behavior of others should effect our commitments and why we should then oppose the LGBT agenda, is so short sighted. It Is not that it has to effect me and my marriage, but that it fosters a culture that does not value a lasting marriage between male and female. The effect of this on the culture as a whole is destructive and will lead to poverty and bankruptcy for many, and when children are not raised in intact traditional families the percentages of their success decline.

Happy New Year

We enter the new year with amazing political upheavals in the United States and China. Some are seeing amazing parallels between Israel and the United States. There are some, but there as significant differences. We need to pray for God’s will in these countries and the role they play in important matters especially as the United States is Israel’s key strategic partners.

First in the United States, however one evaluates Donald Trump, never did Israel have a more supportive partner. From moving the U. S. Embassy to Jerusalem, to the strong stand against hypocrisy in signaling out Israel for condemnation at the U. N., we in Israel are heartened. We witness the United States pulling out of UNESCO (United Nations Educational and Cultural Organization) because they bash and condemn Israel and do not recognize Jewish heritage in the Land and even in the Old City. We have been heartened by Nikki Hayley’s presentaitons at the U. N. Also Donald Trump pulled the U. S. out of the terrible Iran nuclear agreement which all sides in Israel say was a terrible agreement.

President Trump is now likely to face interminable investigations even if special prosecutor ends his investigation without any indightment. Indeed, the new Democratic House will be doing more investigations, and liberal New York prosecutors will go after the President’s business interests. The idea of President Trump being impeached and then convicted by the Senate is extremely remote, but the Democrats will have a neverending stream of news and coverage from a compliant pro-left media.

Second, in Israel we are having quite a political upheaval. Prime Minister Netanyahu has dissolved parliament and called for elections that will be held on April 9^th. This has produce some amazing results. Several outside of the government have formed new political parties. Naftali Bennett is forming a party that will include religious and secular leaders and is leaving his Orthodox party to seek to appeal to more Israelis. The former head of the military, Benny Gantz is forming a new party and seems to be getting traction. Former Defense Secretary Ya’alon is forming a party. Key people are laving the Kolanu party that was a partner to Netanyahu. Some think that Netanyahu’s action in dissolving parliament (the K’nesset) is in the context of losing the government control due to a new law on the draft which will cause the ultra-Orthodox to leave the government. The Supreme Court was requiring such a law. Others think that he is trying a pollical move to make it difficult for the Attorney General to bring an indightment against him. He is under investigation in several criminal cases. Meanwhile Israel is destroying tunnels from Lebanon that were built for an invasion of Israel from Hezbollah in Lebanon. Meanwhile Israel has just bombed Iranian targets in Syria. Russia complains against Israel while Iran seeks to build attack bases in Syrian and arms Hezbollah.

This is a time for much prayer, both for Israel, the United States and both together. Welcome to the New Year.

Transgender New York

Mayor Bill De Blasio signed a bill so that parents have three choices for the birth certificates for their children: male, female, and x. Under x a child can choose whatever gender they prefer. So now parents are not to raise their children to be boys or girls. This is child abuse.

However, when we realize that all the ruckus over the Supreme Court is really a symptom of something much worse, and that is the death of what was the consensus of basic morals and ethics in the United States. It is not only due process and innocence until proven guilty. That is a foundational biblical value. That people can no longer affirm boys and girls and think that gender is mere social construction or merely a personal choice when only real women can have babies, nurse, have periods, and then have menopause is so amazingly stupid. Romans would call this part of the reprobate mind.

The biggest issue in our society is that a good part of the society, the university, the Democratic Party, the news media, the entertainment industry and the social media titans with unbelievable wealth, have rebelled against the knowledge of God. Every social pathology is now embraced and fostered by these people, and those who disagree are said to be phobic in multiple ways. We are witnessing the downward spiral spoken of by Romans 1 where good and evil are no longer discerned and people call good evil and evil good. It started 150 years ago with atheistic evolution, but the last ten years are the climatic end of the process. We have to note that though the Republicans leave much to be desired, the Democrats have embraced every socially destructive cause and every aberrant group as a positive minority. It is so sad because it was not long ago that Evangelicals were a Democratic Party constituency and that Party was probably more moral and ethical than the Republicans. What a tragic direction. Read Romans 1:17 following and see the reality we are facing. May revival come or the U. S. will fall under severe judgment. As Billy Graham said many times, “If God does not judge the United States, he will have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah.” Or as the great judge and professor, Robert Bork wrote in his amazing book, the United States is Slouching Towards Gomorrah.

The Israel Surrogacy Law

On Sunday a strike has been called, and will be supported by Labor unions. It is a strike of protest against the recently passed law on surrogacy, where women can bear children for others and then give them to waiting parents who can not have children. What is the reason for the strike? It is that the law did not take into account the desires of the LGBTQ people in Israel. They desire that men and women singles can become parents through surrogacy and that the state will pay for it. The man and women can be any adults according to their own self identification (they can be bi-sexual, transgender, etc. etc.) The law only allowed surrogacy for married hetero sexual couples and single women, and single women can include lesbian single women. Israel does not marry homosexuals. What a sorry state we are in that such a strike can be called. Here are some thoughts.

1. What should my tax dollars pay for surrogacy? We are taxed to the hilt and there is so much demand for funds from poorly funded education, to research, to welfare. I am against surrogacy in principle. I think parents should adopt children that do not have good homes. I support international efforts to bring down the costs so it is doable for most people who could be good parents. Then we pay a woman to bear a baby for someone else?
2. Secondly, the far left and the sexual libertines simply do not want to face the massive studies that show again and again that the best situation for raising children is a family situation of a father and mother in a stable good marriage. One of the great characteristics of the far left is the great flight from empirical evidence. They paint a subjective picture of the way they want the world to be and will not bring that picture to the bar of empirical evidence that shows the consequences. We see this with the socialists who will not face what socialism does and with sexual libertines that will not face what their new “family” arrangements do to society.

And wait for the push for the rights of poly amorous communities to adopt.

That this movement has such support in Israel is really depressing. That our Prime minister was going to sign a bill that supported such broad acceptance for parents and surrogacy is alarming. In this case, thank God for the Orthodox community that pushed back against it, but the bill still goes to far in supporting surrogacy and single mother parenting. I was raised by my widowed mother, but had much to overcome by not having my father.

The Bible shows the way to health and would that it would be a greater influence on the way we see.

Anti Colonialism and Israel

Daniel Juster, Th. D. Restoration from Zion of Tikkun International

I want to write more on the foolishness of the anti-Western civilization orientation from the radical left. For some of these folks the basic problem with the world stems form white Europeans who foisted themselves on other more benign peoples and oppressed them. Israel then is demonized as a colonial imposition upon the native, innocent and peaceful Palestinian population. This completely misses the complexity of how Israel came into being, and the general opposition of the colonial powers after 1925. I mentioned in the last post that this claim of colonialism as something unique to white Europeans proves the ignorance of those who assert it.

The basic nature of colonialism is that a nation that is more powerful can take over and dominate a weaker nation and enrich themselves to the detriment to the weaker nation. Eventually their power grows to the point of dominating many peoples. Sometimes the colonial power does good for the subjected people and even civilizes them, but generally human selfishness brings much injustice.

Ignorance, self hatred or denial is the root of claiming that white Europeans are somehow and uniquely more evil than other cultures. A study of history shows that most peoples who became powerful and capable sought to control and dominate others. In ancient cultures, genocide was common. We see this in the history of the Middle East, India and China. The extent genocide, atrocity, torture to attain domination astonishes modern sensibilities. Yet some of these cultures produced great gains in art and science. China was formed form the dominant tribe subjugating all others. It was ruthless. The warfare in India with the goal of dominating the other tribes is an amazing and painful story. So also is the story of the conquering the colonialism of the Mongol hordes who came to power and ruled India for centuries. Japan was certainly a colonial power when they were able to be such a power and dominated Korea and East Asia. Korea was sometimes dominated by China and sometimes by Japan. Africa as well developed Kingdoms that were formed by a strong tribe dominating and controlling other tribes to their detriment. Africans sold other Africans into slavery as part of their war strategy. It is all a very sordid picture. Even today, we see China trying to take over the South China Sea and militarize it to their benefit and to the detriment of the nations surrounding their illegitimate territorial claims. Arab peoples conquered and dominated others forbidding their indigenous languages and cultures. Turkey was a major colonial power for centuries and subjected many peoples.

However, there is one nation that is an exception to this, at least in the original conception of this nation. Israel was formed to be the non-colonial nation. They were formed from the seed of Abraham to bless all nations. They were given a particular territory. Though they were to be an instrument of punishing the corrupt peoples of Canaan, they were told to not seek to conquer the nations around them, but to seek to live in peace with them. God would protect them without compromising alliances or becoming a colonial power. The goal and vision of Israel is that the nations would come into a place of peace under the rule of the Messiah. Isaiah 2 gives us the picture of all nations coming to Zion to learn the law of God and the Torah going forth form Jerusalem. The picture is that war has been ended and all nations are valued and able to find their own cultural affirmation in peace with other people. It is a picture where nations do not dominate one another. Though a great disappointment, the United Nations does reflect something of this biblical ideal in its charter, and even quotes the ideal of Isaiah 2 in the New York center, “They shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks.”

Israel does seek to bless the nations. They do not seek to be a colonial power. Yes, we have to deal with the difficult issue of the destiny of the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, who are not citizens; one state, two states, autonomy, linkage of the Palestinians to Jordan and Egypt. But the colonial accusation leveled against the only nation ever formed to be an anti colonial blessing to all peoples is a bogus accusation and it always has been.

Demeaning Women of the Past

Daniel Juster, Th. D. Restoration from Zion of Tikkun International

One of the astonishing aspects of modern culture is the inability to really empathetically evaluate cultures. Despite all the protestations for multi-culturalism, the truth is that never has there been such shallowness in evaluating cultures and such little empathetic evaluation. This is in part due to the loss of norms to evaluate. Evaluating the past with some degree of fairness is just impossible to so many today. No where is this more apparent than in how the lives of women before the feminist equality movement have been devalued. These women are looked at as slaves to their husbands and families because they did not have an outside life. Life is now evaluated in being able to get ahead in the world of business and the professions.

It is a good thing that women who have the desire for getting ahead in business and the professions have the freedom to do so. We respect a Condoleezza Rice who came to the top in her field. However, the lives of women who were or are today homemakers should be respected and valued. These women joined themselves to the important truth that the meaning of life is in personal relationships and not status and money. Two great books, Victor Frankl, Man’s Search for Meaning, and Bruno Bettelheim, The Informed Heart. Both these Jewish psychiatrists noted that those who survived psychologically in the brutality of the concentration camps of Hitler, were primarily those who found their meaning in relationships, relationship with God, the transcendent and/or other people. Those who defined their meaning in external attainment, mentally disintegrated. But radical feminists tell us that their meaning is their attainment of status and money like men. And for years we tried to change men to base their lives on relationships.

Women in those by gone years in homes that had decent income did not just stay at home and care for children. I would add that nothing is more fulfilling than raising children and bonding to them. Today many choose to not have children. The birth rates are dangerously low. These women sell their meaning in life for something so much less. But again, these women of the past did not just raise children and care for their husbands. They were the glue of those mediating community institutions, the clubs, the charities, the churches and more. These institutions make life humane. Much of this has been lost. These women were given to literary and artistic endeavours. They were patrons of the arts. They had time for reading, poetry, and painting. They read books that were enriching. Some developed a deep connection to God.

Only if we recover the truth that for most people the will of God is found in lasting marriages and raising children can we overcome the shallow evaluations of today. I can also say that as a man I am glad that I chose the relational. Marriage and family were and continue to be the sources of great fulfilment.

PRESIDENT TRUMP PULLS OUT OF THE IRANIAN NUCLEAR DEAL

The debate over the Iran nuclear agreement was fierce. Israel was fiercely opposed and this included the right, left and center large parties. In the United States, leading Democrats opposed the deal and not only Republicans. The Senate Majority leader, Chuck Schumer, was opposed. So was Senator Menendez of New Jersey. The opposition was by partisan. Candidate Donald Trump voiced his opposition to the deal and said it was not changed he would pull out. He continued to make the same stand after being elected. Despite the urging of the leaders of France, Germany and Great Britain, President Trump did just what he said he would do. This was done with the great support of Israel and Trump’s new Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo and the new National Security Advisor, John Bolton. The facts are well known, but each side in the debate emphasizes different facts though both agree to the same facts. It is a matter of human judgment that brings the argument. So here they are.

The facts for staying in are: 1. Iran has stopped production of the enrichment of uranium that could be enriched to produce a bomb. 2. Iran has dismantled the centrifuges that could to this enrichment. 3. Iran has allowed for inspection at its main nuclear sites. These facts are said to be sufficient for it to be worth staying in.

The facts for leaving are: 1. Iran lied about its earlier program, and truthfulness about that program was a requirement of the deal, so Iran has never been in compliance with the deal. 2. Iran does not allow military sites to be inspected or only inspected after a long period of preparation (more than 3 weeks). Nuclear research of some kinds may be going on there. 3. Iran is producing ballistic missiles whose primary purpose is to carry and deliver nuclear bombs. 4. Iran has a sunset clause so that after ten years they are free to pursue whatever they want to in regard to nuclear enrichment or bombs. 5. Iran has used the release from sanctions to build their military and to expand their military control and engagement around the Middle East to great destruction and to threaten Israel.

Those for staying in say that as the time for the deal comes to expire that new pressures can be put on Iran for a new deal. In the interim, the world buys time and the big bomb is on hold. Those for getting out say that if we do not have sanctions re-imposed now, Iran will be much stronger in military and economic might and will not have the incentive to stop their progress toward a bomb in the future. The West today is feckless. The desire to appease is so strong. The desire is to avoid present pain and danger at the cost of much greater future pain and danger. This is human nature. It was amazing to see President Trump resist incredible international pressure and pull out of the agreement. The view from Israel is overwhelmingly that he made the right decision. This is my view as well.

Progressive Conservativism

Daniel Juster, Th. D., Restoration from Zion

The term progressive conservative envisions moving society to a greater righteous and just order on the basis of conservative principles. The principles do not change but applications to new situations requires change. We seek progress toward a conservative vision of a just order. The left has used the term progressive for themselves, but it is really a regressive movement that seeks to bring back the overwhelming control by government that the founding Fathers of the United States rejected. Liberalism is regressivism and conservatives are the true progressives. We need to capture the language and say this over and over. Conservatives are not fixated in the past, but have principles that can move us all forward to greater justice.

The Definition of Justice and Righteousness.

In liberal and leftist philosophies, justice is never defined. Movements form the left depend on a vague emotional appeal based in the world justice without every defining justice. Generally, however, the word as they use it means equality. The full movement to this full equality leads to a communist or fully socialist order and a huge overarching state to enforce this equality. We reject the idea that disparities in wealth is unjust. Such disparities are an essential aspect of freedom and produce a dynamic that potentially can life the prosperity of all people.

The classical western understanding of justice was from Biblical influence. It was an order of society where every person and group could fulfill their God intended good destiny. Because talents, gifts and callings are greatly varied, there is no enforcement of equal incomes or equal status in society. The idea of the classical idea is that opportunity is to be maximized. By dong so, the musician, the entrepreneur and the employee, the farmer and the craftsmen can all find a fulfilling life. For a non Theist a person of no religion or even atheism could chose to be a progressive conservative on the basis of providing the maximum potential for human fulfillment according to a persons gifts, talents and desires for life fulfillment.

However, this requires limiting the oppression that can come from the wealthy whereby others are used as a mere means to maintain the wealthy class. Rather, the wealthy are caused to bless with their wealth.

Justice does include equality before the courts and for crimes, but does not mean that we have equal income or equal material wealth. Justice does seek an order where all who are willing to work have very adequate income, food, shelter, education and retirement.

Progressive Conservativism therefore seeks to incentivize the rich through tax policy that fosters investment that expands employment and greater opportunity for the general population. Tax shelter investments should be high taxed and economic expansion investment should be lower taxed. Training employees, potential employees and expanding opportunity will be favored. One can gain great wealth in a progressive conservative order but must use that wealth for the common good. We think especially of the late Rep. Jack Kemp and his enterprise zones in poor areas of the city etc.

Progressive Conservatives measure progress on the basis of more and more people being able to provide well for themselves and be free of government welfare.

Progressive Conservatives seek to limit the control by the super rich of our political system. As such we support a new system of political action committees. They can give to parties and candidates. They can give unlimited sums, but they are limited to receiving small donations thereby democratizing politics. People can still give limited sums to parties and candidates. Those who build PACs with large numbers of people will be the most influential in the political system.

Medical Care: The development of high teach medicine with its high expense but life saving potential requires new ways of thinking. Competition between hospitals, doctors, insurance companies etc. should bring down costs. However, unbeknownst to many, the medical industry has functioned as semi-monopolies and has produced by far the highest costs in the western world.

We support seeing that all are covered with basic insurance. Vouchers will be provided in sliding scale amounts so all can buy insurance. In addition, alternative medical systems and doctors that have their own credible accrediting agencies will be accepted for care as well. The government will broadly accept credible medical methods. Our goal is broad coverage, strong competition, accessible medical information on the results and ratings from doctors and hospitals and more.

Religious Freedom and the Roots of Western Civilization: The religious foundation of ethics and morals in western civilization is Judeo-Christian. We recognize that other religious traditions have overlapping values. One of the most important values is traditional marriage and family. Fostering the stability of traditional marriage and family should be the policy of the government. This is the bedrock of our civilization without which society as a whole will deteriorate and the quality of life will be greatly diminished. However, people are free to personally choose alternative life styles, gay, lesbian and transgender etc.

Those who make such choices have basic civil rights, to work, public education and public accommodation. However, religious people also have a right to reject such lifestyles and to teach that from their point of view such choices are immoral. This will not be considered hate speech, but simply traditional moral teaching. As such those who foster traditional morality who run private small business will not be required to be involved in gay weddings and events where their conscience in compromised by participation in fostering immorality.

In addition, bathrooms and showers will protect the privacy of all. This means that opposite sex bodily nudity will not be foisted on those who have traditional values. This means that no showers will be for mixed body sexes no matter the self-definition of a person. The government may foster accommodation to transgender people, but the one’s bodily sexuality, having a male of female body, will determine dressing rooms, shower rooms and bathrooms without stalls.

The military has great interest in cohesive units. They therefore will not be a place to seek to integrate people who choose unusual non-traditional identifications of sexuality.

Immigration: Immigration has been a great help to the nation. We believe in a legal immigration system for qualified people at rates whereby such people can be assimilated into the country. While seeking compassion for otherwise law abiding people who are illegal immigrants, that have been here for a long time, we from here on will strictly enforce the law for newcomers. Furthermore, those who made the decision as adults to come illegally may be given residency, but will never be given citizenship. Their children will be considered for citizenship. They will not be rewarded by chain migration whereby they can bring their extended family..

Education: Progressive Conservatives believe that government should not control education. There should be vouchers so parents can choose education. There can as well be vouchers for qualified students for technical training post high school and for other colleges to help those with good records acquire practical training. Such vouchers will only be given to schools that teach basic reading, writing and math skills plus the constitutional government of the United States. Other than this, competition should lower costs. There can be many kinds of schooling to fit the desires to the people. Many of today’s schools are centers of bad education and inflated beuracracies. Streamlining and real completion is essential for good education. They are hot beds of liberal indoctrination.

General public education must push the values of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence and will not undercut the moral and values of the people who send their children to these schools. Alternative lifestyle teaching will not be fostered. This can be fostered in private and voucher supported schools for people who desire this.

Under no circumstances should schools for children be used to indoctrinate them to embrace alternative lifestyles as equally moral to traditional marriage and family.

The Military and Defense: A strong modernized military is crucial for national defense. Also shared defense with freedom embracing nations is our first priority beyond our own defense. Lastly we will ally with nations that serve our national interest, but not with regimes that kill large numbers of their won innocent civilians.

With regard to genocide, we will be guided by the Proverb, “Rescue those being led away to death.” When the United States can use its air power and at little danger to itself, can stop genocide, it will do so. We failed to do so in the holocaust (bombing the trains leading to the camps), in Ruanda, and recently in Syria. It should be the policy that those with power must quickly and strongly respond to genocide.

The United Nations: We need an alternative to the United Nations where nations ruled by tyrants vote again and again to undercut Israel and the free world. The U. N. needs to become a forum without power while the power should be vested in a new organization of nations that practice human rights according to the U. N. Declaration of Universal Rights.

Nation Building and Free Societies: We will give ourselves to help nations to transition to freedom, but not with the foolishness of expecting immediate change in authoritarian societies, as if by a war and regime change we can bring freedom. Rather, free societies are a product of generations of education and the acceptance of such values that foster free societies. We will seek incremental progress by involvement with regimes that are open to progress. We recognize that freedom can be lost if its principles and values are not taught and fostered in each generation.

A Republic and a Democracy. The United States is not a democracy where the vote can determine all things. This would lead to the tyranny of the majority. Rather, the vote of an educated public (and the education part is crucial), is one part of checks and balances along with the Constitution, and balancing powers in the larger society. We are a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. The idea of this Republic is to see the greatest amount of government as possible closest to the people in towns, villages, counties, and states.

The goal of Progressive Conservatives is thus the prosperity of the greatest number of people without seeking equality in results.