LET'S GET DOWN TO BRASS TACKS

In regard to Bernie Sanders the Revolutionary and Hillary Clinton the Reformist Frontrunner:
let’s get down to brass tacks and become more pragmatic.  How do you incorporate a revolution (or progressive reform) into a status quo establishment bureaucracy?

How do you avoid serving the interests of the 1% when immediately upon taking the oath of office and being declared the newly sworn-in President, you become part of the establishment; part of an Executive Branch that is already captured by the Plutocracy; beholden in many ways to the Special Interests that have infiltrated the bureaucracy from top to bottom?  Pragmatically, how will either Bernie or Hillary begin to overcome that influence on the first day in office?  My answer: start change happening before inauguration and sign orders for certain changes on the very first day, followed by more in the first 100 days.

As usual, I have a few suggestions.

1)      Issue an Executive Order denying access to any Executive Branch member by registered lobbyists;

-Require reporting by employees of any contacts made that call for special consideration or privilege for themselves or for a client

-Require the public reporting of all contacts that have reference to the writing of regulations

-Institute policy that no regulations may be published without full disclosure (public listing) of the persons and entities who had any input to the construction or promulgation of those regulations;

2)    All regulations or policies issued must contain an explanation of how persons most directly affected by such had access to the process of development, and what consequences the proposals will have upon those affected constituencies.  All legislation should have the same requirements.  We must listen less to Special Interests and more to citizens actually affected.

3)      Initiate a review by Department and Office managers of all political appointments made by prior Presidents.  Those who oppose the major policies and directions of the new administration should be given the opportunity to work elsewhere.  All should be provided a listing of goals and objectives and directions of the new administration and given a chance to state how they see themselves contributing to those objectives. Agency managers will need to determine what appropriate measures can be taken within federal law and policy in regard to those who will not or cannot support the objectives of the new administration.

4)      Require a Consumer Advisory Council in every Department, composed of ordinary citizens, who will have the right and the obligation to comment upon the policies, practices, budget, and operation of every agency and administrator within those departments

5)      Name at least 2 progressive citizen advocates to every Inspector General’s office to be a part of the operations of that office.  Spell out their duties and include information about this in employee training.

6)      Require training within first 3 months for every member of every agency relevant to:

                --Team functioning and shared leadership – incorporate citizen volunteers into this

                --Problem solving techniques, including a practical application

                --Consumer advocacy touted and outlined as to requirements

                --Effective constituency service stressed

                --Requirements, both practical and philosophical, of the current administration

                --Teach the basics of reform and revolution; examine what makes change happen

                              --Develop input to each agency’s Mission and Purpose statements

   --Have each employee/trainee develop individualized personal goals related to       Administration’s overall Mission and Purpose statements and those of the agency in which they work

7)      Require a Mission and Purpose statement for every department and agency with input from at least 50% of the employees of those offices. Each Statement must indicate how they coincide with the Mission and Purpose of the new Administration

8)      The new President should meet with every Department to lay out the Mission and objectives of the new Administration and to rally the personnel to new heights of consumer and constituent awareness, service and advocacy.  These visits should happen annually, but the first year is crucial.

9)      Name the citizen appointees to each advisory council and to the Office of Inspector General; make clear the duties and boundaries of citizen volunteers

10)    Require new Department Heads or their Deputies to meet with their Citizen Advisory Council at least quarterly; establish ways to meet more often through electronic means

11)   The citizen advocates must be given access to the Office of the President – spell this out

12)   Have every department immediately initiate review of outside contracts with input of citizens in Inspector General offices to that process; publicize those contracts that are terminated or substantially revised

13)   Require an evaluation process to be undertaken within every department and agency. Utilize training sessions to aid in development of guidelines for such an evaluation process. 

14)   Evaluation of practices is key to effective change and adjustment.  It must be instituted at least yearly in every Department and participated in by the citizen advocates. The process should include, at least:

§  Evaluation of operations related to goals and objectives that stem from Mission and Purpose; what is the agency doing well; where can improvements be made; what new goals and objectives are needed?

§  Evaluation and audit of spending and of the budget: was it effective and efficient?  How well does the budget reflect and relate to the goals and objectives, Mission & Purpose? What can be cut back, enhanced, made more relevant to the Mission; what needs to change? What needs to be increased; what new goals and objectives are suggested by this review?

§  Evaluate the impact on consumers; invite consumers in to be part of the evaluation; find out how consumers/customers feel about activities, services, personnel responsiveness, effect of programs/services on their lives.

§  A final report of the evaluation in each agency must be made available to the White House within a reasonable time, and the responsible White House staff must respond with comments and recommendations within 3 months from receipt.

Impractical?  Impossible?  Unworkable?  Wasteful?   These words are NOT RELEVANT.  All of the above are necessary activities and practical measures that have been neglected over the years.  They are proven methods of operation that should have been instituted and nurtured instead of being ignored, or met by indifference and apathy.  After years of such negative approaches, undue influence by those opposed, and by misplaced and inadequate customer service, the road back seems impossible, but is not.  There are plenty of accomplished and competent trainers available for teaching such practical tasks and techniques.

CHANGE is hard, but if never instituted, it gets harder.  And, you will never see real change until there are trained and valued “change agents” in the Executive Branch of Government (and in the Congress as well).  We must allow our federal employees to suggest, implement, grow and nurture big broad practical ideas and actions or we will be left with the same old philosophy – ‘don’t rock the boat’, ‘don’t muddy the waters’, ‘don’t say anything, just do your job.’  We must be willing to allow and encourage revolutionary or reformist thinking and attitudes because the Status Quo is simply easy to maintain without interruption.  However, status quo thinking is also the path to calcification and unresponsiveness to principles and to constituencies; to consumer rights, needs and requirements.

Revolution or radical reform are far more difficult to effect if one does not start right away to get at the root motivations, attitudes and objectives of those charged with the everyday work of an organization.  It is the status quo and “daily grind” that stand in the way of meaningful progress toward fundamental change.

So, here’s one more practical thought:  why not consider naming a Vice-presidential candidate with this whole scheme in mind?  In other words, bring on a Vice President with expertise in making the bureaucracy work, not only day-to-day, but with an attitude that each person can and should make a revolutionary difference in how government operates.  (How about Cory Booker? Or Elizabeth Warren? Or, Julian Castro, current Secretary of HUD and former mayor of San Antonio?)

The Executive Branch of our government cannot be a revolutionary or actively progressive Vanguard unless there is a clear understanding of what that means for each employee individually, and for all of them collectively.  I personally would like to hear more about practical, pragmatic steps that will be taken by Bernie or Hillary to bring about fundamental change when one of them takes possession of the Oval Office.   How about you?   

[Want to read some more practical, pragmatic suggestions for governmental action, try some postings like:   6/20/2010, 2/20/2011, 2/3/2013, 4/14/2013, 3/23/2014, 5/26/2014, 7/21/2014, 10/13/2015, 10/18/2015 and 2/8/2016]  

Cruz Wants "Dominion"

I have written about Ted Cruz before, and let me simply re-iterate some of what I said.  It's important to understand that he is as dangerous as Mr. Trump.  Perhaps he is more dangerous because he has a religious agenda outside the mainstream of Christian thought in this country and that religious agenda drives almost everything he says and does.  It is certainly at least partially responsible for his penchant for driving his Senate colleagues to the brink.  He doesn't care what they think because he undoubtedly believes that most of them will not be part of the religious elite who must take over and run our government in connection with the "Last Days." 

Here are some of the tenets he holds:

• Wikipedia reminds us that the term "Dominion Theology" is derived from the King James Bible's rendering of Genesis 1:28, the passage in which God grants humanity "dominion" over the Earth.
  ‘And God blessed [Adam and Eve], and God said unto them, "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."
• Many Christians "typically interpret this passage as meaning that God gave humankind responsibility over the Earth, but the distinctive aspect of Dominion Theology is that it is interpreted as a mandate… in civil affairs, no less than in other human matters." 
• Thus, “Dominion Theology or Dominionism is the idea that Christians should work toward either a nation governed by Christians or one governed by a conservative Christian understanding of biblical law” (not unlike Muslim belief about Sharia law!). 
• Some elements within the mainstream Christian Right have been influenced by Dominion Theology authors. Indeed, some writers have applied the term "Dominionism" more broadly to the mainstream Christian Right, implicitly arguing that the movement is founded upon a theology that requires Christians to govern over non-Christians. In the early 1990s sociologist Sara Diamond and journalist Frederick Clarkson defined Dominionism as a movement that is much broader in scope, extending to much of the Christian Right. 
• In his 1992 study of Dominion Theology and its influence on the Christian Right, Bruce Barron wrote,
  “In the context of American evangelical efforts to penetrate and transform public life, the distinguishing mark of a Dominionist is a commitment to defining and carrying out an approach to building society that is self-consciously defined as exclusively Christian, and dependent specifically on the work of Christians, rather than based on a broader consensus.”
• According to Diamond, the defining concept of Dominionism is "that Christians alone are Biblically mandated to occupy all secular institutions until Christ returns." In 1989, Diamond declared that this concept "has become the central unifying ideology for the Christian Right" in the United States.  Journalist Chip Berlet added in 1998 that, although they represent different theological and political ideas, dominionists assert a Christian duty to take "control of a sinful secular society."

In 2005, Clarkson enumerated the following characteristics shared by all forms of Dominionism:
1.  Dominionists celebrate Christian nationalism, in that they believe that the United States once was, and should once again be, a Christian nation. In this way, they deny the Enlightenment roots of American democracy.
2.  Dominionists promote religious supremacy, insofar as they generally do not respect the equality of other religions, or even other versions of Christianity.
3.  Dominionists endorse theocratic visions, insofar as they believe that the Ten Commandments, or "biblical law," should be the foundation of American law, and that the U.S. Constitution should be seen as a vehicle for implementing Biblical principles

Dominionists like Ted Cruz are playing a far different game than the usual representatives to Congress.  They are focused on a biblical interpretation that most of us would not accept: that governments and power structures in this world must be transformed into Christian entities in preparation for the end of time and the Second Coming of Jesus the Christ. 

Dominionism, says one Blog writer, Mike Nash, “simply means that Christians have the responsibility to take over every aspect of society and to govern solely in accordance with Biblical law. These Christians believe that until we have a theocracy, Jesus will be delayed in His return.  In short, Jesus will come only after Christians succeed in establishing Christian rule over the earth.”

Consequently, Dominionists cannot be dissuaded from their views by mere politics or mere politicians.  They view their mission as sacred, not mundane.  They are committed to either a shut-down of secular governments world-wide, or to the take-over of national government by God’s “bankers” and “kings” -- presumably white, fundamentalist, evangelical Christians!  Put Cruz's successful movement (and filibuster) to shut down the national government or defaulting on the national debt in this context and you will understand why he did not worry about what any of his colleagues had to say because his dominionist motives are much higher in his eyes. 

If you don't know it already, you should know that Ted Cruz gets most of this philosophy and theology from his father, Pastor Rafael Cruz.  Brandy Zadrozny of the Daily Beast writes, "A Cruz spokesman told Mother Jones, “Pastor Cruz does not speak for the senator.” But after hearing the elder Cruz speak earlier this year, Glenn Beck said, 'It’s easy to see that the fruit doesn’t fall far from the tree in the Cruz household.'  Glenn Beck insists that Ted Cruz is God's pick for president. He's so sure, in fact, that he spent an entire segment of one of his radio shows responding to critics who suggested Cruz might not be the "divinely anointed" choice.

In the recent past, Rafael Cruz has given dozens of speeches and interviews that make some often offensive assertions, and although some of the quotes are dated, they are indicative of his belief system. The Daily Beast collected some of his craziest quotes and sentiments. Most of these quotes are inevitable results of what both Cruz's believe: that a righteous remnant or group of holy priests, kings and bankers will need to rule in every government before the Savior will make his Final Appearance.  Below are some examples of the elder Cruz quotes matched up with some from his son. But the most telling quotes come from Ted Cruz himself: 

"I've really had two heroes in my life. My father and Ronald Reagan." And, in response to ads that attack his Christianity as well as his conservatism, Cruz responded:  “I’m a Christian first, American second, conservative third and Republican fourth....” Just think for a moment of the outcry if a  candidate of Roman Catholic (JFK perhaps) or Muslim faith (Rep. Keith Ellison) had said the same!

Father: Marxist Obama should go “back to Kenya.”

September 12, 2012
North Texas Tea Party Meeting
Rafael Cruz had a birther moment last year at a gathering of Texas Tea Partiers. “We have our work cut out for us,” he said. “We need to send Barack Obama back to Chicago. I’d like to send him back to Kenya, back to Indonesia.” He went on to say, “We have to unmask this man. This is a man that seeks to destroy all concept of God. And I will tell you what, this is classical Marxist philosophy. Karl Marx very clearly said Marxism requires that we destroy God because government must become God."

 Ted Cruz:

"I am blessed to receive a word from God every day in receiving the scriptures and reading the scriptures. And God speaks through the Bible. 

God's blessing has been on America from the very beginning of this nation, and I believe God isn't done with America yet."

Father: The government is going to take all of your money and Obama has no problem with murder.
April 25, 2013
Hood County, Texas
In a speech before the local Tea Party, Cruz likened the United States under President Obama to Cuba under Castro, warned that the Obamacare “death panels” are coming, and said the government, which he called a “wicked rule,” wants to confiscate “our fortunes.”

Ted Cruz: How do we turn our nation around? President Obama thinks the answer is more and more government. Government is not the answer. You are not doing anyone a favor by creating dependency, destroying individual responsibility.

Pastor Cruz went on to lie about Obama’s record on abortion. “Do you realize,” he asked a room of conservatives, “the first bill President Obama signed into law was to legalize third trimester abortions?”

Ted Cruz:

I don't think it's government's job to find health care for people. I think it's the individual's job to find health care. 

I have been proud to fight and stand for religious liberty, to stand against Planned Parenthood, to defend life for my entire career. And here are a few more of his comments that show his obsession with this issue:

Planned Parenthood sells body parts of unborn human beings. (Sep 2015)

Allow vote to end Planned Parenthood's funding. (Aug 2015)

Prosecute Planned Parenthood for criminal violations. (Aug 2015)

Ban taxpayer funding of abortion and partial birth abortion. (Mar 2015)

Companies can deny insuring birth control. (Apr 2012)

Protect innocent human life with partial-birth ban. (Jul 2011)

Opposes public abortion funding. (Oct 2012)

Opposes churches providing birth control. (Oct 2012)

Father: Barack Obama is just like Fidel Castro.

July 5, 2013
FreedomWorks’ Free the People Event, Salt Lake City, Utah
In his State of the Union address, Obama said that if Congress refused to act on climate change, he would “direct my Cabinet to come up with executive actions we can take, now and in the future, to reduce pollution, prepare our communities for the consequences of climate change, and speed the transition to more sustainable sources of energy.” These words, Cruz said, are “the most ominous words I’ve ever heard.” Over shouts of “Tyranny!” Cruz said, “Not much different than that old bearded friend that I left behind in Cuba, governing by decree, by executive order, just like a dictator, like Fidel Castro.”
Ted Cruz: If I'm elected president, let me tell you about my first day in office. The first thing I intend to do is to rescind every illegal and unconstitutional executive action taken by Barack Obama.

Having principled men and women in office is how you protect yourself from tyranny, and that was something I learned from when I was 2, 3, 5 years old.

Father: Gay marriage is a government conspiracy.
August 10, 2013
Family Leadership Summit in Ames, Iowa
Gay marriage, Cruz asserts, is a government plot to destroy the family and institute its socialist agenda. “Socialism requires that government becomes your god. That’s why they have to destroy the concept of God. They have to destroy all loyalties except loyalty to the government. That’s what’s behind homosexual marriage. It’s really more about the destruction of the traditional family than about exalting homosexuality, because you need to destroy, also, loyalty to the family.”

Ted Cruz: The Obama administration came into Utah and said, 'We're not going to listen to what the U.S. Supreme Court said. 'We, the federal government, are going to recognize marriages in the state of Utah and Utah state law explicitly does not recognize as marriage,' and that was really, in my view, an abuse of power.

We need leaders who will stand unapologetically in defense of marriage.

There is a liberal fascism that is dedicated to going after believing Christians who follow the biblical teaching on marriage.

While I believe Cruz's Dominionism is by far the primary reason that Cruz is more dangerous to our democracy than Trump is not to say that Cruz doesn't possess other negative values that should be avoided at all costs.  Consider the following list:

Cruz believes in carpet bombing the ISIS enemy wherever they might be found (preferably in Muslim countries) in spite of the known collateral consequences of such bombing

He wants the U.S. Senate to be full of people who fight against civil rights: “It’s every bit as true now as it was then,” Cruz said. “We need 100 more like Jesse Helms in the U.S. Senate.
He wants to secure the borders and prevent illegal immigrants from gaining citizenship: In my view, any bill that insists upon that jeopardizes the likelihood of passing any immigration reform bill,” Cruz said.  "We need to finally secure our borders, enforce our laws, and stop the problem of illegal immigration."

He’s confused about climate change, saying global warming is not supported by data:“You know, back in the ’70s -- we were told there was global cooling,” he tells CNN. “And everyone was told global cooling was a really big problem. … The problem with climate change is there’s never been a day in the history of the world in which the climate is not changing.”

He wants to ban federal same-sex marriage: “If the citizens of the state of Iowa or the citizens of the state of Texas want to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman … the states have the constitutional authority to do so and the federal government and unelected judges cannot set aside the democratically elected legislature’s reasonable decisions to enact and protect traditional marriage,” Cruz told radio host Jan Mickelson. 

And the beat goes on (as listed on www.ontheissues.org)-- see that site for details):

On Budget and Economy:
Use debt limit as leverage for policy change. (Oct 2015)
Balanced budget amendment to stop bankrupting our country. (Mar 2014)    
Choice is more federal spending, or free markets & liberty. (Aug 2012)    
Endorsed by the Club for Growth, for pro-growth stances. (Aug 2012)    
Audit the Federal Reserve & its actions on mortgage loans. (Feb 2013)

More On Civil Rights:

• Don't empower more lawsuits by demanding equal pay. (Oct 2015)
• Supreme Court gay rights ruling undermines the Constitution. (Jul 2015)
• Pray against a court decision legalizing same-sex marriage. (Apr 2015)     
• Overturn Supreme Court with anti-gay marriage Amendment. (Oct 2014)    
• Voted NO on reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act. (Feb 2013)     
• Sponsored state definition of marriage supersedes federal gay marriage. (Feb 2014)

On Education:

Abolish the U.S. Department of Education. (Apr 2   

Supports ending racial preferences for college admissions. (Apr 2015)

Right to education: public, private, charter, or homeschool. (Mar 2015)       

Local control of education instead of Common Core. (Mar 2015)

Facilitate school choice for poor Americans. (Jan 2014)

Education decisions best made at local level. (Jun 2012)    

Block funding for Common Core; it's too heavy-handed. (Apr 2014)

On Foreign Policy:     

Break diplomatic relations with Cuba. (Mar 2016)

Neutrality on Israel is moral relativism. (Feb 2016)  

If Mideast strongmen still in power, better for US interests. (Oct 2015)        

Don't let world courts bind American sovereignty. (Sep 2015)        

Law of the Sea Treaty undermines US sovereignty. (Jun 2015)              

Vigorous sanctions against Putin; help eastern Ukraine. (Jul 2014)

America is indispensable; our allies need our leadership. (Jun 2014) 

There is much more, of course, but we've run out of space, and we can take another look at Cruz and his beliefs at another time.  One thing is clear:  this man must not become President of these United States.  And YOU and I, my friends, must help bring about that negative outcome for him!

Punishing Mothers Is Not Pro-Life

That’s what “the Donald” wants to do, although he doesn’t know exactly what punishment would be appropriate (is that like wanting to be “politically correct?”).  He definitely said that mothers who choose abortion would have to be punished in some way.  He also said that doctors who perform abortions would have to be punished if there is legislation making abortion illegal (and therefore an act of killing).  For Trump it perhaps sounded logical:  If abortion is made a crime, there should be criminal penalties. But his answer about women reversed what has been a near-unanimous posture of abortion opponents: that a woman should not be held criminally responsible.

 Donald has evolved from advocate of choice to a pro-lifer.  “I’m pro-life and I have been pro-life,” Trump says.  However, when he considered a run for president in 2000, Trump described himself in a television interview as “very pro-choice.” The clip was included this year in a TV ad by Senator Cruz.

In an April 2015 interview with the Des Moines Register newspaper, Trump expanded on what changed his mind:

“If you look at it, I said, ‘It really, really troubles me, and it really, really bothers me, the whole concept of abortion.’ This was years ago, and even then it really bothered me, but I went on the other side of the line,” Trump said. “But in thinking about it over the years, I’ve had instances, and one instance in particular, a friend had a child who they were going to abort, and now they have it, and the child is incredible. And the man, he changed his views also because of that. As I’ve grown older, as I’ve seen things happen in life, I’ve changed my views — and others have also,” he said.

Trump said he believes abortion should only be legal in the very rare cases when a woman is pregnant by rape or incest or when the life of the mother is jeopardized by the pregnancy. (Cruz believes in no exceptions – he wants a complete ban).  Trump brings up the GOP ‘gold standard’ to reinforce his position.

“Ronald Reagan had the same basic stances I had, and I absolutely believe in the three instances” of exception, he said. “I hope that I can convince (people) that I will be the best to save our country, and the fact is, I am pro-life.”

On Friday, April 1, 2016, the Donald appeared to change his stance once again, saying that current laws should remain in place, but finally admitting, after persistent questioning, that he is still ‘pro-life.’

Just as Donald seemed to be moving ahead quite steadily toward the Republican nomination, he threw this firebomb into the circus ring, and just about everyone came out of the woodwork to criticize his remarks and his attitude toward women.  So let’s count the ways this may have an effect upon Trump’s campaign and his possible nomination:

1)       It points up what to Progressives has been quite evident from the start: ‘the Donald’ is not prepared on the big issues, either from a factual view or from a political view.   

2)      He took an issue that so often is very important to a certain core of people on both sides of it, and made the issue one of importance to many.  Why? Because now the abortion issue is paramount in relation to the nominee for the Supreme Court.  That Justice will undoubtedly hold in hand the deciding vote on whether a choice to abort a fetus remains legal or whether it can be restricted by the Congress and/or by the states.  Most anti-abortion (pro-life) forces want a total ban on abortion, and are pushing for a Justice who will agree with that direction.

3)      But his remarks also made it plain that Trump has a ghastly shortage of knowledge and expertise when it comes to the big and/or important issues.  He was just woefully unprepared to deal with this under fire from Chris Matthews, and he showed it.  As Cathleen Decker, writing in the Los Angeles Times, put it :

“As Trump hastily issued a statement saying, in effect, that he didn’t believe what he had just said, his Republican challengers seized on his comments as proof that he lacked both the knowledge and conservative commitment to serve as president. Democrats cited his remarks as evidence that he and the rest of the Republican field have skittered too far to the right on an issue on which Americans are decidedly centrist.”

4)      Perhaps Trump and his staff now realize that this issue could affect his status at the Republican convention, where if he can’t win on the first ballot, the convention may be declared open to delegates voting for other than those to whom they were pledged.  

5)      Or, he may actually have realized that by his remarks, he gave away his position as the most moderate on abortion and on Planned Parenthood.  Now he is being taken to task by the other two candidates as out-of-the-mainstream.  He also met with the party’s central staff at the RNC to hear from them as to what his candidacy could do negatively for the other Republican office-holders on the ballot, and perhaps what his remarks could do to the convention itself.  According to commentators, there was some discussion of convention rules and procedures. (I just bet there was!)

6)      Perhaps what he also found out is: “What has changed most is the emphasis voters give the issue. A Gallup survey last year found a record percentage of Americans would only vote for a candidate with similar views on abortion rights—and abortion-rights supporters in that group now equal those opposing abortion.” (Los Angeles Times).

Let me remind you of a few other items that may have been unleashed by his contentious remarks:

1)      He may have run out the string on his outrageousness and on being able to say anything without losing supporters.  The next primaries will tell a lot about that.

2)      Women are going to decide this race to the White House, and losing Republican women over these kinds of remarks is not the smartest way to hold on to the lead toward nomination.  Several rather conservative women spoke out against the Donald on TV, and there may be more who are re-considering their support.  Let’s hope so.

3)      “Pro-Life” is a manufactured euphemism that needs to be taken apart piece by piece.   At least Trump goes so far as to laud Planned Parenthood for providing medical care for women and not just abortions.  But Mr. Trump, and a good many of our conservative politicians, have got to place more emphasis where it belongs – on life that has a longer span than just nine months in a mother’s womb.  There is a whole lot more to being pro-Life than being against abortion.  Let me count some of the ways.  (I am indebted to the book “Reign of Error: The Hoax of the Privatization Movement and the Danger to American Public Schools” by Diane Ravitch for many contributions to the following thoughts).

a.      Pre-natal care in this country is abominable.  Of 184 countries assessed for a study by international organizations including the WHO and March of Dimes, the US ranked 131^st for its failure to prevent premature births; prematurity being the second leading cause of death worldwide among infants. Only a handful of countries in sub-Saharan Africa, Pakistan and Southeast Asia rank below us. So if we can launch expensive programs to combat poor international test scores in math and science, why can’t we summon the resolve to make the US first in the world in ensuring that every woman receives the pre-natal care she and her baby need? “Reducing preterm births with excellent prenatal care would improve the life chances of half a million children in the US every year.”  It would guarantee that more children are healthy and ready to learn and improve educational and life performance by preventing many cognitive and emotional disabilities.  Moreover, it would save a large amount of the money we spend trying to remediate those disabilities in future years.  What are Pro-lifers waiting for?  The sky to fall?

b.      Parenting classes for men and women are few and far between.  Real Pro-lifers can’t avoid the need for a large concentrated effort to teach parenting skills in this country.  In addition, that March of Dimes report had some specific recommendations of its own: improve nutrition, family planning services (Planned Parenthood anyone?), health education; reduce substance abuse, sexually transmitted diseases and exposure to environmental pollution.  Improve access to quality childbirth services and to emergency obstetric care.  Being Pro-Life is a major undertaking given the need to do so much.  What an excellent place to begin taking meaningful steps toward an effective and money-saving plan for real Pro-Life reform!

c.       Many disadvantages experienced by adults start way before the first day of school. Many factors of one’s early socioeconomic circumstances affect the life outcomes for many individuals.  But we know of something else that can influence the readiness of children to learn and to prosper.  Researchers have shown us that early childhood education is a major key to reducing the disadvantages of economic and social dysfunction.  Day Care and pre-school programs are not at all what they need to be.  We are woefully behind other advanced nations. Politicians, particularly conservatives, need to expand pro-life advocacy by funding and supporting universal pre-K.  We need desperately to get all our children started on the road to a better life with a proven boost for success later on in life. Early intervention not only enhances life prospects of our children; it has a high benefit-cost ratio and a high rate of return for the investment.  Defunding Head Start and obstruction of funding for universal pre-K instruction is not a Pro-Life stance.  It is a huge wasting of life potential.

d.      Secondary education is equated far too often with high test scores in math and science and not nearly enough with a Pro-life stance to provide children with clean and effective school buildings, small classes, great teachers, and unmatched technology.  But we can’t stop there.  We must provide a full and balanced broad-based curriculum with built in extras for the gifted and for those with disabilities.  We must teach the rights and responsibilities of citizenship; teach more languages; broaden knowledge of the world, enrich understanding through literature and history. Author Ravitch concludes: “Tests do not measure character, spirit, heart, soul, potential.  When overused and misused, when attached to high stakes, the tests stifle the very creativity and ingenuity that our society needs most.” Our society cannot afford to overlook the importance of a quality liberal arts education free to all who need and desire to seize its proven advantages.

e.      A broad Pro-life stance is synonymous with the evocation of the human spirit as illuminated through the arts, music, dance, drama, community service.  No one can claim to be truly Pro-life if they abandon the enhancement that comes from nurturing the human spirit. But as an aside, this does not mean that public schools should also teach religion (except in a comparative and historical sense).  It is not the job of the state to promote religion because that always ends up in a war over who is right and whose belief system should rule all others. We can effectively inculcate human values without forcing a particular religious belief or practice upon children.

f.        A real Pro-Life stance has to do with the promotion and support of some other values t shown through the centuries to have outcomes that enhance living.  Let us not forget athletic competition in sports and other areas, and resulting awards for excellence.  But let us not only promote competition, let us expand the role that collaboration, teamwork and shared leadership have within our society, our economic endeavors and our well-being.  It is time to bring the concept of working as Teams into the education classroom and to stress the intrinsic value of working cooperatively with others. Supporting others and encouraging others to succeed where they have previously fallen short, or been handicapped in some way, is not a choice; it is a necessity.  Being truly Pro-Life means placing high value on the contributions of every Team member.   

g.      Let us also realize that Pro-Life is pro-active in validating and enhancing every life and all of life.  This means that we cannot separate out or discriminate against people with differences, handicaps, disabilities, inabilities, challenges, certain skin color, ethnicity or orientation.  Being Pro-Life means respecting, supporting and providing equal opportunities for all who inhabit this earth.  If one is truly Pro Life, one cannot also be a bigot, a racist, a misogynist, a xenophobe or a snob.

h.      Being Pro-Life means being an equal opportunity promoter.  Equal schools, equal pay, equal opportunity to excel, equal opportunity to attain the best possible job, equal opportunity for a free college education supported by our taxes and our wealth-making and profit-taking.  We must also include the best possible training other than college for those who choose another way toward success – apprenticeship may be a potent tool in providing training toward the trades and skilled and unskilled work. Must we continue to have lotteries and games that support education when over $2 trillion languishes overseas in safe havens to escape taxes?  Someone who is Pro-Life must also be proactive in presenting broad-based opportunities for all young people (and others) to excel and to prosper, and then to contribute something back to a society that expanded their opportunities.

No, I haven’t finished this list by any means.  That’s because being Pro-Life should mean a proactive, positive approach toward life in all of its manifestations, and toward every individual over a lifetime outside the womb.   I cringe at self-proclaimed Pro-Lifers who believe, not in life-enhancing equal opportunities, but in the slow death of missed opportunity and discrimination and denial.  Denying equal opportunities to meet the fundamental educational and humanistic needs of children – such as denying access to universal pre-K, excellent teachers, a free public education, good jobs and a cooperative spirit promoted and practiced at earliest ages – is not pro-democracy, pro-life, pro-liberty or pro-pursuit of happiness.  It’s basically a form of nihilism, bent on division, diminution, discrimination, and destruction. 

Right-wing zealots cannot be true Pro-Lifers when they ignore the needs of children who have left the womb.  Protesting solely about the rights, health, survival and protection of fetuses during a nine-month gestation period is not being “Pro-Life.”  It can too often appear to be an excuse to hide from the responsibilities of supporting full lives well-lived.  The mere fact that many Pro-Lifers advocate against funds for pre-natal care and providing universal pre-K instruction and child care is enough hypocrisy to close the case against anti-abortionists being called ‘Pro-Life’ advocates.  Anti-abortionists parading as Pro-Lifers need to expand their vision and extend a life-giving hand to every child born into this world.  Anything less is hypocritical nonsense.

Vitalization and re-vitalization of other human beings should be our primary mission. Thus, if one is to be Pro-Life in a broader enlightened manner, one must be an opportunity-provider, an inspirer (one who breathes life into others), an advocate for hope and a pro-active architect and builder of a society structured to promote well-being and success for all, not just for the privileged few.  Being truly Pro-Life is exactly what most Right-wingers abhor: taking affirmative action on behalf of others who, so often in their eyes, do not ‘deserve’ such consideration. Like Donald Trump, too many of these conservative ideologues would rather restrict, control and punish people instead of serving the needs and aspirations of every human life by providing a plethora of opportunities to enhance their life beyond the womb.   Being truly Pro-Life is a full time job not a temporary avocation, and it doesn’t include punishing women!