MM#281--Welcome To Ohiofornia

Welcome to the Theory to Action podcast, where we examine the timeless treasures of wisdom from the great books in less time, to help you take action immediately and ultimately to create and lead a flourishing life. Now here's your host, David Kaiser.

Hello, I am David and welcome back to another Mojo Minute. Ohio goes radical. Just two days ago the state of Ohio went very radical. State of Ohio went so radical that it enshrined in its Ohio Bill of Rights the right to quote reproductive freedom. That was the title of the amendment passed by Ohio voters by a margin of 56 to 43. That's not just a right to abortion, with all the nuances that most Americans agree with in the last past 50 years. Nope, there's no carve outs for partial birth abortion. There's no carve outs for parental right notifications no way. Nope, the usual caveats that most Americans have been arguing over with the issue of abortion and its debate for the last 50 years have gone away. The state of Ohio voters in Ohio say you can kill an unborn child in the womb all the way up to term, all the way up to the term of the baby. Folks, there is no other way to put that. That's demonic, that is coming from the pit of hell. Period Full stop. And that's not even half of the powers in this amendment. We won't have time to talk about all the problems in this amendment, but it is horrific. This amendment is so broad and so sweeping in its language. And here's the coup d'et grâ. Here's the whipping on top with the cherry. Even on that same night, tuesday night, ohioans passed this radical quote reproductive constitutional amendment. Ohioans also voted in favor of state issue two, which commercialized, regulated, legalized and taxed the adult use of cannabis, not for medicinal purposes, but for all purposes. Now it's we are part of the other 24 states to legalize recreational use of marijuana. As Rolling Stone magazine so coined the term some time ago, it's no longer the United States of America, but the United States of weed. The only analogy in historical purposes I can think of of a large, very large country getting hooked on a drug like the United States is getting hooked on weed. Is China in the 1800s in the infamous opium crisis which plagued that nation for almost a century. Get that a century. And that didn't turn out well for them. I'm sure all of this will not turn out well for us either. Now back to us in Ohio. I've been in Ohioan for the majority of my life. Ohioans are a majority reasonable people. They don't sway too far out of the mainstream of even collective US political or cultural or social thought. Of the 50 US states, ohio is on the cultural spectrum, is always in the middle of the road not too far conservative, never too far liberal In presidential politics. We were part of that astonishing surprise when we voted voted for Donald Trump in 2016. And then we followed that up in 2020. But we were also part equally surprising win of Barack Obama when he won in 2008. And we followed that up with Ohioans voting for Barack Obama in 2012. In both instances, ohioans were part of the winning side. We were a bellwether of sorts, again, not too conservative, not too liberal, but most Ohioans call we are reasonable. Ohioans can get along with anyone. Majority of Ohioans are, like everyone in the Midwest Good values, good people, salt of the earth folks. So, even stretching back even further in our recent political history, a majority of Ohioans fell in line behind George W Bush in 2004 and in 2000, but supported the former Arkansas governor, bill Clinton, in both of his wins in 1996 and 1992. And you might remember, bill Clinton was the president who famously talked about wanting to get to a point in US history with the issue of abortion where quote it was safe, legal and rare. Whoa, we have blown the doors off that meager phrase now. So when you thought of Ohio, you thought of reasonable people. As my boss says, in the Midwest everyone is quote Midwestern nice Everyone says hello, everyone is not a jerk in the grocery store. They're polite, they have manners. Again, we get along with everyone. We are Midwestern nice. But two days ago, ohio has gone extremely radical with the passage of this 2023 amendment to the Ohio Bill of Rights. Since I was in high school in the early 1990s and for the past 30 years, ohioans have been a majority reasonable people not anymore, certainly not California or New York and its collective thought processes, or at least it wasn't. But this past Tuesday, ohio went very radical, totally out of the mainstream of American political thought on these issues, and they voted for an extreme enshrinement of this badly worded and vague, utterly vague amendment to the Ohio Bill of Rights. So now you can call us Ohio-Fornia. We are part of the extreme set of states in the United States where our national sin of abortion has been enshrined. We're up there with the folks of the Californias and the New Yorks in extremism. I had a friend text me late on Tuesday night and say it says if Ohio is Germany in the 1930s and the electorate has no idea what they're voting on and how much power they have turned over to the government. I had to agree with him. It's a great analogy, which got me thinking about how history repeats itself. And then I thought of this quote. American journalist Sidney Harris once wrote history repeats itself, but in such a cunning disguise that we can never detect the resemblance until the damage is done. And in fact, that brings us to our topic of today's mojo minute, the fact that Ohio has gone so radical. It brings up a topic that most folks don't want to talk about the similarities between the national sin of slavery and the national sin of abortion. Both were enshrined by radical politics or radical policies, and which have faced the American voters at a major political and social and cultural and, ultimately, a moral issue that simply would not go away. We will have to deal with it. No-transcript. And to help us out with talking about these two issues and how they compare is a great author, olivia Murray, and she wrote a book back in 2021 titled abortion versus slavery the two parallels between the two national sins. Now let's pick up the book. In the introduction, going to the book, priests practiced in the British colonies and post independence is rightfully considered one of the darkest moments in American history the barbarism and replete derision suffered by Americans and chains is almost entirely synonymous with the final experience of those in the womb who are slated for execution. Employed by both proponents of abortion and slavery are the same tactics and reasoning in an effort to justify the unjustifiable. With the general Robert E Lee's surrender at Appomattox in April of 1865, the civil war ended and slavery was legally an institution of the past. The wake of destruction may manifest by brutal and forced servitude is monumental Americans oppressed under the yoke of subjugation, immeasurable lives lost to the violence of battle or the maltreatment of the plantations, shattered families broken by cruel indifference, lynching mobs intent on murdering instead of justice and a fractured race relations existing still today. Just as we endure the fallout from the national sin of slavery, I fear the aftermath from the carnage of abortion will be far more consequential, and it is in this spirit that I write as I seek to expound upon the literary foundation of the anti abortion movement. Those were the opening words and a very good book. It's a short book, just 40 pages, but it packs a powerful punch and just four short chapters. Olivia makes the comparisons between the US history of chattel slavery and abortion and they are astonishingly similar. Check this out. In the first chapter she introduces us to this concept of dehumanizing the condemned population and slavery. Obviously it was the slave and abortion it's the baby. Here's an example. Those two subject particular populations to a category of quote subhuman are and have long been a standard operating procedure of the psychological warfare and manipulation. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines dehumanize as to address or portray someone in a way that obscures and demeans that person's humanity or individuality. In order to legitimize their attacks, both proponents of slavery and abortion have adopted the recognized euphemism not a person. The objective of dehumanizing certain groups of people is ultimately to demean them to a status where they don't qualify for personhood at all. Liberty and equality for blacks in America suffered a major hindrance in 1857 when the Supreme Court adjudicated on the landmark case-read Scott v Sanford, or more commonly known as the Dred Scott decision. Scott was a slave who had several times accompanied his master to territories where slavery was illegal. He claimed these voyages to free states rendered him emancipated, prompting him to sue for his freedom. The case eventually landed before the Supreme Court in a 7-2 split. The court determined Scott was quote, not a person. We have Chief Justice Roger B Taney writing for the majority opinion, and here's the quote from the opinion. The question before us is whether the class of persons described in the plea of abatement compose a portion of this person, of this people and our constituent members of this sovereignty. We think they are not, and they and that they are not included, and we're not intended to be included under the word citizens in the Constitution and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. And here's our connection. Going back to the book, synonymous with a majority opinion in the Dred Scott decision is the conclusion arrived to by the Supreme Court concerning Roe v Wade. Under the pseudonym of Jane Roe, norma McCovey McCorvey, I'm sorry of Texas challenged the state's legislation on abortion, claiming the law robbed her of her right to privacy and her liberty, citing the first, fourth, fifth, ninth and 14th amendments. The outcome of this case established legal precedent, with the Supreme Court determining that the woman had the right to abortion before viability without undue interference from the government At the time. Roe v Wade was decided in 1973. Viability was considered as early as 24 weeks were the beginning of the second trimester. As of the child was viable, the state had the authority to restrict or prohibit abortion procedures in the state had a well founded interest in protecting the woman's health in the life of the unborn. Not surprisingly, the arguments made in the majority opinion relied entirely on the ascertainment that the unborn was quote not a person. Coincidentally, the court mirrored the 7 to split of Scott v Sanford with associate justice Harry Blackman pending the majority opinion and that opinion he wrote the Constitution does not divine person and that if it were to do so, the appellants case of course collapses. For the fetuses right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the 14th amendment. And let's stop there. Did you catch that from the dread Scott slavery case in 1857, chief Justice Tony, writing for the majority, says, quote the question before us is whether the class of persons described in this plea in abatement compose a portion of this people in our constituent members of this sovereignty. We think they are not and that they are not included and were not intended to be included under the word citizens in the Constitution and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. Fast forward to 1973. In the Roe v Wade argument we have Justice Harry Blackman writing for the majority again in a 7 to split decision. The same is dread. Scott v Sanford quote the Constitution does not define person, and if it were to do so, then the appellants case of course collapses, for the fetuses right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the 14th amendment. So we just have blatant and complete misuse of language. Plain and simple, the Supreme Court opinions in both cases were full of lies. Now this is one area where the dobs case, which overturn Roe v Wade and send it back to the states for the states to handle, which was correct, that was the correct letter of the law. It had always been the case that this was really. Abortion was always a states rights case. This is where the dobs decision failed, because the dobs decision failed by not declaring an unborn baby a person and part of the equal protection clause, and that was a travesty. But in the fanfare of celebrating the overrolling of Roe v Wade and how we thought most states would outlaw abortions, here we now see the demonic radicalism of a Midwestern state like Ohio and shrining abortion all the way up to term, all nine months, going back to the book for the final conclusion on not a person and why that technique is so demonic. Not only a technique, but the language. The language is demonic in and of itself. Going to the book, undeniably legal and constitutional scholars on both sides agree that our supreme governing document, the Constitution, does in fact refer to those held in bondage. Not only does the Constitution refer to slaves, but it refers to slaves as listen persons. Let me read that again Not only does the Constitution refer to slaves, but it refers to slaves as persons. Article one, section two, clause three, reads all other persons. While delineating representation and taxes In 1857, despite the clear and objective truth that slaves were both ethnically and legally people, the court failed to render justice and morality. This misapplication of the law was echoed 116 years later, in 1973, when the court once again determined a specific class of people was not entitled to our inalienable rights protected by the Constitution. Although in this case, the Constitution doesn't explicitly designate the unborn as people, the Fifth Amendment enumerates that no one shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. The absence of an explicit annotation defining the unborn as beings with inherent rights provided a way for Justice Blackman to entertain lexical and irrational technicalities, thus creating a right to abortion that is empirically missing. Empirically missing, he essentially made it up. Those were my words, and this was just one example of many that we can compare from the national sin of slavery to the national sin of abortion. We could go on and on, from slave owners saying that the slaves were their property to abortion advocates saying my body, my choice. Seems, in our day and age, that abortion is now the new slavery. In fact, there's a great written piece by Jamie Metzger, written back in 2015, with this exact title. I'll put a link in the show notes. I would urge you to read that piece. It's wonderfully written, but here is an ending paragraph of that piece that's worth quoting. Quote reducing or ending abortion is never going to be a clean and painless process. There will be cost, but ending slavery was even more complex and costly, and entirely right. It's tempting to judge ourselves based on the moral test our ancestors faced, congratulating ourselves on how superior we are to them, but we have the benefit of hindsight in recognizing their evils. The true test of our vision is whether we will see the evils of our own time, and the true test of our goodness is whether we will make them right. And that's the point, isn't it? We're not superior to our ancestors. We're not superior in virtue or in humility. After all, we are Ohio for you, similar in vain to California that once thought of itself as the Golden State. Not anymore. So we're not virtuous, we're not superior to our ancestors, we're not even close to the rest of the United States. We're like California and New York, just like California now has a declining population, corporate departures, extremely out of reach housing prices and, for whatever reason, a series of seemingly biblical diseases not seen since the 16th or perhaps 13th centuries plagues, wildfires that are mind-boggling, droughts and floods that are beyond comprehension. So I'm afraid for what Ohio will see in the future. Will it have the same catastrophes? Would face the same mind-boggling diseases? After all, in the United States we have conquered one national sin, only to be replaced with a national, another national sin. This is the national sin in the 20th and 21st centuries. So in today's mojo minute, it is a sad and tragic day in the state of Ohio. The extremism of the national sin of abortion is here and codified in our Bill of Rights. It's a tragic day indeed. So, with humility, we will conclude with the words from St Mother Teresa, who cut through all the smoke to get to the clarity of truth, which we envy. Here in the Mojo Academy, we're always seeking the truth and Mother Teresa got to the truth. She cut through all the smoke and got right to the heart of the truth when she spoke these words to a US president at the National Prayer Breakfast in 1994, when she said and let her words bring us inspiration on what is right and wrong in our world I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child, a direct killing of the innocent child, murdered by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another? How do we persuade a woman not to have an abortion? As always, we must persuade her with love, and we remind ourselves that love means to be willing to give until it hurts. Jesus even gave his life to love us. So the mother who is thinking of abortion should be helped to love. That is, to give until it hurts her plans or her free time to respect the life of that child. The father of that child, whoever he is, must also give until it hurts. She continues. By abortion, the mother does not learn to love, but kills even her own child to solve her problems, and by abortion, the father is told that he does not have to take any responsibility at all for the child he has brought into this world. The father is likely to put other women into the same trouble, so abortion just leads to more abortion. Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want, and that is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion. She concluded her remarks with words of hope, though. If we remember that God loves us and that we can love others as he loves us, then America can become a sign of peace for the world and, from here, a sign of care for the weakest of the weak. The unborn child must go out to the world, and if you become a burning light of justice and peace in the world, then you will be true to what the founders of this country stood for. God bless you. Praise be Jesus Christ.

Thank you for joining us. We hope you enjoyed this Theory to Action podcast. Be sure to check out our show page at teammojoacademycom, where we have everything we discussed in this podcast, as well as other great resources. Until next time, keep getting your mojo on.