The Immorality of Abortion

Abortion, put simply, is murder and therefore cannot be codified by our government. Thereby, allowing it under Medicaid and other measures they are not only doing the immoral thing, but an unconstitutional one as well. In fact the fifth amendment of our constitution reads: No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;  (Constitution 5th amendment, 4th clause)  This is why pro-choicers get hung up on them word life. They know that they don’t have a leg to stand morally so they try to act as if they have one constitutionally.  So what makes abortion immoral?

  • It is the taking of an innocent human life.  While many religions, cultures and nations have standards for the taking of a human life, all of them repel at the thought of taking an innocent life.  No one celebrates when an innocent person is executed. An unborn child is completely innocent. It has not incurred any wrong and to take the life simply because you don’t want remains the heart of true evil.
  • It is not your body. You will hear pro-choice people say it is their body so they can do whatever they want. But it is not your body, it never was or will be. If that is the case you do not exist, because you are part of your mother’s body, who is part of her’s mother’s body, all the way back to Eve (or Mitochrondrial Eve, if you are an evolutionist)  So every man, woman and child is thereby Eve and you have no rights or consciousness because it all belongs to one body. Even as a Creationist that sounds like absolute nonsense, so if you exist then the body inside you exist as a separate entity and though it is coming through you it is not of you! Both of you are separate individuals and do not deserve to die because of someone else’s comfort.
  • Lastly, it is immoral because murder is not a solution to life’s problems. Whether those problems be poverty, domestic violence, rape, etc. You don’t get to solve your problems by killing someone else especially when they person you are killing had nothing to do with your problem. It is heartless and barbaric. If you can’t solve your problems yourself, that is unfortunate, but you do not get to pick murder as an option.

Why I Voted Against a Proposition to Help the Homeless

Now you may think I am a special kind of stupid for being homeless and voting against a proposition that is supposed to help me. But once you hear me out, you may understand why.  First of all, I am not a pocketbook voter.  When I walk into the voting booth, my thought is not how this will affect me personally but how it will affect society at large and if it will hurt them even though it will benefit me, I will not vote for it.

This week we had two measures that dealt with housing in Los Angeles City and County. I voted no on both of them. They were Proposition H and Measure S. I will explain what each one  was and why I voted the way I did.

Proposition  H:  Homeless-services advocates on Wednesday cautiously celebrated the apparent victory of Measure H, a quarter-cent sales tax increase that would fund housing and support for thousands of people currently living on the streets. That sounds all well and good until you take a closer look at it. 

  1. We already have have the one of the highest sales tax in the nation. Right now it is 9 percent and the tax would make our tax 9.5%. However you also have to remember we have to pay for our grocery bags which are 10 cents each and don’t go for helping anyone but the grocer. We are taxed to death in California and while the homeless population doesn’t pay income tax,  by and large, (though you would be surprised, a lot of the homeless do work and do pay income tax) we pay every other tax. Enough of it already.
  2. Years ago we voted for the lottery because it was supposed to help schools. All these years later, we are 41st in the nation.  We have not climbed up the ladder of educational success. And even though we have some of the best universities in the world in California, our K-12 public education system is failing our students. So why would I believe that is going to be any different with the homeless? They have not proved themselves with me with education, I am certainly not going to trust them to dispense that money wisely to curb the homeless situation in Los Angeles.
  3. They talk about independent audits as if that helps. The lottery has independent audits as well, still don’t see it helping the schools. I have heard the “independent audit”tune ad nauseam, yet somehow the money manages to become mismanaged. Until I see more ethical behavior with politicians I am certainly not going to trust them with more money.
  4. I  will be fine, others will not. I am by no means rich or even middle class but I will get by. I always do. However, there are those who make far less than I do who will impacted greatly by this.  For instance, since only 10 percent of homeless live on Skid Row and the funds will be distributed more “evenly throughout Los Angeles County.”  Translation: The richer areas will get their “fair share” while the people who desperately will still receive less funds.  Basically Proposition H gives the finger to the Skid Row residents.
  5. They had just voted on a proposition to help the homeless in November (HHH). Proposition HHH gave money to the city of Los Angeles for the homeless while Proposition H gives it to the County of Los Angeles. In either case, it hasn’t been that long since we taxed ourselves to help the homeless and even though I became homeless in December, well let’s say January that is when I showed up at URM, there hasn’t been enough time for Proposition HHH to take effect and we are already looking for another handout? That is absurd.

Measure SMeasure S: An initiative to change the city’s laws governing changes to the general plan and development projects, Measure S, was on the ballot for voters in Los Angeles, California, on March 7, 2017. It was defeated.

This initiative was known as the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative. A “yes” vote was a vote in support of imposing a moratorium on construction that increases development density for up to two years, prohibiting project-specific amendments to the city’s general plan, requiring a public review of the city’s general plan every five years, requiring city staff—not developers or project applicants—to perform environmental impact reports, and establishing other changes to the city’s general plan laws.

  1.  When I first heard of this, that whole pocketbook part of me came out: “Are you kidding me? I am homeless and you want to stop construction on building homes, are you insane!” Then when my unselfishness ended I started thinking about how this would affect people worse off than me. And I grew more enraged. According to Measure S affordable housing would not be affected:
  2. More people will be homeless. According to Measure S, this was supposed to help with evictions but they didn’t really incorporate how. Yes, we have a pretty corrupt housing system, but the plan didn’t do anything to stop the corruption. Putting a ban on housing when we are in such desperately need of housing doesn’t do anything to stop corruption but it will drive people out of their homes as rents go up.

    Freezing construction—even temporarily—in one of the priciest housing markets in the U.S. would only worsen LA’s affordability crisis, housing advocates had warned. And, critics said, Measure S would have hampered efforts to build more affordable units.

    Construction in Hollywood.

    3. The endorsers were Progressive Democrats.  The AIDS Healthcare Foundation is the main financial backer of Measure S, an effort to block some real estate development projects citywide in Los Angeles. Those behind the measure have claimed it would benefit AIDS patients, many of whom are struggling to pay the bills as LA’s housing costs skyrocket.

But on Friday [March 3], the Los Angeles City Controller and the head of the Los Angeles LGBT Center pushed back, arguing the March 7 ballot measure would only exacerbate the area’s affordability crisis. It wasn’t just Michael Weinstein of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation that was pushing for it but people like Diane Watson who is a former Congresswoman.  Along with groups like  Progressive Democrats of the Santa Monica Mountains, Los Angeles Grassroots for Obama (LAG4O) and Progressive Democratic Club

With all these progressive Democrats saying this was a good thing for poor people, I knew immediately it was not and I could not in good conscience vote for a bill I knew would only create more homelessness in Los Angeles.

4.  Lastly,  the majority of the  people who endorsed it were rich and therefore the two moratorium would have little impact on them. Now, I am not some rich-hating Dem but the first thing you learn in Poli Sci 101 is to follow the money. So if you  have a lot of rich people backing legislation, it is obviously going to benefit them.  The same would hold true if it was a bunch of poor people, Hispanics or gays. Once I saw that the majority people were neighborhood councils from Beverly Hills, Encino, etc. Once I saw they had pretty much every environmental attorney in the state on board, I became more suspicious about its intent.

Measure S bannerMichael Weinstein mentioned how many AIDS victims are struggling to pay the rising cost of living because of their medical bills. However, one thing you have to remember about gay men (who are the majority of people with HIV/AIDS) is that they  have higher incomes than straight couples. Married gay couples, with an average household income of about $115,000, make slightly more money than unmarried gay couples, whose average is $111,223. For straight couples, the gap between married and unmarried couples is much higher. Married straight couples make $101,487 per year on average, compared to just $69,511 for unmarried straight couples. This was taken from the Census. While there might be plenty of low income people with HIV/AIDS, knowing this fact does make me doubt his credibility that he is trying to help low-income people with HIV.

So for these reasons I voted no. So did the majority of Californians. Measure S was defeated. We will see how Proposition H works out but I am not holding my breath that the homeless  that need the money will see a dime of it. However, this I know when I walked in that voting booth, it wasn’t just about me, it was about what would benefit all. People call me a purist as if that is some kind of insult. I find it the highest compliment. It means I will not compromise my ethics for the Almighty dollar. Even if I am in desperate need of that dollar. It feels good knowing that.


Homelessness: Men vs. Women (and Children)

by Dena Leichnitz

Homelessness is a major problem not only in America but globally.  As I read the Telegraph, a UK publication, an article talking about how men suffer so greatly from homelessness and comparing them against homeless women as if women were homeless by themselves like men. Nowhere in the article did the word “children” come up. Even though women are more likely to be homeless with children than men are.  You cannot equate men and women in this manner because WHY they are homeless is not the same. And the vulnerabilities women face than men is not the same. Especially women with children. Speaking as a woman who is homeless with her child, I found the whole article a bit childish and whiny.  That being said, let’s look at why more men are homeless than women.

  1. More men are homeless because they are more prone to make poor decisions that will lead to homelessness than women.

Even Glen Poole, who wrote the UK article, wrote:

327 of the homeless people surveyed used crack/cocaine in the past month, 76 per cent of them were male;
355 of the homeless people surveyed used heroine in the past month, 77 per cent of them were male;
358 of the homeless people surveyed used methadone in the past month, 75 per cent of them were male;

crackSo if you are taking crack and heroin, is it not too surprising you would end up homeless?  There are so many reasons people end up homeless and a lot of the time, the circumstances are not under your control at all.  Some of those reasons might be rising rents, medical issues and job loss due to failing economy. Therefore,  wouldn’t it make sense given all the unforeseen circumstances that can lead you to ending up out on the streets that you do all on your part not end up homeless? While addiction is a complicated issue, we do know this much if you don’t take that first drink or take that first drug, you will not end up an alcoholic or drug addict.

77 per cent of the 1,248 homeless people surveyed who use drugs and alcohol to cope with mental health issues are men;
83 per cent of the 751 homeless people surveyed who say they used cannabis/weed in the past month are men;

mental illnessWhile mental illness is by no means a “poor decision” and comes with its own issues, we do know not everyone who is mentally uses drugs to cope and not everyone who uses drugs is mentally ill. In fact, mentally ill people, by and large, tend to avoid using drugs of any kind, legal or otherwise, because they feel drugs exacerbate their problems. Putting them in a state of mind that is even harder to control. Therefore, my statement about men being more prone to make poor decisions that lead homelessness than women still stands.

In fact, if we are too assume none of the men doing crack, heroin or on methadone are also mentally ill, then men being homeless would drop nearly 80 percent just by not doing drugs! And since doing illegal drugs is a choice, that makes homelessness for men almost 100 percent preventable.

2. Women are not homeless by themselves like men. And most of the resources women get are to help their children not just themselves.

This report on a study of 600 homeless men and 300 homeless women in St. Louis presents comparison data on these populations. The pivotal difference between homeless men and women was that unlike men, most women had young children in their custody (Emphasis mine) 

The study goes on to say: Compared to men, they [women] had less frequent histories of substance abuse, incarceration, and felony conviction.

Which just proves my point, women make less poor decisions that cause them to be homeless.  Women are more likely to be on welfare than men. Which means they are more likely to seek out assistance, go to the office, fill out the countless forms, wait in line for hours, talk to a representatives, get the documents needed to get assistance, and keep up with the appointments in order to maintain it. They do all that because it is not just about them, they do it to take care of their children.

13235489_10208401585549203_5456536628098343790_oSo if if seems there is more help for women than there is for men, it is because there are more people involved with helping women than there with men. This is not say there are no single men with custody of their kids fighting homelessness but just like single women are the rarity, so are men with their children. In facts, parents with children regardless of gender, should get a bigger portion of the resources because you are trying to save a child’s life in the process.  A single woman or man can fend for themselves much better than a single parent taking care of young children.

The study also states the following: The population of homeless women is therefore heterogeneous, with at least two subgroups. These groups are likely to benefit from intervention programs that are designed to address their specific problems and needs, which are notnecessarily the same as those of homeless men.

I am in a homeless shelter with children as young as four months old and a young man who just celebrated his 18th birthday and everyone in between. From young children, school age children, to those who are entering adulthood. We had one family who had eight children and then there are mothers like me with just one. It is not a one size fits all kind of thing.  With men, it is not as much as a case by case basis, as it is with women.

3.  Let’s be real, even when men need assistance they are less likely to seek it out than women are. My brother died in 2015 because he didn’t go to the hospital soon enough even though he knew he needed to see a doctor. How many stories have we heard like that?

drugs and alcoholIndeed, dozens of studies and surveys over the past several decades have shown that men of all ages and ethnicities are less likely than women to seek help for all sorts of problems–including depression, substance abuse and stressful life events–even though they encounter those problems at the same or greater rates as women.

While Greg Poole likes to think of that as a cop out for not helping men, we can’t help them if they don’t seek out assistance. How many times have you heard your friend say, “I really need to quit drinking” with a beer in his hand? Are we just supposed to force men to get help rather they want it or not? Maybe in some cases, like drunk driving, that would be acceptable, but in most cases that would be rather totalitarian.  What needs to change is the mindset that getting help is being weak, instead of blaming the services that are unable to reach them.

In conclusion, trying to compare male homelessness to female homelessness is disingenuous and resembles comparing apples to oranges.  Rather or not, you are male or female all homeless people need help and they all need help in different ways.  To say we should all give men more help then women without taking into account the children who are also homeless is absolutely heartless. Homelessness is not equal opportunity. It affects men, women and children in different ways. In the end, gender is not the issue, helping each person to the best of their ability get back on their feet as fast as possible is and we can’t do that worrying about stupid things like what is between a person’s legs instead of what is in their heart.

P.S. People in England and Australia, if you feel men are not getting help for their homelessness, try to figure out a way to come to America. I can vouch men get treated much better than women with children.


SCOTUS: The Weakness of the Constitution

The Founding Fathers were great men, no doubt. And they gave us a government that is unparalleled in human history. No one doubts that but even great men can make mistakes and their mistake was the construction of Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). Granted there are certain things they got right with it, but so much went so wrong.  With the appointment of Gorsuch by Trump and undoubtedly more appointments in the future with some of the judges up in age and failing health, now is the time look at SCOTUS and how we can change it for the better.

courtsWhat is RIGHT with SCOTUS

  1. There is only one court for all the inferior courts. It would be a mess if there were different courts on the same level as SCOTUS hearing and deciding cases. For instance, if one court said Loving had a constitutional right to marriage but another supreme court said they did not, then how would we ever reach an agreement. Loving would probably still be up for debate today if that was the case.
  2. We have nine judges so there is never a tie. Many cases have been decided by a 5-4 vote. While normal cases in the lower cases might do just fine with an even number of jurors deciding whether one is guilty or not guilty, the same would not hold true for SCOTUS. While initially, the number was six, with cases that would bring strong opinions on both sides like we are seeing now 9 is a far better number.
  3. They are not supposed to make law.  While the Court completely ignores this one, at least our founders had to the foresight to put in writing. How were they to know we would become an illiterate nation who spend more time voting for American Idol (yes, I know it is off the air now, but you get my point) than the mayor of a city?

And that is pretty much what is RIGHT with SCOTUS. The rest of it is a mess.

What is WRONG with SCOTUS

  1. They have “lifetime” appointments. Which they really don’t but it has been sort of been decided that they do. But let’s read what the Constitution really says:

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, [emphasis mine] and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

How do you get “lifetime appointment” from  “shall hold their offices during good behavior?” and what are the consequences if you have “judges behaving badly?” And what is “good behavior” exactly? We assume we can impeach judges that “behave badly” but the Constitution never made it clear what to do with bad judges so we treat them no differently than Senators, Congressmen or even the president who it was made clear what to do

Declaration_independenceThe Founding Fathers were wary of men having absolute power. As the saying goes, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Yet they set term limits for the President (4 years), Senators (6 years) and Congressmen (2 years) but according to The Constitution states that Justices “shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour.” This means that the Justices hold office as long as they choose and can only be removed from office by impeachment.

FOR AS LONG AS THEY CHOOSE!!!! Are you kidding me with me this? So we need term limits for the House of Representatives, the Senate and the President of the United States but not the Supreme Court, are you high?  Only one Supreme Court justice was ever impeached and that was Samuel Chase in 1805. He was acquitted by the Senate. There is nothing in the Constitution is forbidding term limits of SCOTUS judges. If the lower judges can be elected then there is nothing forbidding SCOTUS judges from being elected either.

Read it again: both of the supreme and inferior Courts shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour.   That is right both SCOTUS and lower courts are supposed to have “lifetime appointments” yet we elect lower judges all the time! Therefore we can elect SCOTUS judges as well and give them term limits!
marburymadison2.   Marbury vs. Madison  The Constitution is quite specific about what cases SCOTUS           can hear and the judicial review doesn’t make a mention. Yet when Marbury vs. Madison came to the court, two things happened. One-the Court denied having authority to act on Marbury’s behalf even though they did. Two-they used that opportunity to create the power of judicial review even though they didn’t have the authority to do so. So basically the authority they did have, they didn’t use. The authority they didn’t have they took. What is judicial review? It is the ability to review by the US Supreme Court of the constitutional validity of a legislative act.  You might ask, well isn’t that just part of the check and balances?  Well, you have to remember all lawmaking power was given to Congress, not to the judiciary and the Founders were afraid of what is happening now the Court making law.

3. They have an abysmal human rights history! For every Brown vs. the Board of Education which upheld human dignity, they have plenty more Plessy vs. FergusonsDred Scott vs. Sanford and one of the worst cases decided by SCOTUS  Korematsu v. U.S., which said that the Japanese internment of Japanese Americans was not unconstitutional.  The Supreme Court has been on the wrong side of every human controversy during their tenure from slavery, segregation, abortion and marriage (save Loving vs. Virginia)  and because of Marbury vs. Madison,every decision unconstitutionally was creating laws.  From Lawrence vs. Texas which legalized sodomy to the Obergefell vs.Hodges decision which redefined the institution of marriage.

In fact, we see the change from when SCOTUS was at least pretending to be constitutional to where it all got thrown out of the window in 1938. That is when the US vs. Carolene Co. case took place and that famous footnote would change SCOTUS forever:

Nor need we enquire…whether prejudice against discrete and insular minorities may be a special condition, which tends seriously to curtail the operation of those political processes ordinarily to be relied upon to protect minorities, and which may call for a correspondingly more searching judicial inquiry. Compare 17 U. S. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 17 U. S. 428; South Carolina v. Barnwell Bros.,303 U. S. 177, 303 U. S. 184, n 2, and cases cited.

As a Black woman I certainly have a place of admiration for it intention but what this did was two things 1) It involved SCOTUS in cases they were not legally and constitutionally allowed to hear otherwise 2) It created a class of victims that would go far beyond “race” to include, gender, sexual orientation, etc. It also set up strict scrutiny.  What that means is if the government is to violate your constitutional rights it has to an overwhelming reason why it must do so. This would be especially true for racial minorities because they had no real protections otherwise.  From this point on, SCOTUS would hear nothing but civil rights cases.

For all these reasons, SCOTUS is the weakest part of the Constitution and needs to be changed. If we continue down the same road we are on, it won’t be long until our republic is lost and we are ruled by a mad judiciary instead.