It seems to me that today’s Administration operates on reasons that lack underlying Reason. An example lies in the US government’s southern border policy—or lack thereof—where so many hundreds of thousands have crossed into the country illegally that to even speak of a “border” is an engagement in myth. Did I say hundreds of thousands? I mean over a couple million with the projection of millions more over the course of the next two years. Maybe the Administration has reasons for eliminating the most basic geographical description of a country: A political entity with geographical boundaries that separate it from either other countries or unclaimed wilderness. This, emphatically THIS, is where a country ends, and all within THIS boundary IS the land owned by the body politic. For the Biden Administration, in contrast, there is no distinction between “within” and “without” the nonexistent border. The “body politic” includes anyone who wants to be included, to the exclusion of the rules laid down by the previously defined body politic.
If one asked the current American Administration for the logic behind the open border, he would be disturbed by the lack of an answer. The head of DHS, questioned by congressmen, simply says, “The border is secure.” Of course, anyone with eyes can see the videos of caravans of mostly Central and South Americans—some of which contain identified terrorists— and anyone who lives in the many border towns and on ranches in Texas knows the reality of the uncontrolled immigrant invasion. In a purely empirical way, “reasonable” people know that the border is not—and this is irrefutable by the numbers—secure. Whatever the Administration’s reasons might be for refusing to uphold the laws of the land, the historically demonstrable will of the body politic, those reasons lack any semblance of Pure Reason. Or maybe not. Maybe the Administration operates on some a priori, or some axiomatic, thinking in which their assumptions exist in a world or on a level of Pure Reason that many Americans are just too incapable of understanding. Maybe the Administration operates in the realm of an inductive end product, some foreknown result upon which one can say, "See, we told told you we were right all along." It would be the same as completing a featureless puzzle and finding out afterward that, "Yes, we got all the pieces together properly. And, yes, you didn't know it, but we had our reasons for putting the pieces together because we knew beforehand the ultimate result."
But, of course, if you ask what the unfinished puzzle will look like, you won't get an answer.
All of us have “reasons” for doing what we do and believing as we do. In many instances, the reasons fail the test of more encompassing Reason. That is, what we believe to be reasonable does not attain any unity with what is real and irrefutable. I might dream that I own a mansion, but upon waking, find that I live in a cave, and any attempt in my waking hours to unify the cave and the mansion fails utterly. I cannot make reality from that which is not real. I cannot say an insecure border is secure and simply will it to be so. Reasons can defy Reason. Dreams can be mistaken for reality. Caves can be mistaken for mansions. But when unrealities replace realities in the mind, then no judgment on what is real is valid.
So, in circling back to the current Administration’s “reasons” for an insecure border, any reasonable person should ask whether Biden, Harris, and the Cabinet, plus, seemingly all the Democratic senators and all but one of the Democratic congressmen, simply believe that what they say is manifested in what is real. Do they operate on a priori knowledge? Some ultimate and irrefutable Reason that underlies their reasons? Do they believe they have an axiom on which all their border policies stand just as geometric reasoning and proof rely on the fundamental axioms?
And if they cannot define their reasons in the context of irrefutable Reason, do the members of the Biden Administration and all their compliant supporters—some eighty million of them if we consider their voting supporters—require empirical evidence that the border is not secure. Do they need more fentanyl deaths than the tens of thousands already accumulated as tragic consequences of an unsecured border? Do they need to have a personal experience, such as a child’s being assaulted by an illegal immigrant criminal? Do they need to experience a personal tragedy like the many acts of violence perpetrated on both abused immigrants and victimized American citizens to question their “reasons”? Obviously, that truckload of 51 dead migrants suffocated near San Antonio in the locked truck was meaningless. Or, did I miss the Administration's empathetic response?
Probably. Recall what I have said repeatedly: What is not personal is meaningless. To which I'll add "unless it is empirical." The Administration, composed as it is of humans capable of feeling, has, it seems no empathy for the affected. The Administration’s undefined “reasons” for exacerbating the tragedies of crime and overdoses have no personal connection to realities. Is the Administration of one mind that America is “not defined by borders"? And do each of the Biden Administration’s supportive politicians hold this idea of a borderless country as an axiom even as all of them refuse to take the locks off their personal property or to remove the doors and open the windows of their houses? What is not personal is meaningless; but if one of them were to experience the same kinds of losses experienced by victims of illegal criminals, well, then...
Are the Administration’s reasons for its actions sounding the death knell of personal property? Is this a step on their path to complete socialism and a one-world society? And do the members of the Administration somehow see themselves as separate from the rest of the body politic? Do they comprise a group exempt from tragedies of loss of freedoms, loss of property, and even loss of life? Is this the group that reasons inductively, assuming as they do that they will attain some unified world of peace, love, and harmony, where, with the exception of their own stuff, all will freely share equally with any and all others what they have gained through their personal efforts?
The Biden Administration might have “reasons,” but it has not demonstrated it has Reason--or commonsense.
If one asked the current American Administration for the logic behind the open border, he would be disturbed by the lack of an answer. The head of DHS, questioned by congressmen, simply says, “The border is secure.” Of course, anyone with eyes can see the videos of caravans of mostly Central and South Americans—some of which contain identified terrorists— and anyone who lives in the many border towns and on ranches in Texas knows the reality of the uncontrolled immigrant invasion. In a purely empirical way, “reasonable” people know that the border is not—and this is irrefutable by the numbers—secure. Whatever the Administration’s reasons might be for refusing to uphold the laws of the land, the historically demonstrable will of the body politic, those reasons lack any semblance of Pure Reason. Or maybe not. Maybe the Administration operates on some a priori, or some axiomatic, thinking in which their assumptions exist in a world or on a level of Pure Reason that many Americans are just too incapable of understanding. Maybe the Administration operates in the realm of an inductive end product, some foreknown result upon which one can say, "See, we told told you we were right all along." It would be the same as completing a featureless puzzle and finding out afterward that, "Yes, we got all the pieces together properly. And, yes, you didn't know it, but we had our reasons for putting the pieces together because we knew beforehand the ultimate result."
But, of course, if you ask what the unfinished puzzle will look like, you won't get an answer.
All of us have “reasons” for doing what we do and believing as we do. In many instances, the reasons fail the test of more encompassing Reason. That is, what we believe to be reasonable does not attain any unity with what is real and irrefutable. I might dream that I own a mansion, but upon waking, find that I live in a cave, and any attempt in my waking hours to unify the cave and the mansion fails utterly. I cannot make reality from that which is not real. I cannot say an insecure border is secure and simply will it to be so. Reasons can defy Reason. Dreams can be mistaken for reality. Caves can be mistaken for mansions. But when unrealities replace realities in the mind, then no judgment on what is real is valid.
So, in circling back to the current Administration’s “reasons” for an insecure border, any reasonable person should ask whether Biden, Harris, and the Cabinet, plus, seemingly all the Democratic senators and all but one of the Democratic congressmen, simply believe that what they say is manifested in what is real. Do they operate on a priori knowledge? Some ultimate and irrefutable Reason that underlies their reasons? Do they believe they have an axiom on which all their border policies stand just as geometric reasoning and proof rely on the fundamental axioms?
And if they cannot define their reasons in the context of irrefutable Reason, do the members of the Biden Administration and all their compliant supporters—some eighty million of them if we consider their voting supporters—require empirical evidence that the border is not secure. Do they need more fentanyl deaths than the tens of thousands already accumulated as tragic consequences of an unsecured border? Do they need to have a personal experience, such as a child’s being assaulted by an illegal immigrant criminal? Do they need to experience a personal tragedy like the many acts of violence perpetrated on both abused immigrants and victimized American citizens to question their “reasons”? Obviously, that truckload of 51 dead migrants suffocated near San Antonio in the locked truck was meaningless. Or, did I miss the Administration's empathetic response?
Probably. Recall what I have said repeatedly: What is not personal is meaningless. To which I'll add "unless it is empirical." The Administration, composed as it is of humans capable of feeling, has, it seems no empathy for the affected. The Administration’s undefined “reasons” for exacerbating the tragedies of crime and overdoses have no personal connection to realities. Is the Administration of one mind that America is “not defined by borders"? And do each of the Biden Administration’s supportive politicians hold this idea of a borderless country as an axiom even as all of them refuse to take the locks off their personal property or to remove the doors and open the windows of their houses? What is not personal is meaningless; but if one of them were to experience the same kinds of losses experienced by victims of illegal criminals, well, then...
Are the Administration’s reasons for its actions sounding the death knell of personal property? Is this a step on their path to complete socialism and a one-world society? And do the members of the Administration somehow see themselves as separate from the rest of the body politic? Do they comprise a group exempt from tragedies of loss of freedoms, loss of property, and even loss of life? Is this the group that reasons inductively, assuming as they do that they will attain some unified world of peace, love, and harmony, where, with the exception of their own stuff, all will freely share equally with any and all others what they have gained through their personal efforts?
The Biden Administration might have “reasons,” but it has not demonstrated it has Reason--or commonsense.
RSS Feed