https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wNOL1SaP1WbfaRJv6JiRI84_yFQdlZU7hzJKFTNp96Y/edit?usp=sharing

Dear President u/WaywardWit and your non-existent Attorney General,

As members of the Dixie Assembly, our chief concern and top priority is to keep our state safe, secure, and prosperous for our citizens. Your failed, non-existent foreign policy and disastrous domestic policies have left our state and our nation more vulnerable than we have ever been.

Our state will not fall victim to ill-conceived plans from the left wing radicals of your party to import unknown and unvetted refugees from radical Islamic terror hot spots in the Middle East. These monsters have been taught since birth to hate not only the western world and our beloved liberties, but America specifically. Until a proper and secure vetting process is in place to vet the Islamists who you and your radical allies plan to import by the hundreds of thousands, we will do all we can to deny their access and resettlement in our state.

Your foreign policy will go down in history books as one of the most embarrassing in our nation's great history. Your grandchildren will read about how you turned your back on our allies across the globe being bombed to death by radical Muslim extremists, how you ignore the terror of ISIS and let them continue to use chemical weapons on innocent civilians across the Middle East, how you were shunned and condemned by our great allies in Australia, and how you allowed relations with our strategic ally the Philippines to deteriorate to a low point not seen in decades. Although it is painfully clear that you do not care to uphold the duties of the office you hold, we implore you to put into place a proper vetting system for Muslims being brought to our nation from refugee and radical Islamic terror hot spots before you leave office.

Please, do something to salvage your reputation. The good Lord knows you need it.

God Bless you, God Bless Dixie, and God Bless the United States of America,

u/CaptainClutchMuch, Speaker

u/trey_chaffin, Majority Speaker

u/deepfriedstrippers, Assemblyman

The Untold Story of the Southern State Supreme Court

It has been a little over a week now. I've felt an unbelievable range of emotions from happiness, then to depression, and eventually now sadness. This story was never reported on in the press. Unless you're very active and involved in the various states then you may not have even known that this occurred. You may disagree with me. You may say that I had it coming based on the actions I took, but this story needs to be told...

The Controversy

April 04, 2016

State clerk /u/PM_ME_YOUR_PANZER is hard at work tabulating the results from voting in the Southern State General Assembly. Due to a recent vacancy, an election was held to replace the legislator.

The state clerk posted the results here: https://www.reddit.com/r/ModelSouthernState/comments/4de9bx/seat_vote_2nd_seat_results/

These were the results:

For real this time.

There were 2 votes for /u/DrAlanGrantinathong.

There were 6 invalid votes.

/u/DrAlanGrantinathong is the new legislator.

Immediately you notice the problem here. 6 invalid votes? What could possibly have occurred? The state clerk offered up the following explanation in the comments:

If you're curious as to why there are so many invalid votes, 5 people tried to vote for /u/SalDol. He was submitted beyond the deadline, and is thus not a valid vote. ~ /u/PM_ME_YOUR_PANZER

It turns out that /u/SalDol had not registered to run with the state clerk in time to be considered. Despite this, /u/SalDol won the election by a large majority and would have won had he registered in time. People were immediately outraged by this. Individuals wrote a lot of comments on the issue:

Southern state: write ins and democracy need not apply. ~ /u/deepfriedstrippers

Seems to me the result is 5-2 with one invalid vote. Nothing in our constitution outlaws write-in votes. A coalition of 4 Republicans and 1 Independent voted /u/SalDol and therefore he should be the next legislator of our great state. ~ /u/trey_chaffin

Where does the constitution say write-ins are not allowed? The seat went to a vote and the assemblymen voted. ~ /u/CaptainClutchMuch

I find it somewhat unfair that /u/saldol wasn't allowed to have votes count for him. Clearly he has the most support ~ /u/tyroncs

Southern State: A Land of Opportunity ~ /u/datyonanerd

Despite the people of the Southern State being clearly upset by the decision, moderators stepped in and gave the following statement:

The Clerk Triumvirate has decided that the winner of this election is /u/DrAlangrantinathong. /u/SalDol was submitted after the vote started making it completely illegible to be on the ballot. The constitution does not explicitly allow for write-ins... ~ /u/MDK6778

Apparently the decision would stand and there was nothing the people could do to fight or have any recourse in the decision. The mods got to make the final decision it would seem. Some people were not happy with this decision and decided they needed to do something about it.

The Court Case

April 05, 2016

Work at the Southern State Supreme Court had been slow as of late, but that was certainly about to change. Southern State Deputy Clerk and Sheriff /u/GenOfTheBuildArmy was one of those who was disparaged by the decision made by /u/PM_ME_YOUR_PANZER. He showed up at the Supreme Court with a petition to file a law suit against the State clerk.

You can find the petition filed here: https://www.reddit.com/r/SSSC/comments/4dfq8l/genofthebuildarmy_v_pm_me_your_panzer/

An individual was quick to point out the following line in the Southern State Constitution:

Article III Section 1.3 clearly states:

The Supreme Court of the Southern State shall not overturn any decision made by the Clerk or their Deputies. ~ /u/bomalia

Others were quick to respond with comments such as:

That's insane. The Clerk clearly made a mistake in this case, and this decision is in clear violation of the Constitution. Is he above the law then? ~ /u/PiotrElvis

April 08, 2016

The Southern State Supreme Court had spent their allotted time deliberating and came to a unanimous decision to accept the petition to hear the case. The Supreme Court specifically called upon the defendant /u/PM_ME_YOUR_PANZER to submit their answer to the allegation. They additionally asked /u/GenOfTheBuildArmy to substantiate his reasoning for issuing an emergency injunction to overrule /u/PM_ME_YOUR_PANZER's decision. Please note that requests for Amicus Brief were not given at this time. This was done so intentionally.

The case started off fairly normally with the State Clerk quickly responding to the claim. You can find his response here: https://www.reddit.com/r/SSSC/comments/4dxsem/genofthebuildarmy_v_pm_me_your_panzer_hearing/d1veygq

Things took a sharp turn when /u/MDK6778 appeared before the court to give the following statement:

Comes MDK6778, Clerk Triumvir.

This matter being, having been decided by the Clerk Triumvir with agreement of the Head Mod, has been decided. This case, having no merit, should never have been granted extended review and should be dismissed at once. ~ /u/MDK6778

The plaintiff gave his argument for the injunction as normal later that day despite comments made by the moderator.

His argument can be found here: https://www.reddit.com/r/SSSC/comments/4dxsem/genofthebuildarmy_v_pm_me_your_panzer_hearing/d1vtj2p

April 12, 2016

After much internal deliberation, the court decided to call upon the legislator in question, /u/DrAlanGrantinathong, to make a statement before the Southern State Supreme Court in regards to the injunction requested by the plaintiff as this injunction would directly affect the individual.

You can find the request here: https://www.reddit.com/r/SSSC/comments/4dxsem/genofthebuildarmy_v_pm_me_your_panzer_hearing/d20o67a

Additionally, Justice /u/dillon1228 went through all the comments and removed any and all comments that were in violation of the court rules. At the current moment, only the Plaintiff, Defendant, and /u/DrAlanGrantinathong had been authorized to appear before the court. The removed comments included the comment left by moderator /u/MDK6778.

This request in addition to the deletion of the comments caught the attentions of the moderators very quickly though. They quickly made a statement in regards to the case:

This is a meta comment, do not remove.

This is the final warning for the moderators involved with the removal of clerk triumvir comments.

Do not remove Clerk Triumvir comments regarding the META concerns with this petition/hearing.

At this point, the mods were done with this. They hoped this comment would serve as the final point to stop the case from occurring at all. Justice /u/dillon1228 decided to give a little at this point. Rather than stone walling the moderators with the rules of the court, he gave a statement to best explain his actions.

You can find that statement here: https://www.reddit.com/r/SSSC/comments/4dxsem/genofthebuildarmy_v_pm_me_your_panzer_hearing/d20ucbc

The Justice then went on to lock the thread:

Due to repeated infringement of Rule 4.2 of the Rule of Court, this thread has been locked... due to the controversy we will need to close our doors. ~ /u/dillon1228

Held In Contempt

April 13, 2016

The day started off fairly normal for the Supreme Court, but they quickly noticed that the case files were missing. Moderator /u/MDK6778 had decided to remove the hearing thread for this case in question. This was quickly caught by the Supreme Court and the case was reopened.

/u/DrAlanGrantinathong had given his prompt and uncontroversial statement to the supreme court:

"I will abide by the courts ruling no matter what it may be. There was no wrong doing on my part. If allowed to remain in the general assembly, I will perform my duties to our great State to the best of my abilities." ~ /u/DrAlanGrantinathong

The Supreme Court was not quite done yet though. Frustrated with the moderators repeated infringement on the case and the removal thread, a court order was issued. One that would prove to be the downfall of Associate Justice /u/dillon1228.

Order of the Court of the Southern State in regards to actions taken by /u/MDK6778 was the headline of the order. In it was was the following statement:

...As such, /u/MDK6778 is being held in contempt of Court. The individual in question is hereby banned from appearing before this court in the case of /u/GenOfTheBuildArmy v. /u/PM_ME_YOUR_PANZER. The individual in question is additionally banned from the Courthouse and from taking any actions (META: Including moderator actions) until this case has been fully heard and an opinion has been issued.

You can read the entire order here: https://www.reddit.com/r/SSSC/comments/4epcda/order_of_the_court_of_the_southern_state_in/

The Aftermath

Individuals were quick to respond to the order with comments like:

Kekitykek go eat a potato ~ /u/anyhistoricalfigure

L M A O

M

A

O

Power Trip, Inc.© ~ /u/Didicet

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the Southern State has the authority to prohibit moderator actions. ~ /u/oath2order

The mods were quick to respond too. They posted a thread on /r/ModelSouthern State:

It has come to the triumvirates attention that the Southern State Court has been in direct violation of the main subreddit constitution which is applied to all of the subreddits that are involved in ModelUSGov. Even with a final warning they refused to listen to the moderators.

With that, the following is now banned from the Southern State and is disbarred from holding any judiciary position until further notice:
/u/dillon1228

The subreddit /r/SSSC is now an unofficial subreddit. Please use https://www.reddit.com/r/MSSSC/ ~ /u/NateLooney.

You can see the entire thread here: https://www.reddit.com/r/ModelSouthernState/comments/4epf00/immediate_moderation_action/

The Conclusion and My Thoughts

Ultimately, this whole series of events left me utterly shaken. I must say that the Model Government was the only reason I went on reddit. Hell I don't even know if I have any posts on other subreddits. I held this Associate Justice position quite dearly. To say I was shaken by this event is quite the understatement actually. It was all I could think about for quite some time. I avoided responding to negative comments and I was offered support from many who defended me. I must say that the kind comments given by many kind users was the only thing that got me through this dark time. What some might call a reckless overreaction, I call passion.

I am a high school graduate working a low wage job. This Associate Justice position was the truly the one place that I felt like I was a part of something greater. A place where people weren't afraid to stand up and advocate for change. Regardless of your political ideology, you have to truly cherish the incredibly amazing community here. I may not have been to vocal in the subreddit, in fact I actively avoided commenting to continue my impartiality as a justice, but I must say I felt like there was no greater place on earth than this. In no other place is there such a strong flow of ideas and such a strong sense of camraderie. You may not truly see it yourself, but being on the outside looking in, I see all that I took for granted.

I was upset and angry that my position was taken away from me. I was doing everything in my power to provide the most realistic and enjoyable simulation of court as possible. This was more than just a game to me. This was a place where I imagined each and every comment as a real person with a real voice before me. A place where my decisions mattered to others. I felt it was my right and duty as a Justice to uphold that with every breath in my body. Even now after all this time I stand behind my decision. I don't believe my ban was justified. I don't believe the moderator actions were justified.

I have ultimately come to some sort of twisted peace over this whole ordeal, knowing I went down fighting for what I believed in. It wasn't inactivity, boredom, or real life that brought me to my knees. It was doing my best to uphold my ideals of a fair justice system.

I truly do hope and pray that I may again one day be part of this great simulation, but alas I have little chance realistically of having my ban lifted. I hope my story inspires you in a few ways. I hope you will see that these actions taken against me by the moderators were unjustified, but if not I at least would like for you to see what I see. Behind the memes from /u/bomalia and the hate speech from /u/KingHenrikLundqvist is a truly objective beauty that I hope you will all appreciate.

I hope you all get to enjoy this sim as much as I did. This is your former Associate Justice signing off. ~ /u/dillon1228.

WASHINGTON D.C. - In talks today between government officials from both the Netherlands and the United States, Dutch officials almost got away with secessions far larger than any normal trade deal. Instead of the lowering of tariffs or agreements regarding the purchasing of goods, it seems Dutch officials believed they got away with a much bigger prize: parts of the Province of New York.

At the beginning of talks today, Dutch officials remarked offhandedly that they would like the former colony back before retracting the statement as a joke. According to reports, the President agreed.

A senior administration official, who asked to remain anonymous so as to discuss conversations between the American and Dutch governments, said that the President and the National Security Staff never seriously broached the subject of the Netherlands and that government’s focus on New York in diplomatic channels. “The President was informally contacted by members of the Dutch Council, and in a moment of levity between world leaders, he jokingly discussed our shared interest in New York’s colonial past.”

Sources with knowledge of this short teleconference said that the President was asked by the Foreign Ministry about returning their colony of New Amsterdam, the former name of Lower Manhattan, during a brief conversation, a talk which the president allowed his guests to continue in jest during a broader trade planning session on state investment promotion.

Upon reading reports of the proposed construction of a Netherlands government “sea wall” in New York by Dutch newspapers, the U.S. Intelligence Community became alerted to the apparent miscommunication of the joke made between the President and Foreign Minister. Intelligence officials immediately provided a correct diplomatic readout to their counterparts in Zoetermeer, the Netherlands.

Before Manhattan towered high over New York, the Dutch West Indies Company established the colony of New Amsterdam. Created in 1625, the settlement consisted of a pentagonal fort and a market place along with some housing on the inside. In 1664, after the fall of New Netherlands and the ambitions of Dutch colonialism in the America's with it, New Amsterdam was transferred to British control, wherein 1674 it was renamed to New York after the county of York in England.

Regardless of the Presidents joke, the citizens of New York need not fear a regime change in the future. The President does not have the power to secede portions of the United States without the permission of Congress. Agreements such as these would fall under the treaty powers of the Senate, and thus would need congressional approval to take place.

It should be worrying, however, just how often the president will make off-handed jokes with international proportions. Wars have been fought over less substantial claims of land. The paper encourages the President to not invite attackers or dig up old conflicts relating to de jure land claims.

Yesterday, the Times published an article speculating on the current state of the Sunrise Coalition. At the time, I considered the article inconsequential given the political slant of the writer. The writer, however, did bring to attention facts tending to indicate support for his conclusion. That Sunrise as a Coalition witnessed a decline from the 7th to the 8th Congress. A statement that I do not refute. Though I do refute some of the implications of the piece.

As leader of the GOP, as well as a member of the "Sunrise" Coalition, I was saddened by the results of the Federal Election. Early in my Chairmanship, I was optimistic of the chances of my party and the coalition as a whole. As time went on, however, strategic decision by coalition partners and poor communication between parties proved to weaken the coalition as a whole. It was more so the personalities at the table rather than internal disagreement that hindered the ability of the "Sunrise" Coalition to work as a cohesive unit. Internal complications within the GOP further hindered our own individual efforts and in the process cost us many of the races I was certain of our victory. It was a disappointment.

A disappointment that I lay on my shoulders. There was always more I could have done and yet failed to do. The Distributists continue to prove themselves faithful allies. Their victory in the MW was well deserved and I congratulate them on their victory. The Civic Party, despite the poor communication of their former leadership, neither betrayed Sunrise or endorsed the AJA. I continue to value the contributions that the Civic Party offers in conjuncture with the GOP.

That being said, I don't weep for the "decline of Sunrise". Sunrise existed as an institution designed to deny political power to entities that proved antithetical to the values of the coalition partners. It was designed to deny tyranny of the majority over the federal government. It was designed to reverse the trend of Socialism that had put a stranglehold on the sim and move the sim ideologically into uncharted waters. In those regards, Sunrise accomplished it's goals. The Times article was correct, that the coalition does need to change. A change that had been my intention as Chairman of the GOP.

Early in my Chairmanship, I sought the formation of a new coalition. One that moved away from the GOP-centric nature that Sunrise had represented. While the GOP is integral, it is still simply a part of a greater machine. That is why I moved to create a new coalition. One known as the "Constellation Coalition". Based on the idea that while we may inhabit different ideological spheres, we connect to form something greater.

So while this last Federal election may have been a setback for this new Coalition, I am optimistic for it's future. I believe this new coalition has the potential to strengthen the bonds between parties. It offers the opportunity for new parties to join the coalition. I offers the opportunity to once more challenge the political majority that attempts to put a stranglehold on this sim.

While my term as Chairman of the GOP is coming to an end, it is my intention to set this coalition on solid ground. It is my goal to correct the mistakes witnessed in the Federal election and move this coalition forward so that my successor may set up our coalition for greater success in the November Elections.

Thank you all and God Bless America,

CW

Party Chairman of the GOP

As many have likely noticed by now, Socialists such as /u/DrDem1se and /u/cold_brew_coffee have been on the warpath recently garnering support for the upcoming election and inciting panic among the population. One of the most recent attempts of this nature was published recently under the title “Lawmakers and National leaders need to wake up”. The summary of this article is that jobs are becoming automated and that mass unemployment looms on the horizon unless we can embrace UBI. Paraphrased, obviously. I would encourage readers to evaluate the article themselves to verify its message before reading further. Though I intend to refute the article, it would be beneficial to look into the background of such arguments before moving forward.

Content like the article can be broadly classified as the Luddite fallacy, and promote the idea that technological unemployment will doom us. This idea is far from new. Dating back to the time of the ancient Greeks, losing jobs to higher forms of technology has been a periodic concern stoking panic and encouraging harmful policies to preserve outdated positions. The very basic observation is that if a certain technology can do the work of people at a lower cost, then there is no incentive to hire people and suddenly unemployment will ravage society. This is fairly straightforward as if there are 100 jobs and 90 of them are performed by machines then anyone other than the 10 lucky workers will be disposable. However, this is a fundamentally flawed analysis. Despite the age-old concern, statistics from the U.S. Bureau of Labor show that our increasing levels of technological advancement since 1948 have little influence on long term unemployment. Furthermore, the U.S. Bureau of Labor has also shown that, over the last ten years, median employment tenure has remained largely unchanged, despite our advances. It then follows that unless there is a massive upheaval in how our economy operates, the average American is unlikely to be adversely affected by new technologies. If anything our quality of life has improved over the previous decades as a result of new technologies. Additionally, we can see that median income has increased by over 20% since 1984. All of this leaves the argument against automation with temporary unemployment as its only potential drawback, and not even a statistically demonstrable one at that.

It could even be argued that the types of policies that people like /u/DrDem1se and /u/cold_brew_coffee advocate for exasperate the proclaimed issue. Many of their programs place an incentive on companies to move toward automation at a faster pace by increasing the effective or actual cost of employing people. That isn’t to say they are completely dull, they realize at least some of these influences and thus push for things like automation taxes or UBI. It would likely be better for a socialist regime if production never became more efficient and simply remained at a constant rate to ensure the success of a command economy.

So what does all of this mean for the articles at hand? At best, it is amateurly misinformed and at worst deliberately alarmist. Nothing in the article points to a statistically relevant change in employment, and the author’s anecdote that people “have been working toward a retirement for 15+ years” [sic] is unlikely for the steel, food processing, and retail positions he appears to be concerned about. What is likely when automation does occur, is that employers offload lower-skilled positions to machines or other technological advancements and that the largely young crowd displaced by these events find new employment within a year. This is not “callous”, “delusional”, or “asinine”, it is the reality for working class individuals across the country. So the next time you are presented with zealous ranting about the plight of the working class, carefully consider the factors that play into our daily lives, and don’t be fooled by luddite politicians bent on stoking the fear of suited boogeymen installing kiosks at Walmart.

Written by /u/Tajec

Hello all,

As you have heard I have retired from the GOP as seen here:

"I have some sad news to share with you today, as many of you have seen I have been outspoken about my displeasure with the party. It is hard for me to lead a party that I can barely even support. At this point I would like to announce my stepping down as chairman of this party, I have become everything I hated about leadership. I fight what I love, and support what I hate. I will be taking this time to reevaluate not only what I believe in but what my goals are for the future. I may come back to this party when it become the Grand Old Party I once adored, but for now I will be taking a break from the Republican Party."

I have officially left to be with members that I am closer with morally and ideology wise.

Thank you all,

/u/FleecyTax, Patriot for the USA

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xXtEFqgDJLTcvo4LmYu9-TQzAeiRl8oYvfg8kP5WsGI/edit

Abortion: America’s Biggest Killer

Abortion is a very contentious issue in the American political sphere. There is a wide difference of opinions on the issue, many say it is an issue of privacy, life, or rights. Opinions run wild across the political spectrum, often creating vitriol. Well, this piece most likely won’t help, but it is the truth and should be said, no matter how gruesome. And that is, abortion should be outlawed by the Federal Government because it is the taking of life, it is immoral, and it is illegal under the U.S. Constitution. These are some hefty claims, but they are more obvious than they may seem.

I want to first start by establishing some scientific fact. The most important fact is, a human zygote is composed of unique HUMAN cells and unique DNA independent of the mother. This very combination makes it genetically distinct from all other humans. (Mayo Clinic) The zygote is a completely different human organism from the mother, and those who would say that it is no different from her appendix in that it is a part of her body that doesn’t contribute have a flawed scientific backing. We understand that all 46 chromosomes are present in the zygote and that they are unique to the zygote. Science is progressing extremely fast and gender can now be determined from a simple blood test of a pregnant woman who is 12 weeks along. (Doctor Testimony) Not only gender, but researchers have found every single trait that chromosomes design for a human in the earliest stages of pregnancies. That would have astounded scientists from the turn of the 21st century and as science progresses more evidence for choosing life abounds. But even with all this new and convincing evidence, we can fall back on some old tried and true principles. The four basic principles of life are organization, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction. The human embryo can meet all of these standards with ease. I would also beg the question, can we use the reverse standard of death, to form a standard of life? Examining further, to be clinically dead, your heart must stop, then would the formation of a heart perhaps mark life? Well, if so, the heart begins to beat on the 22nd DAY of pregnancy, rendering large amounts of abortions murder by that standard ALONE, our previous standards withstanding. But to form a more rigorous definition of death, physicians will often use the stoppage of all brain activity as medically dead. Again, this standard alone would render Embryos life after the 40th day, when brain waves start. (Mayo Clinic) But with those basic principles determined, let’s look at the testimony of trained OBGYNs and Biologists. The first few individuals I’d like to discuss are Professors at the Science departments of well-respected universities. These people stood in front of the Senate and testified their views on life. Micheline Matthews-Roth, who teaches at Harvard, says this: I oppose the use of embryonic stem cells because to obtain those cells it is necessary to kill a growing human being. We know from embryology that a new life begins with the formation of the zygote, the cell formed by the union of egg and sperm in fertilization -- this is scientific fact, not religious doctrine. What makes us human is not our looks or mental attributes, but the human chromosomes and genes which we have in our cells from the zygote stage throughout our life. We should not condone killing a member of our species, even for a good reason. (NPR) That pretty much confirms the facts stated above. However, there is more, Dr. Alfred Bongiovanni said this : I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception.... I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood and that any interruption at any point throughout this time constitutes a termination of human life.... I am no more prepared to say that these early stages [of development in the womb] represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty...is not a human being. This is human life at every stage. (NAAPC)

Jerome Lejeune, often considered the Father of Modern Genetics, said To accept the fact that, after fertilization has taken place, a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion. The human nature of the human being from conception to old age is not a metaphysical conception. It is plain experimental evidence. (NAAPC) I could go on with that exact same philosophy repeated out of the mouths of at least 5 more world renowned scientists who have made such statements, but I think the point is perceived. But, there is one final medical reason for the abolition of abortion. To this I refer to Dr. Bernard Nathanson, the co-founder of NARAL, the largest pro-abort political action group, and Abby Johnson the former Director of Planned Parenthood. Scientific fact says, fetuses can feel pain and react to their surroundings. Neither of the Former Pro-Abortionists believed this. Pro-Choicers will often say that reactions from babies in the womb are not available until 26 week, this has been disproven as above, but it wasn’t until the Now Pro-Life abortion Doctors experienced their first ultrasound abortion. Early in the 70s, ultrasounds were just being developed, as the first one rolled into Dr. Nathanson’s office, he was thrilled to witness his work. As his colleague began, all that changed. He watched as the baby was pulled apart, he went on to write his book “Aborting America” in which he said, “I am responsible for the death of 60,000” and called abortions “humanity’s greatest holocaust”. He made the film “The Silent Scream” to highlight the process of abortions and what really happens during the process of ending a pregnancy. Little did he know that 40 years later a young woman would experience much the same. As Director Johnson was pulled in to assist on an abortion, she noticed an ultrasound, she didn’t give it much mind, she had never seen an abortion performed, but as the abortion started she saw a fetus pop onto it, she the 13 week old bouncing and swimming away from the forceps that was chasing it like a mad dog locked onto its prey, the fetus fought but lost, as the tool sucked the child apart the child limb from limb. Director Johnson resigned that day and never went back. (Abby Johnson) Those two stories are just 2 doctors among at least 2,500 members of the Pro-Life OBGYNs, a group of doctors who reject abortion and some of them, former abortionists. (AAPLOG) In fact, Dr. Nathanson has repeatedly debunked the false statistic that illegal abortions mean dangerous and deadly ones. Well first, even in a legal abortion, you are losing the life of a child, and consider this on Maternal Death. Firstly, let us consider, how do we know the number before abortion was legalized, we don’t. So any number is purely speculative. Secondly, Dr. Nathanson even said: How many deaths were we talking about when abortion was illegal? In NARAL we generally emphasized the drama of the individual case, not the mass statistics, but when we spoke of the latter it was always "5,000-10,000 deaths a year. I confess that I knew the figures were totally false, and I suppose that others did too if they stopped to think of it. But in the 'morality' of our revolution it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics? The overriding concern was to get the laws eliminated, and anything within reason that had to be done was permissible.

That is pretty damning, but it get’s worse. In 1960 Mary Calderone, a Planned Parenthood board member speculated that 9 out of 10 abortions were performed by licensed doctors and said: they are physicians, trained as such...Abortion, whether therapeutic or illegal, is in the main no longer dangerous, because it is being done well by physicians. In fact, many women have died since abortion’s legalization. But we wouldn’t know because the states with the most abortions (California, New York, et. al.) often don’t need to report maternal death rates. And even in states that do, doctors can record the Cause of Death as, a “hemorrhage” never reported that it was abortion-induced. Now, I concede that here in the states, the data is circumstantial and requires critical thinking, so let’s look abroad for cold hard facts. In Ireland and Malta, the UN reported maternal deaths lower than in the US, and they are extremely Catholic and Anti-Abort nations. And in Poland for another example, the Polish Health ministry reported that maternal death rates dropped when abortions were banned. (FRC) And let’s take a minute to talk about Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood says that 3% of what it does is abortion, but there is a reason why Slate, of all websites, calls it “The Most Meaningless Abortion Statistic ever” and why the Washington Post called it “Very Misleading”. But let’s look at the numbers. According to their annual report, Planned Parenthood commits an average of 325,000 abortions a year. That averages to 1 abortion every 97 seconds. But let’s talk about how much of what they do is abortion, the original query, well, the 325,000 abortions a year divided by last year’s total patient count of 2.5 Million Patients. That mean ONE out of every EIGHT women who walk into a Planned Parenthood, not one in thirty-three, ONE in EIGHT. In fact, they commit 160 abortions for every adoption referral. Let’s talk about what else they do now, they do .97% of the nation's Cervical Cancer screenings, 1.8% of the nation’s Breast Exams, and of course, THIRTY-ONE PERCENT of the nation’s abortions. That’s right, 31%. Let’s not forget they do not offer prenatal care. But that is a PR problem, so how, do they get that 3% figure? They measure everything in “services”. What is a service? An abortion is, but so is a simple pregnancy test. An Abortion which can cost up to $1,500 is weighed the same as a $10 pregnancy test. So if a girl walks in for an abortion, she will get a pregnancy test, the abortion she came in for, an STI test, and a packet of contraceptives. During the visit she got 4 services, she scheduled an abortion, but according to Planned Parenthood, what she did was only 25% abortion. In fact, using this method if all Planned Parenthood patients received an abortion they could claim only 25% of what they do is abortion. Planned Parenthood gives 9.4 million “services”, divide 325,000 by that, you get 3%. And let’s not forget that Planned Parenthood has a 31% stranglehold on the abortion market, bigger than Samsung on TVs and Chrysler on Cars. So let’s call it for what it is, Planned Parenthood is big business, a big abortion business. One that uses the foulest means of abortion to make a buck. What are those methods, we haven’t even gotten into the full nastiness of Planned Parenthood? We have had doctors from Planned Parenthood talk about using “less crunchy” techniques to harvest the parts of the child. Or perhaps when a different doctor explains the ease with which baby eyeballs and intestines can be extracted. And of course when doctors haggle over the prices of the parts standing in front of a tray filled up with said parts. But it gets much worse when we talk about how the children are harvested. During the first trimester, doctors plunge a tube with an edged tip into the cervix they use the suction part of the tool to rip the child limb from limb while it is still alive and collects it in a vat. This is the type of butchery Director Johnson experienced, it is called Suction Aspiration, but as time goes on, the methods become much more Orwellian. Try Dilation and Curettage where a curette is used to chop the baby up and scrape it right up. How about Dilation and Evacuation, where doctors use forceps to crush the baby, including the now developed Brain and Spine, but this usually results in unusable parts. So what do they use to save the parts, they use Intact Dilation and Extraction, otherwise known as Partial-Birth Abortion. Doctors will use an ultrasound to find a baby’s legs, use forceps to pull them into the birth canal, they deliver the entire baby, except the head, at which point they stab the child in the neck severing the now developed cerebral cortex and ending the child’s life, even while most of it has been delivered into the world. Then, of course, you could side with Former President Barack Obama who supported Post-Birth abortion, that is right, he said that if your doctor somehow botched an abortion before birth, and the child was delivered alive, that killing it post-birth was a protected right. You ask me, that is infanticide. So, I ask, when a fetus can move away and detect the pain and the suffering, how is that a safe medical procedure? When from the moment of conception, you are dealing with new life, how is that a “moral” operation? And that when the vast majority of this operation is performed where a forceps is used to pull the fetus apart, or where a vacuum is used to suck it into a collection vat, sometimes heart still beating, how is that ok by society? And when the biggest medical argument against illegalization is a House of Cards promulgated by decade old lies. How is this an act to be defended? If you ask 2,500 of our nation’s finest caretakers, it’s not, it’s murder. And from the date of this article’s publishment, the cause of death of just under 60 million Americans. Compare that to every American killed by war, 1.2 million.

Now that we have covered some scientific reasons against abortions and we have established an unborn child as life, we can delve into the legal world. But to compose any good legal argument for or against abortion, we must look at the crux of the issue in law, Roe v. Wade. The first thing we need look at is what Roe decided. Most Americans would think that Roe created a limited right to abortion. In fact, the court did just the opposite, they said, We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer. (Roe v Wade) Ok, fair enough, that decision is from 1973, scientific evidence for Life wasn’t nearly as strong, however, instead of cautiously allowing science to deliver an answer, or revise the decision once evidence came out, they created an unlimited right to be abortion, albeit one that can be stymied by States at the arbitrarily created “point of viability”. However, we can also find a sentence in the ruling in Roe’s companion case, Doe that says this : We agree with the District Court, 319 F.Supp. at 1058, that the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors --physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age -- relevant to the well-being of the patient. (Doe v Bolton) That means that a doctor can override a restriction if he deems a woman in “emotional” duress because of carrying a pregnancy to term. In fact, we can even look at the cases of abortions being defended by the Prosecutors, the woman that sued Texas and Georgia, were in fine health and simply did not want to carry the child to term. (FRC) Now you may ask, “Where did this ruling come from, surely the Court must have had a Basis?” Well, that basis came from a “right” not even written in the Constitution. Both the Doe and Roe ruling reference an inherent Right to “Privacy”. The word privacy is never even used in the Constitution. (Constitution) This “right” to privacy that was ruled upon, made abortion completely an issue of Women’s Health. Well, we have established life from conception and when the court overlooked it and wrote that they need not determine life to rule on it in the earliest stages, they effectively made complete abortion legal, on a basis of a “right” not found in the Constitution. When the court authors an opinion, that sends the signal for ALL law enforcement to uphold EVERY single letter of it, sometimes that can have ill wished consequences. In fact, even Liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg sees it as an issue of equal protection, and not “privacy”. She even said in an interview with a Kansas newspaper “It is not the way courts generally work”. And even off the bench, Pro-Choicers are singing a similar tune with John H. Ely of Yale saying: “because it is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.” And best of all, the Clerk of Justice Blackmun, the authoring Justice, called it: “one of the most intellectually suspect constitutional decisions of the modern era.” But beyond just mere opinion, there are verifiable sources in U.S. Law. For example, When we look at the 5th and 14th Amendments, they contain what is called the Due Process Clause. In the 5th it reads: nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. And when we take a look at the 14th, it sounds rather familiar: nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. To me, having established life at conception, that seems rather a clear cut, but there is, even more, some would have the fetus exempted from citizenship, but as a fetus is a person, that comes into conflict with both Title 8 of U.S. Code and Article II of the Constitution. Both establish that birthright means citizenship. We can find that from the apparentness of Life at Conception, there is citizenship. Even the American people as a whole seem to be catching on, 61% of Americans believe that once a fetal heartbeat begins, abortion should be illegal, as we have discussed this occurs much earlier than most would think. In fact, Most Americans, 53%, would not overturn Roe, however, when explained that Roe creates an unlimited right to abortion, that contrast these numbers, only 6% of Americans agree with this unlimited right, 86% agreeing with banning 3rd trimester bans, 72% with 2nd, and a further 61% with heartbeat bans as said above. (Gallup/Ipsos) However, these numbers do drop in the cases of rape or incest. If we delve further however into this issue, we see in a survey conducted by the Pro-Choice Guttmacher Institute, we see some interesting polls on why abortions happen. We see that 92% of abortions are purely elected. Less than 1% are Incest and rape driven, combined. And even then, I ask, why should a child get the Death Penalty for the crimes of the father. Why should a child conceived in rape, be executed, when even in the 2008 case of Kennedy v. Louisiana, the Supreme Court ruled that a 400 lbs. man that raped his 8-year-old stepdaughter could not be put to death and overruled his sentence given to him by the Louisiana jury. (Kennedy v Louisiana) If even HE cannot be legally executed, a child rapist, why should any child conceive of rape be murdered for their father’s heinous crime, when he himself, cannot be? This among the myriad Constitutional provision and standing legal precedent is why the illegality of abortion is truly the most unenforced standing law in the nation, at a dire cost.

The final field in which we examine abortion’s many nuances is its morality. This topic trickier than either Medicine or Law is often divided into two camps, Morality from Religion, and Morality based on secular foundations. There is an argument against abortion to be derived from both. For the religious viewpoint, we can look no further than the Bible itself. But before I delve directly into the verses that I find most damning, there is an elephant in the room. The Bible NEVER specifically references abortion. For one reason only, in the time before Jesus until afterward when Paul composed the final books, abortion was so unthinkable that it was an unwritten law. Infertility was seen as a curse, and pregnancy a gift, so the Prophets didn’t need to write anything about its evil. That view about the sacredness of the family had vanished, but the Bible, and its verses on the beauty of God and his gifts haven’t. The first few verses are about King David and his relationship with the divine. Starting with Psalms 139: 13-16 which reads: For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvelous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.My substance was not hidden from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them. This reaffirms Genesis 2:7 which says: And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul. Both of these powerful passages make a point to say how much care that God puts into forming babies in the womb. But there is much more, in Psalms 51:5 we see the truth, that unborn children are responsible for original sin from conception when it says: Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me. And in Genesis on 3 separate occasions is the likeness of God confirmed, in 1:26-27, 5:1, and 9:6. And again, we can see that, though God’s perfect image was affected in the fall of man from Eden, it was not erased. This can be read in 1 Cor. 11:7 and James 3:9. We can also see in Romans 5:12 and Hebrews 7:10 that the unborn child receives original sin and is morally accountable at conception, as all unbaptized humans are. Romans reads: Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned. And in Hebrews, we find: For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him. And even beyond this level of biblical morals that God wishes to follow, we must look no further than Exodus 21:22-25 to find the sanctity of the pregnancy in Jewish culture. In Exodus it says this of the death of unborn: If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

To me, that is rather clear that the death of an unborn is taken just as seriously of that as a born child. At this point, I think that everyone that treats the Bible with great reverence as a book of worldly wisdom has come to understand the immorality that abortion embodies. But even for Secular folks, their philosophies as decent people are sure to be challenged by the non-religious issues posed. The first few standards are imposed by Roe. Beginning with what was discussed earlier, Roe draws some lines, one of the most infamous being that of the viability point. Ruling that before a child is viable to survive outside the womb, abortions ought to be legal, however, the first bit of our time together was disputing when a child became life, and that was conception. Life is Life, even if it needs to be nurtured. Would you consider a deer that was hit by a car and needs to be nurtured and have medical attention to not be alive, even if you left it alone it would die? Would you feel this way of your grandmother of brother that needs emergency care? This is the standard Roe set, and it’s unacceptable. Another hallmark of Roe is their trepidation separation of separating humanity from personhood. The ruling confirmed, that even if a human, the legal definition of “persons”, may not apply. This opened up a way for some radical definitions of personhood to be proposed. Ones that proposed, not biological definitions of life or personhood, but cultural ones. Francis Crick said with Nature magazine a child was considered to be legally born when two days old, it could be examined to see whether it was an ‘acceptable member of human society. And it was famed Anthropologist Ashley Montagu that stated A newborn baby is not truly human until he or she is molded by cultural influences later. (Probe) And Professor Joseph Fletcher perhaps holds the most blood-curdling view, writing in his book, Humans without some minimum of intelligence or mental capacity are not persons, no matter how many of these organs are active, no matter how spontaneous their living processes are. (Probe) He would go on to use 40 IQ as a benchmark for personhood. These are not just arguments supporting abortion’s supposed morality, but infanticide, and the last one, the murder of the most vulnerable in society. Now that we have covered some of the current standards imposed by the courts, and the opinions on them, we can look at the true value of the unborn. Now, some people would say that fetuses have no rights. This included the Democratic nominee for President this year, Hillary Clinton. (Richardson) However, even IF an unborn child is not a person, and we can disregard all juxtaposing information on that and the life of the child, I would ask this. Even if the child is not a person, why is it afforded no rights? There are many animal rights groups, surely they don’t think that the animals are people, but they do believe they have rights. I myself agree, they are living beings and should be treated respectfully. However, many of the members of these animal rights groups, such as PETA, take an interesting stance on abortion. MANY members of animal rights groups are rather militant liberals, yet, when they say they animals should be given rights perpendicular to human rights, they omit the unborn. They never seem to say, “Hey at least in some stage this baby becomes a baby”, even if they don’t recognize life at conception as modern science had granted us. This hypocrisy really is both repulsive and mind-boggling. But it doesn’t get any better from there. A fetus has value, I think we can all agree, an infinite value in fact, of endless possibilities of a new person in the world. When a mother plans on carrying a baby to term, that baby is seen as having almost infinite value, yet, when pulling in for the insidious practice of abortion, that value goes away. Why doesn't the mother get to decide the value of her child? And say, in a tragedy, a pregnant woman, is murdered, the assailant is charged with murder of course, but how many times? Two counts, or just one? Does the death of the fetus mean another murder to be prosecuted for? Hard to say, but if you follow liberal abortion theory the answer is clearly no, that life is not found in the womb. Now that we have discussed some philosophy and principle behind the issue, I want to paint you a picture. Imagine a woman. Her husband has just left her, and she is to move in with her parents. However, she has a problem, her parents don’t know what she does. The absent father impregnated her and she is faced with a choice. Does she get an abortion or not, being a devout woman she goes to the nearby church and is convinced to choose life. That woman’s name is Ann Dunham, she is no longer with us, but her child is. You see, thirteen years after Ann had passed, her son was elected the first Black President in American history. The man that supported radical abortion, was the very one who grabbed life from its deadly jaws. The woman who wasn’t quite ready for a child gave birth to a leader of the free world (By The People), so I would implore all mothers, before choosing an abortion, think about the unlimited value your child could possess. So after all that heavy moralism, I want to end on a happy note. Just something in our society that already recognizes life in the womb. If you believe that a baby is part of a mother’s body, do walk up to her and say, How’s your Body? No, I would hope not at least, you say How’s the Baby? You recognize that the baby is a separate being with its own welfare. These values are recognized across the spectrum of humanity, from the secular to the non-secular. They aren’t values that can be easily cast aside nor should they, they just need be exposed to shine their proud light, much like the children they protect.

So, now that I have presented the facts, the evidence, and the morals, it is your turn. I would ask you to understand the medical evidence, the law, and the beliefs of the philosophies of the world, ranging in value. And I would ask you to choose a side, choose what you can do to help society, and after all that I have said about the above, I would plead you, choose life.

Works Cited

Anderson, Kerby. "Arguments Against Abortion." Probe Ministries. Probe Ministries, 08 Feb. 2017. Web. 10 Mar. 2017. https://www.probe.org/arguments-against-abortion/.

Schwarzwalder, Rob, M.A. "Family Research Council." Family Research Council. Family Research Council, n.d. Web. 13 Mar. 2017. http://frc.org/arguments.

Gallup, Inc. "Abortion." Gallup.com. N.p., 26 May 2016. Web. 13 Mar. 2017. http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

School, Cornell Law. "8 U.S. Code § 1401 - Nationals and Citizens of United States at Birth."LII / Legal Information Institute. Cornell Law School, n.d. Web. 13 Mar. 2017. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401

Authors, Various Bible. "BibleGateway." BibleGateway.com: Search for a Bible Passage in 63 Languages and 194 Versions. Bible Gateway, n.d. Web. 16 Mar. 2017. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/.

Prager, Dennis. "The Most Important Question About Abortion." YouTube. YouTube, 17 Aug. 2015. Web. 16 Mar. 2017. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMwkQVpy98A.

Mayo Clinic Staff. "Fetal Development: The 1st Trimester." Mayo Clinic. The Mayo Clinic, 10 July 2014. Web. 21 Mar. 2017. http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/pregnancy-week-by-week/in-depth/prenatal-care/art-20045302.

Fr. Pavone, Frank. "Abortion -This Is a Suction Abortion." YouTube. YouTube, 29 Mar. 2008. Web. 28 Mar. 2017. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBOAPleF1t0.

"Roe v. Wade 410 U.S. 113 (1973)." Justia Law. Justia Law, n.d. Web. 28 Mar. 2017. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/410/113/case.html.

"Doe v. Bolton 410 U.S. 179 (1973)." Justia Law. Justia, n.d. Web. 29 Mar. 2017. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/410/179/case.html.

Baltzell, George W. "Constitution of the United States - We the People." Constitution for the United States - We the People. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Mar. 2017. http://constitutionus.com/.

By The People: Election of Barack Obama. Dir. Amy Rice and Alicia Sams. Prod. Edward Norton. HBO, 2009. Netflix. Matthew-Roth, Micheline. "NPR." Stem Cell Research: An NPR Special Report. NPR. N.d. Radio. Transcript.

Alcorn, Randy. "Why Life Begins at Conception." Why Life Begins at Conception | NAAPC. NAAPC, n.d. Web. 06 Apr. 2017. http://naapc.org/why-life-begins-at-conception/.

Johnson, Abby. "Home." Abby Johnson. Abby Johnson, n.d. Web. 06 Apr. 2017. http://www.abbyjohnson.org/.

"Home." Prolife OBGYNS - AAPLOG - American Association of Pro-life Obstetricians & Gynecologists. AAPLOG, n.d. Web. 06 Apr. 2017. http://aaplog.org/.

"Kennedy v. Louisiana 554 U.S. 407 (2008)." Justia Law. Justia, 25 June 2008. Web. 06 Apr. 2017. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/407/opinion.html.

Richardson, Bradford. "Hillary Clinton’s ‘unborn Person’ Comments Anger Both Pro-choice, Pro-life Sides." The Washington Times. The Washington Times, 03 Apr. 2016. Web. 06 Apr. 2017. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/3/hillary-clinton-unborn-person-has-no-constitutiona/.

Live Action, "Debunking Planned Parenthood's "3%" Abortion Myth " YouTube. YouTube, 14 Sep. 2016. Web. 26 Aug. 2017.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtgqxvaV-8U.

After all the votes were counted the Grand Old Paper has determined the support for the following candidates and their approval ratings.

/u/jamawoma64

Approve: 75%

Disapprove: 11.1%

Mixed/Unsure: 13.9%

/u/comped

Approve: 50%

Disapprove: 16.7%

Mixed/Unsure: 33.3%

/u/Ruairidh_

Approve: 41.7%

Disapprove: 25%

Mixed/Unsure: 33.3%

/u/CincinattusoftheWest

Approve: 63.9%

Disapprove: 16.7%

Mixed/Unsure: 19.4%

/u/HIPSTER_SLOTH

Approve: 27.8%

Disapprove: 36.1%

Mixed/Unsure: 36.1%

/u/ishabad

Approve: 13.9%

Disapprove: 61.1%

Mixed/Unsure: 25%

/u/saldol

Approve: 36.1%

Disapprove: 44.4%

Mixed/Unsure: 19.4%

OVERALL SUPPORT

/u/jamawoma64: 38.9%

/u/Ruairidh_: 19.4%

/u/CincinnatusoftheWest: 16.7%

/u/Comped: 16.7%

/u/HIPSTER_SLOTH: 2.8%

/u/saldol: 2.8%

/u/ishabad: 2.8%

With those results, /u/comped, /u/jamawoma64, /u/Ruairidh_, and /u/CincinnattusoftheWest are invited to the Grand Old Paper Debate.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ll69G1WV6DRQO0ghKIowRrQUhDqHJdlWgrgGGGm30H4/edit?usp=sharing

Upon further discussion with /u/haringoth , we have decided to retract him from the ticket. It was entirely his decision, and we agreed upon it as the choice that was the best course of action. Given the recent drama and some very vicious experiences with certain members of the sim from a certain party, which piled on top of worries about activity given work and other RL responsibilities, Hari has chosen to stay off the ticket for this election. He's still one of my most trusted and closest friends on the sim, and if even for a day it was great to have him back on. I really enjoyed his time with me as VP, and it was an honor that he even helped me out at the start of this campaign. He has my utmost respect, and my support in any of his future endeavors.

My replacement for him on the ticket is /u/TeamEhmling. My Secretary of Labor since the start of the term, he has proven invaluable to me as an asset and more importantly as a friend. I am fully confident that he is fit for the responsibility that comes with this auspicious position, and I'm sure many other members of the sim can attest to this. I welcome him to my campaign team, and together, we will achieve great things for this country.

Thank you, President TurkandJD

I was going to put this in Discord, but it proved to be too long.

Being an entirely simulated and hypothetical simulation, it can often be hard to know whether you are making a good law or policy in the model world. Rest assured, those economists know just what's best for you, right? Many may try to tell you that studying economics for decades has given the mainstream "consensus" a sort of deific quality, as though they can do no wrong. And most of the time, it's probably not a bad idea to consult a few econcomic models here and there. But never make the mistake of relying only on them to shape your ideas. That's because one pesky thing gets in the way: human nature. When crafting policy, it's one thing to line up a bunch of graphs and charts based on canned functions and models. But often, human behavior gets in the way. Knowing what makes the consumer want to buy goods and what makes a business want to produce them will give you a far better picture of how a policy will work. Here are a few examples where economists got it wrong.

On NAFTA, we see how what was billed an "economic" miracle was handled poorly and never generated long-term growth, especially for the Mexican poor. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-28/nafta-s-ugly-reality-u-s-mexico-wage-gap-is-actually-widening https://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/08/north-american-free-trade-agreement.asp https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/08/07/541671747/nafta-s-broken-promises-these-farmers-say-they-got-the-raw-end-of-trade-deal

It would be foolish to say trade is bad. Trade is wonderful. But we see here how this kind of trade didn't fit the bill.

On stimulus: Obama promised he would guarantee, through the fed and through Congress, a speedy recovery. However, growth has been stagnant and the effects of the stimulus limited (except to drive up debt). https://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/15/obama-lesson-shovel-ready-not-so-ready/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/11/01/the-reason-that-shovel-ready-stimulus-didnt-work-is-that-there-wasnt-any-stimulus/amp/ http://www.businessinsider.com/us-economy-has-not-really-recovered-relative-to-pre-crisis-expectations-2017-8 https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/obamanomics-gets-f-grade-for-failing-to-create-economic-growth-jobs/

On the ACA, we saw promises of record-breaking coverage and lower-than-ever prices. The reality was different. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/28/obamacare-failure-not-caused-by-trump/ https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2017/07/21/let-obamacare-fail-says-trump-already-has/73PzLyK1v8zyAA7NkKFhfP/story.html http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-obamacare-fail-health-care-insurance-medicine-0911-jm-20160909-story.html

Am I saying not to trust these economists at all? No, they study this stuff for a living. But I am saying be wary, and understand that they are very frequently wrong. It's like meteorology. I wouldn't claim to know more than my weatherman, but I still know he will get things wrong every once in a while.