- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Joann - My dad used to say jokingly, "My mind is made up don't confuse me with the facts!" Well, it seems like that might be a good line for Robert to remember, but not as a joke.

In the text of the rest my email below I have italicized and "highlighted" inside quotation marks words and phrases that I have quoted from Robert's email to you appearing above. I am also saving a copy of this email to disc so to permanently save it for posterity. Who knows, it might come in handy someday if you or I should ever be questioned about "how we saw things way back in the first decade of this century." I know that you didn't write what appears below, but I don't think I've said anything with which you'd disagree based on all of our discussions regarding the topics I addressed therein. I know that you and I change our minds, make new decisions, and alter our beliefs based upon new information. Even if nobody ever asks us, it might be interesting for just ourselves in 15 to 20 years to see where our thinking has changed!

Oh sure, most of the forwarded emails were probably not favorable towards Democrats or an occasional Republican; and of course, certainly not favorable towards liberalism, socialism, Marxism, environmentalism, communism, Islamism [political system], terrorism, fascism, Islamo-nazism, anarchism, racism, atheism, feminism, or Obamaism, but so what? When someone with whom you've had a personal relationship for well over a decade has now self-admittedly made special effort during this previous decade through their silence camouflaged by "smiles and nods" to inform you of little or nothing of their beliefs, opinions, views and positions on any such things, for all you know they haven't formed any yet and would require more information before doing so. It seems that even secrets can produce non-secret consequences.

Once after a game 4 or 5 years ago of "Who Wants to be a Millionaire" when Sam either won or came closer to winning than did Robert, he said basically that his childhood schooling in Canada didn't cover US history all that well and offered this as a reason for coming in with the lower score with respect to that particular game. Although he didn't expressly say it or make any specific reference, I would nonetheless think it reasonable to assume that his Canadian education back then was much like what the current education in the US public school system has now become - at least with respect to American history. Whether back then in Canada or currently here in the US what was and is for the most part ignored are the precepts of the Declaration of Independence [adopted in 1776], US Constitution [ratified in 1789], its Bill of Rights [ratified in 1791] and particularly, the limitations those founding documents [of 1789 and 1791] fixed upon the federal government of the several united States. Moreover, I think it's probable that neither of the foredescribed educations presented the idea, much less went into any depth, that, aside from the role played by the ancestral influence of the Magna Carta, all the forenamed founding documents sprung from the Old and New Testament and all together are the very root of American political conservatism. I think that in the back of your mind you may have been thinking that at least some of your forwarded emails had enough educational value and American perspective to help fill in the self-admitted void left in the Canadian version of US history that Robert received while growing up.

A few years ago Robert intimated [but maybe we took it the wrong way unless his slant as leaned the other way since then] that his then current views had a conservative slant in that he told us his adoptive parents in Canada were conservatives [or that he was raised by conservatives, but I can't remember exactly how he put it; but to me anyway, I would have taken either to mean the same thing]. In addition to that he had said that one [or more] college[s] he attended was [were] also conservative. As far as I know, Robert has maintained his dual citizenship and can work and live in either country, and for over the last decade, at least, he's chosen the USA to work, live, and now raise his family. [I think Robert is aware that the Canadian government, acting apparently within its lawful power has, or until recently had, the practice of filtering or downright censoring some forms of conservative thought, or at least talk, anyway. It had done this when it barred conservative radio talk-show host Dr. Laura Schlessinger from broadcasting her show from any Canadian radio station. I think it was maybe about a year ago I that the Canadian government had finally lifted the ban on her show.]

All in all I think it was reasonable for us to have taken all the aforementioned to mean that he didn't think that he knew everything that was worth knowing forevermore from the point in time he had begun residing in the US. To put this simply, we thought that he wanted among other things that his informal education in American politics ongoing. This would also include remaining open to hearing and reading the newest thing that came along that would tend to either validate or discredit whatever he considered were differences between American conservatism and liberalism or Republicans and Democrats; and particularly with respect to those philosophies and parties, whether whatever any of them might be advocating in a given instance comported with this country's founding documents and their Judeo-Christian roots.

To this day Robert may have not yet fully realized that none of the fore identified are static, with the possible exception of conservatism; however, even this exception has arguably changed, although perhaps in some very small degree. [Personally, I like to think of my view as being right down the center of the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. To many others, my view might be taken as "right wing" or even "far right." It's kinda funny how when a position has not essentially changed at all [except to say having deeper appreciation] with respect to the basic principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence that were put ultimately into legal effect by the Constitution and its Bill of Rights, that this same unwavering position is seen as somehow moving supposedly more to the "extreme right" as each year passes. Obviously, what's really going on is that it's actually the views of those whose positions are moving further away from the principles Americans adopted back in 1776 and put forth into law way back in 1789 and 1791, and not these historical principles somehow moving away from those whose views are constantly changing or appearing out of nowhere.. ("Those" in this instance are they who might call themselves progressives, liberals, Democrats, Obama followers, welfare rights advocates, alien rights advocates, gay rights advocates, etc. [Anyone would be hard-pressed to quote any phrase in the Constitution, its Bill of Rights, or any of the subsequent 17 Constitutional Amendments ratified (reasonable challenges have been made that the 16th Amendment was never lawfully ratified [source]) during the years from 1795 to 1992 that would single out or discriminate one group of American citizens from the whole population of citizenry of all the several States where, aside from the topic women's suffrage*, they would have, or be, denied or accorded any special "right" as a group that would distinguish them from the aforementioned population! This is to say there is no real person or special group of people under the jurisdiction of our federal government that has any special right not afforded or unavailable to others under this jurisdiction. However, this is not to say that politicians who pander to special interest groups don't pretend that there is Constitutional authority by which certain groups can be afforded by the federal government any special rights and privileges distinctly different from the general population. [* There is a movement underway to have our government make its officials pretend that they cannot distinguish difference between genders, but that's a whole other discussion.])]

Yes, sure, there are some things in each of the parties and philosophies that seem to have remained pretty constant although many others have changed dramatically over the years. Ronald Reagan used to be a Democrat. He said he didn't leave the Democrat party but rather that the party left him. Others who've said something similar are former Democrat senators Zel Miller and Joe Lieberman. Take for example your dad who voted for Democrat John F. Kennedy for president. If President Kennedy were alive today and he held the same foreign and domestic positions now as he did during the 1960s, he would be easily taken as a Republican, and perhaps, even a conservative for that matter. This is over-simplification but it illustrates the point: Your dad figures that Democrats were great then so they must be great now so he votes for them and sends them money. [Your dad, of course, gets virtually all of his local, national, and foreign news from the liberal mainstream media (when polled, I think the figure was about 70-85% of those in the mainstream media said they vote normally for Democrats or a liberal ticket).] For the most part it seems that your dad is unaware of the shift over the past 45 years of the Democrat party going further and further left. This would be a good example of where a "belief" has remained true, but that which was the focus of the belief morphed into something very different. Of course the Republicans keep shifting over to the "left", too, filling in the gap or virtual void left by Democrats. So now 45 years later most of today's Republicans [except those who are often termed as "hard-core conservatives] are now the Democrats of yesteryear. What this tells us essentially is that if one wants to hold belief in something that is dynamic and ever-changing, then one's beliefs in that particular something must be equally dynamic and ever-changing.

Even though it's my guess that essentially none of us want to believe or much less admit, even in hindsight, that when we were young and took opposing positions to those of our parents we did so because most likely it was for no other reason than simply to be rebellious. At any rate, it's my guess that this was probably more often the case than not. Who knows, maybe what might be seen as this rebellious nature of progeny towards their progenitors is a Divine mechanism installed in our psyche meant to inherently keep mankind from straying too far off course and on an even keel so that it won't "drift off the deep end" one way or another.

It may be unbeknownst to him that it is commonly understood by many of us that we all are born with these liberal qualities when our first "thinking" was emotionally-based and seen as irrational; and, that it is only after we had begun to mature that we started becoming analytical and more rational. This critical thinking is of course necessary in order to read and understand such things as enumerated powers, unalienable rights, prescribed duty, and that nowhere in this artificial creation that we call the US Constitution is it stated that government is empowered with responsibility to "help" anyone, whether as an individual or groups of size less than the greater number of all Americans, to name a few. [Conservatives aren't born that way otherwise liberals in health care would be probably documenting it as a "birth defect!" (*smile* just kidding again.)] This might be one of the reasons why Republican President Reagan once said, "The scariest words you can ever hear are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help you.'"

It's apparent that Robert does not want any of his "beliefs" examined, challenged, scrutinized or debated in any way, or at least not by, or with, you; or, with someone such as yourself who he knows that at least in some areas would have viewpoints that were diametrically different than his own. Also apparently, based upon his latest email, it seems that, aside from however he may confide in Amanda, he wants perhaps to be the only one who would examine, challenge or scrutinize his own beliefs - so, regardless of what side of an issue prevailed in such self-imposed scrutiny, maybe he figures that way he'll never lose an argument! [*smile* - just kidding some more] It does seem however that to him seeking agreement is far more important than seeking clarity.

Ironically, seeking clarity will often lead to more agreement than he may have thought possible. It might be a good bet that he thinks that your beliefs, opinions, and views are all rigid and static, perhaps, much like his own. Consequently, it'd be a waste of his time and pointless to go through the trouble of offering you any facts, evidence, or actual substance that would normally alter the direction of thinking of someone he thought would be more reasonable. Moreover, if he did nonetheless make such attempt of presenting actual evidence, and not just expressing personal feelings that could reasonably lead someone to a different conclusion, it seems he's of the opinion that doing such with you would likely be received as an irritant leading to less than "amicable" relation. Hopefully, the term "amicable" was nothing more than a poor choice of words on his part. I know that you all the time you've ever talked about your son Robert, whether just about him or including this more present day that includes his wife Amanda or currently with the expansion of his family that now also includes their infant and your granddaughter Olivia, with respect to no time frame of all the time Robert has reintroduced himself into your life have you ever across to me as someone who thought she had nothing more than a friendly, peaceable, and cordial relationship; that is to say, a relationship not denoting great warmth of affection.

If I remember right, I think there was a neurotic emperor once upon a time who had regally paraded naked through his city streets who valued agreement of others with his personal perception over and above common sense. This particular emperor proceeded under the illusion that anyone who didn't agree with his pretentious belief that he was wearing extraordinarily magnificent new clothes was either stupid or incompetent. Despite second doubts, it was his hope that all the parade watchers would know beforehand that they'd be classified as such by the emperor himself so they then would not vocalize publicly any form of argument which supported their different point of view. By the end of the parade, the emperor realized that all the onlookers saw him as naked wearing not a stitch of clothing but could not get himself to admit to it. He kept on to the very end fooling only himself.

In fairness, many of us and including myself do not always welcome hearing opposition to the beliefs we hold, whether publicly or privately. Speaking for myself, at times I know that I simply believe them to be true and move on and don't want to take the time to repetitively reevaluate them except at such times our personal conversations demand it or if my son Sam is making the inquiry or challenge. However, let's not confuse faith, beliefs, opinions and views as all being one in the same. Each is different. We often interchange these words in our speaking or writing. The intensity, veracity, or levels of confidence in their meanings that we want to infer are relative to the topic that is being addressed or the context in which they are being used.

"Faith" is at the top of the list. It is belief without doubt as in our Christian faith. It rests neither on logical proof nor material evidence. In its purist sense it is spiritual understanding that God is the only true source of all things seen and unseen and factored not by probability or possibility.

"Beliefs" are not inherently without doubt. Nonetheless they are deep-seated and are generally held regardless of whether we suspicion that they can be proven true or false. Some of our human beliefs can arise involuntarily out of our experience such as spontaneously out of habit - not too different than those of animals [such as a dog that believes there will be food in its dish every day]. We believe things to be true because they have always been our experience although our beliefs in those things can begin to respectively wane or even eventually disappear if expectations based upon those previous experiences are not always met. When we believe anything, we partly doubt it, and when we doubt anything, we partly believe it. [source]

Comparatively, "opinions" are generally malleable, temporal, provisional and more easily subject to change. They can seem true or probable but are inherently open for dispute and not nearly as unshakeable as beliefs.

"Views" are something that are seen from a particular vantage point of a person or persons that can be under constant change in that life itself is change and something that is not static. The identical thing can be seen or viewed quite differently and thus be seen as very different things when in fact it is one thing that is unchanged. The story of "The Blind Men and the Elephant" describes different viewpoints [of blind men, no less] of the same thing quite well.

Perhaps your "worldview" of Cuba would be somewhat different had you not seen some of it through the eyes of Robert when he shared with you and me what he had seen and was offered to eat there as a contestant during those days of international swimming competitions hosted by Fidel Castro. Instead of being a visiting international competitor, had Robert [hypothetically] rather been sharing with you what he saw through the eyes of a supposedly proud Cuban citizen, you may have "seen" what he was trying to relate quite differently. This is to say that you would have "seen" what it was like to have been a proud Cuban all too happy to honor Fidel's command, in apparent hopes he could make his country appear more prosperous to the world, that he "Roberto" [this imaginary Cuban], his family, and all other fellow Cubans go hungry or at least not to the extent of eating any chicken for 6 months so instead it could be stored in Cuba's dilapidated freezers and at least kept somewhat "cool" during the months prior to the feast that would be given the forthcoming international visitors scheduled competition. Had you been a able to "see" Robert's story of his visit to Cuba this way, you instead may now have a much deeper, more empathetic and historical view of the "hope" and "change" that Fidel Castro promised the receptive and unsuspecting Cubans in the late 1950s when he wanted to become Cuba's new leader.

Your "worldview" of what you saw in Italy that you then relayed to Robert was possibly way too harsh. Maybe police standing on corners with their fingers on the triggers of fully automatic machine guns aren't so bad after all; and maybe, becoming more "European" and having just those same kind of police is what we needed in St. Paul during the National Republican Convention to have quelled the far left protesters, eh?

Your "worldview" of what you saw when in Nagales, Mexico and related to Robert may have also been greatly exaggerated. Even had I not been there along with you, your safety and security of the possessions you were carrying there that day and night would have been no different than had you been walking down the downtown streets of St. Paul.

Your "worldview" of what you and I had seen in our trips to the Bahamas must have also been very distorted. The predominantly Black Bahamian population [85% of African decent] probably had nothing or little to do with most everything that we had seen being kept seemingly so neat, clean and tidy. This of course doesn't even address how well not only adults were dressed but also their children. But not only were we apparently badly mistaken about what we thought to be obvious pride in their homes, workplaces, and personal appearance, but also in their speech. You and I must have had a few screws loose in our ears to have mistakenly thought that they spoke, aside from an accent, English more clearly than a lot of Americans regardless of their ethnicity or race.

It seems that to Robert, the coup de grâce of your perverted "worldview" [and mine for that matter] could perhaps be displayed no better than by the email you forwarded originating from my friend of long ago, Tom Prease. His email not only manifests patriotism for the USA but also faith that it is only through Jesus Christ that anyone can be with the Father in the hereafter. One could hardly pick two better topics that would irk or in some case, infuriate, the language police of politically correct speech, the Blame America First crowd, and of course, the "I'm Okay - You're Okay - Let's Everybody Just Get Along Bunch", that is to say: 57% of Evangelicals Who Believe There Are Other Ways To God Than Through Jesus Christ* - and in just one email no less! [* 70% of Americans with a religious affiliation share this same view.]

Yes Joann, how little did you realize that after you reading Tom Prease's email, which was apparently validated as an original authored by Prease personally by my cousin Tom G. [who for all practical purposes has always been my oldest brother] and then again by me, in that I had forwarded it to you, that you of all people would have, in an apparent lapse of better judgment, mustered the audacity to forward this personal account of observation and commentary by someone who, in extended visits, had traveled the region only three [3] times! And for "Pete’s sake," by now you should have learned from Robert and realized that a person of a minority race, ethnicity and religion, such as was the case with Tom Prease while he was in North Africa visiting Egypt and including his travels to the Middle East, should be ignored and dismissed with prejudice. [Or did I get that wrong? Is it rather only white, heterosexual, Christian, American males who are to be ignored and dismissed with prejudice regardless of where they are on the planet? Tom P. used to have a quippy remark that I’ve never forgotten, "Everybody’s gotta be someplace." Sorry to say, that was then and this is now. Now it seems, at least according to what Robert implies, there is no "place" left on this planet for anyone such as Tom Prease, anymore.]

Another method of abortion during late-term is labor-induced abortion. Statistics on this method in the US are not well-kept or at least not easily accessible for me. It is however estimated that their numbers are significantly much higher than the average of 5000 US partial birth abortions per year. In this labor-induced method the doctor injects a drug into the cervix that induces premature labor and it is anticipated that the baby will die during this birth process or soon afterwards. [As a father of his daughter Olivia who is less than a month old, Robert might now better be able to appreciate this. My daughter Sarah was a "preemie" as they are called. Her mother and I were both expecting our baby would go full-term before birth. This turned out not to be the case. Even though no drug was given to induce premature labor, nonetheless she went into it anyway. (As many as 11% of all mothers give birth prematurely.) The nurses in Children's Hospital told my wife and me that our daughter recognized my voice whenever I was talking while entering the intensive care unit to see her. They could see on electronic monitors her responding significantly to my voice compared to no special response to other male voices in the unit. After over 2 weeks in intensive neonatal care the doctors said they thought our daughter looked to be "out of the woods" and was going to make. However, shortly after them saying that she then suddenly she took a turn for the worse - a day later Sarah died in my arms.]

However, not all these abortion procedures achieve the intended result - babies don't always die while still in their mothers. Barack Hussein Obama favors a "solution" to that. It's not a big deal. Simply "shelve" these living babies that survived botched abortions and let them die on their own whether "in the department's soiled utility room next to dirty linens, bloody and biohazardous waste, and a urinal" or in a "Comfort Room" that is "prettily wallpapered ... complete with a First Foto machine, baptismal gowns, a footprinter and baby bracelets [keepsakes to parents of their aborted babies]" and has "a nice wooden rocker ... to rock live aborted babies to death" [source, source]. Heaven forbid that their mothers be "punished with a baby" [quoting Barack Obama video source speaking about this possibility with respect to his own daughters]. What the heck, these infants are too young and fragile to get up and find an IV, oxygen mask, open the door of a perinatal incubator, or much less go get a drink of water or find something in the frig that could sustain their life - so there you have it, nothing to worry about. Obama was being way too modest when he said recently that this subject "was above my paygrade." [video source]

The last I heard on this is that these late-term partial birth or labor-induced abortions are permitted in most places only if the mother's "health" is at risk. What isn't commonly known, however, [thanks to our mainstream media that side with liberal causes] is that this doesn't mean strictly that her life is at stake and the risk would be reduced greatly if the baby is aborted. Regardless of her physical health it can merely mean a threat to her "mental" health alone - with nothing at all to do with saving the mother's life or even physical well-being. Abortion advocates have been fighting tooth and nail to keep "mental health" [which can mean darn near anything and everything] of the mother as enough cause alone to qualify a mother to obtain a late-term abortion.

[Click here to continue on page two]