Category: Politics

Immigration, It Isn’t For Everyone.

The Current immigration debate has Americans has us pitting against one another. The fears that our country will be overrun by illegal immigrants and

Immigration

that our society will unravel has many people concerned. The current administration  has taken a hard stance on illegal immigrants. They have chosen stricter enforcement and to treat each instance as an attack on our freedoms. I, respectfully, disagree

with their stance. I understand that there are laws in place and that those laws are meant for the better welfare of our country and that no one, no matter who you are, is above the law. The question I have is, if those laws are meant to justify our societies actions then why are they not being followed as it was designed to do. Illegal immigration, or entering the country without permission is not a felony. In other words, the crime they have committed under 8 USC 1325 is less than driving under the influence. Most cases are handled administratively, unless you committed another crime that is more serious, and hardly any see, well… used to see, the inside of a jail. These people are still citizens, albeit illegal, while they are inside our borders. According to the Supreme Court, our nations highest court, illegal citizens have the same right to due process as anyone here legally. Would you separate a family who committed a misdemeanor and traumatize children for a crime that doesn’t rate more than 6 months in jail? The most likely scenario would be to keep the mother with the children, incarcerate the father, if necessary and have them appear in court or immediate departure for the whole family. In other words, the Justice Department can reason that safety for the children is more important than incarceration for a misdemeanor. Can’t they?

I get taking a hard stance when a caravan of people come to your border and defy your warnings but how harsh does your stance have to be? Of course, this is just my opinion, Immigration 1but I feel that you can house the mothers with the children and separate the dads, if a separation needs to be done. If you look at it, what you did is incarcerate everyone separately, for a crime as dumb as and equal to driving without a license. That is an extreme and hard line to take. Extreme, most fitting this scenario. Maybe we should explore the reason why people immigrate in the first place and why we were tolerant of those that did.

Illegal immigration is usually a financial crime in disguise. People come here to make money and send it home to their families so they can survive. Some people say that we shouldn’t be burdened with their countries inability to provide for their citizens but the truth is that we already have decided to help those countries. We send money to third world countries all the time to try and help. We send resources and we try and stave off dictatorships and promote democracy. That’s what America does. To say that we shouldn’t and that we should let those country’s democracy fail is a big mistake because eventually dictatorships will erode our country. America and and other democracies are aware of what happens when dictatorships, i.e. Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Venezuela and some other countries, take hold. It leads to crazy rulers deciding that they want a little more and start invading other countries, i.e. Iraq/Kuwait. Their thirst for power is never quenched and they will always pose a threat. So, illegal immigration from democracies, while not want we want, helps us in that battle, at least little. We can’t provide enough money to other countries to become like us, we can provide a little help, and if illegal immigrants sometimes make it across the border and work in jobs that Americans will not then where is the actual harm in that misdemeanor. I’m not saying to let them in, I’m saying that we should focus on the carp’s or criminal alien requiring prison, or aliens that have violent felonies and are returning or have returned into our country not people that have never done anything and because of someone’s biased views decided to call ICE and have them deported.

This doesn’t mean that we should let them run wild through our borders but that if they do slip through, then let them deliver the pizza, let them serve you your food and drinks, let them help you build your home, let them care for your children, let them make a living to help us help them (because in this country those are unfortunately the only jobs they would be able to pursue with proper paperwork) like we already do and if they screw up, they already know, paycheck is gone, money that you were sending home is gone, and your gone. This is the win win scenario, at least to me. The bible says help thy neighbor and you will be rewarded in heaven, or something like that. I’ve learned the hard way that the Justice Department can choose which case to prosecute and which cases they can choose to defer for later review, I think that choosing to turn the other cheek in matters where it doesn’t harm us is alright, maybe even better than alright, humane. But if we do choose to do that, then we must treat them like we treat each other. We can’t become savages and make demands that are unreasonable, that’s why I don’t believe in sanctuary cities or 100% enforcement of some laws. I believe in a moderation. Those two scenarios don’t quite fit the bill. As an Airman in the Air Force, while working as a Security Police officer, I have given another airman a ride home when he was borderline on the Field Sobriety Test. I knew that they wouldn’t be able to reenlist and that maybe they were drunk but decided that because that being a few hundred yards from home, just the warning would be enough. I would just drive them there and then give them their keys. We’re not robots you know, we can empathize.

While I don’t like extremism of any kind, I believe that sanctuary cities are an extreme reaction to an extreme action. We have to be careful and should start a dialog before extreme becomes the norm, like school shootings. Another thing is, have any of the advocates for immigration tried to consult with AG concerning the separation of families and if they have, did they ask nicely. The AG is not breaking the law, he’s doing it by the book so taking a hard opposite stance is not going to work. You have to ask if he is amnenable to letting the mother’s stay with the children. Since his actions are not wrong you have to present your counterpoint in a way that makes sense and you have to be respectful. In the end, it’s his decision.

 

 

Comey Under Fire! UPDATE

Dir. J Comey

The report of former Director James Comey has hit the stands and the news isn’t good for him. The implications that he has somehow mishandled an investigation could cost him severely. I didn’t read the report by the IG, which by itself isn’t that bad by what I read in the news accounts. To be honest, it’s the norm. Director’s will sometimes depart from investigative protocol and in doing so, it can mean some kind of reprimand. The problem isn’t the IG report, it’s the fallout by both parties that has the place spinning. The IG report seems fair, it might emphasize a little too much on how it really left the perception of the Justice Department, at least in this case, as we all know how previous Director’s, mainly Hoover, who is the agency’s most recognizable Director as he was Director until he died, have comported themselves. How did he stay that way, Director of the FBI for so long, by doing a lot worse stuff then Comey.

My problem is with the amnesia or selective memory that the parties seem to have. First, Hillary didn’t lose the election because of the former Director, she lost because of Wasserherface, the former Chair of the DNC. People seem not to recall the riots after Bernie lost the nomination and the way Wasserman was clearly playing favorites. Hardcore Demo’s vowing not to vote or to vote for President Trump because of the way the DNC mishandled Bernie. To say that the former director actually held sway is not realistic. Let’s take the current investigation into President Trump. Has the investigation hurt primaries that much, barely if any at all, just ask Sanford. No, investigations don’t do anything, that much, to sway elections unless there is a conviction. So, I’m sorry, no, Dir. Comey isn’t the reason why anyone didn’t get voted in. Say what you want about the man, election rigging isn’t what he did, his job is what he did, but maybe that the extraordinary circumstances that surrounded this issue would have taken anyone down, is the problem. Dir. Comey was in a no win situation. Damned if he did and damned if he didn’t. I think he handled it with grace.

Secondly, as for the current investigation in election meddling, I have no comment because I don’t know all the facts. A couple of years from now, when the former Director is miles away from the Washington shuffle and people actually take a breath and look back, they’ll notice that the path he traveled was the only one available to him. Right now, the rhetoric comes from a different part of people’s emotions, not the “logical sit back and evaluate” but the “someone is to blame” part of the brain. Unfortunately, the former director is going to be made the scapegoat for now, not by the IG, but by the partisan bickering. I mean, come on, if both sides hate you, you must have done something right.

UPDATE:

So, I just read the main points of the IG report and found them to be on point. Hats off to the IG. I had a few thoughts on those points though, most likely wrong but nonetheless here they are:

  1. During the timeframe in which Dir. Comey was overseeing the investigation, there was demands by both parties, as well as the people, for the FBI to make the results of the investigation known. They were chants of cover-up by the right and election meddling by the left. I remember saying that I wouldn’t want to be in Dir. Comey’s shoes right now. The chants grew louder and stronger by everyone, including the candidates. That amount of pressure is surreal. Even USA Lynch found a way to remove herself from the situation, haha, I’m starting to think that the meeting with former President Clinton was a way for her to recuse herself from making any decisions in that investigation, not so dumb by the former US Attorney. “Wooops, I errred, it’s on you now James” (not a real quote). The only thing everyone agreed on was that a statement had to be made by the Director and when he did, when he acquiesced, when he finally gave everyone what they wanted, he torched himself. Now they hate him for it.
  2. This type of an investigation is unheard of. There is no relatable cases or past case precedents to study from, that I am aware of. It’s one of those tightrope while juggling executioner axes, while they are on fire, hoping they don’t land on you! Just no room for error. Dir. Comey almost made it across too. Some damn clowns yelling for transparency tripped him up.
  3. Even with that much pressure by both sides of the house and senate and the country on the Director, personally, I would have quit and gone to live in the Bahamas, drink Mai Tai’s and Corona’s until I peed umbrellas, I think the IG makes a fair point as to the Director should have simply told them no, but I think they should have also reprimanded the politicians that were yelling for the report to be made public. Maybe not the IG’s job though. But, man, that was diamond making pressure on the Director. Never seen anything like it before in my life.
  4. Final thought is on the Trump collusion case. I’m 50/50 on the current President. Not a big fan of his tweets or his stances on immigration but I am on his stances abroad. Seriously, someone had to take a stance against the unfair trade. Wrote a big story/blog on it. Check it out, it’s not that bad and has some cool pics. I don’t #thankTrudeau but he will get reelection points for taking a stand and for that he can thank the current President and also, I do admit, Trudeau did what was best for his country. Well, I’m losing focus but I think for you to have collusion, then both parties must prosper, not just one. So unless you can show how Russia prospered then you can’t show collusion. It’s not me saying it, it’s the (you might have heard this before) the rule of law. Because if you make ads by foreign entities illegal, then you would have to look at every newspaper from overseas that condemned the now President Trump while he was still a candidate as interfering with an election. I think that were some that said that if Trump were to get elected that they would not be our friends anymore or would take their toys back or would hold their breath until we changed our mind, haha, just kidding, I firmly believe that you should have a right to say whatever you want as a sovereignty but I’m just trying to make a point. The way I see it is, you can’t have double standards. Now if you find that Russia does, in any way, now or in the future, prosper in a way that does not seem within reason, then you may have a case or if there are any signs of blackmail, theeeennn, ok, I’m with you.
  5. Ok, seriously, final thought. I think that Hillary Clinton would have been a really good President, bordering on great but her loss, besides the Wassherface, came because, as she even admits, she coasted. I love boxing and anytime I get to throw in an a boxing analogy, I will. Remember De La Hoya vs Trinidad, DLH thought he had it and coasted the last three rounds while Tito went out thinking he needed the KO, well, Former Sec. Clinton was De La Hoya and President Trump was Trinidad. Hillary coasted that last three rounds and Trump fought like he was behind on the scorecards. Tito won, even though it was not a popular decision, well, Trump won, even though it was not the popular vote. Lesson here, fight like you are behind on the scorecard, can’t lose that way, unless….. you know… unless you are behind at the end.

Disclaimer: I got my law degree from Herbert, not Harvard, Herbert is the guy that loses to Matlock all the time, so you know, these are just opinions.

Comey Under Fire!

Dir. J Comey

The report of former Director James Comey has hit the stands and the news isn’t good for him. The implications that he has somehow mishandled an investigation could cost him severely. I didn’t read the report by the IG, which by itself isn’t that bad by what I read in the news accounts. To be honest, it’s the norm. Director’s will sometimes depart from investigative protocol and in doing so, it can mean some kind of reprimand. The problem isn’t the IG report, it’s the fallout by both parties that has the place spinning. The IG report seems fair, it might emphasize a little too much on how it really left the perception of the Justice Department, at least in this case, as we all know how previous Director’s, mainly Hoover, who is the agency’s most recognizable Director as he was Director until he died, have comported themselves. How did he stay that way, Director of the FBI for so long, by doing a lot worse stuff then Comey.

My problem is with the amnesia or selective memory that the parties seem to have. First, Hillary didn’t lose the election because of the former Director, she lost because of Wasserherface, the former Chair of the DNC. People seem not to recall the riots after Bernie lost the nomination and the way Wasserman was clearly playing favorites. Hardcore Demo’s vowing not to vote or to vote for President Trump because of the way the DNC mishandled Bernie. To say that the former director actually held sway is not realistic. Let’s take the current investigation into President Trump. Has the investigation hurt primaries that much, barely if any at all, just ask Sanford. No, investigations don’t do anything, that much, to sway elections unless there is a conviction. So, I’m sorry, no, Dir. Comey isn’t the reason why anyone didn’t get voted in. Say what you want about the man, election rigging isn’t what he did, his job is what he did, but maybe that the extraordinary circumstances that surrounded this issue would have taken anyone down, is the problem. Dir. Comey was in a no win situation. Damned if he did and damned if he didn’t. I think he handled it with grace.

Secondly, as for the current investigation in election meddling, I have no comment because I don’t know all the facts. A couple of years from now, when the former Director is miles away from the Washington shuffle and people actually take a breath and look back, they’ll notice that the path he traveled was the only one available to him. Right now, the rhetoric comes from a different part of people’s emotions, not the “logical sit back and evaluate” but the “someone is to blame” part of the brain. Unfortunately, the former director is going to be made the scapegoat for now, not by the IG, but by the partisan bickering. I mean, come on, if both sides hate you, you must have done something right.

WAR, what is it good for, mmmm,… maybe something.

war

This means war, what does war really mean? When all else fails and someone refuses to negotiate or determines that he/she is entitled to what rightfully belongs to another, then what can logically come next is a force of might and strength.

I just had a visit by two of the sweetest young Jehovah witnesses who were trying to preach the word of the lord and the discussion led to the necessity of armed conflict. The verse that they pointed to me was Isaiah 2:4 “He shall judge between the nations, and shall decide disputes for many peoples; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.” It made me think of what my son once said to me, that he was a pacifist.

My response was not as dignified as theirs, it was simply “war is necessary for peace”. I mentioned both the revolutionary and civil war but more appropriately it should have been Ecclesiastes 3:8 “A time to love, and a time to hate; a time for war, and a time for peace” or Zechariah 10:5 “They shall be like mighty men in battle, trampling the foe in the mud of the streets; they shall fight because the Lord is with them, and they shall put to shame the riders on horses”, even God himself knows that sometimes war is the only resolution or path for peace, Revelations 12:7-11 “Now war arose in heaven, Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon. And the dragon and his angels fought back, but he was defeated, and there was no longer any place for them in heaven. And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world—he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him. And I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying, “Now the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ have come, for the accuser of our brothers has been thrown down, who accuses them day and night before our God. And they have conquered him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, for they loved not their lives even unto death”

My personal belief is that we should be careful justifying our actions by scripture. While I believe that there is a God; as Blaise Pascal once said, (paraphrased) what’s the harm in believing, if he does exist then you go to heaven, which I hear is better than hell and if he doesn’t exist, you were a good person and people will remember you that way and not as some asshole who made life hard for everyone else because mommy and daddy didn’t give you that little red wagon that you wanted; that doesn’t mean that I’m allowed to go into anyone’s home and lay hands on anyone for any insane reason. But the point of pacifism crossed my mind. when my son said he was a pacifist, I immediately told him that the p word is a bad word like shit, bitch and motherfucker and taught him how to box, he has a hell of a right cross.

Pacifism has no place in society. No worth while person was ever a pacifist. If you can name one, then I’ll send you a crisp ten dollar bill, I write blogs, I’m not Bill Gates. Gandhi wasn’t a pacifist, King Jr. wasn’t a pacifist, no one really is a pacifist. Better yet, can you name me one person that, as these young ladies brought up, would allow the atrocities of WWII to occur? That would say, just let him do it, referring to Mr. Hitler, and let’s hope we get spared. As you can read in the scripture, God hates a coward and while King Jr. and Gandhi used different methods, they were just smarter in their strategy. They knew that all out war would only doom them and that using strategic non-violent methods to disturb the peace would be way more effective. They were brilliant generals in a societal war but they were no pacifist.

The true definition of pacifism is to go along with the status quo, to be content with what you are given and to do what they say and what they want. Let’s be real, our country isn’t built on pacifism or we would have been extinct a long time ago. The true nature of society is to improve our life in a way that conforms to everyone’s needs as a society and as individuals. We reach agreements on what’s right and what’s wrong and sometimes the 90% can be wrong and the 10% be right.

One of my favorite books, the Art of War by Sun Tzu described a philosophy of war. In one of his most notable quotes, (again I’m paraphrasing) is that a defeated foe should never be humiliated or he will be a foe for life, he should be allowed to leave the battlefield with dignity and he will be a friend for life.

So, back to the title of my article, is war necessary? Simply stated, yes. How would you know what peace is if there isn’t something that is it’s opposite. Peace can not exist without war as much as war could exist without peace. Some philosopher once said that conflict is the journey you must travel to get to peace. So my concept of war is simple, while we hope for a utopian society, since there are no opposites in that society, utopia can not exist. You ever heard one of these smart people say how would you know if you are happy if you are never sad, how would you know you have peace without conflict?

When did it become Normal to shoot Schools?

It’s to the point where we are becoming numb to the fact that kids are dying in schools. The media report it the same way they would report the Olympics. They cover it, call it sad, like our showing in the Olympics, say we must do better. They refuse to make the memorial wallproper people accountable. They no longer want to go out on a limb and ask the real question. Why is this really happening? Who is really behind it? Are these shooters having the worst nightmares of their lives? Is someone talking these shooters into these nightmare scenarios? Are we holding everyone that are really responsible, RESPONSIBLE?

18 USC 373- Solicitation to commit a crime of violence

(a)

Whoever, with intent that another person engage in conduct constituting a felony that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against property or against the person of another in violation of the laws of the United States, and under circumstances strongly corroborative of that intent, solicits, commands, induces, or otherwise endeavors to persuade such other person to engage in such conduct, shall be imprisoned not more than one-half the maximum term of imprisonment or (notwithstanding section 3571) fined not more than one-half of the maximum fine prescribed for the punishment of the crime solicited, or both; or if the crime solicited is punishable by life imprisonment or death, shall be imprisoned for not more than twenty years.

(b)

It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution under this section that, under circumstances manifesting a voluntary and complete renunciation of his criminal intent, the defendant prevented the commission of the crime solicited. A renunciation is not “voluntary and complete” if it is motivated in whole or in part by a decision to postpone the commission of the crime until another time or to substitute another victim or another but similar objective. If the defendant raises the affirmative defense at trial, the defendant has the burden of proving the defense by a preponderance of the evidence.

(c)

It is not a defense to a prosecution under this section that the person solicited could not be convicted of the crime because he lacked the state of mind required for its commission, because he was incompetent or irresponsible, or because he is immune from prosecution or is not subject to prosecution.

I made a recommendation in a previous article about how we may be able to rectify these situations. First, you can’t choose which laws to obey and which laws not to. They’re all their to be followed for everyone’s protection. Secondly, if you were to make the parent of that household the guardian of these weapons, locked away, safe from a person that is in despair because his/her significant other left them or is dating someone else than this latest numbness would have not happened. I’m writing this because I have a son that is in elementary school who is a great kid and has yet to face this type of outrageous behavior. I don’t want anyone to ever say I didn’t try something prior to anything bad happening to anyone else.

For now, we chalk up another one to the murder god, for he/she should have no shame or ever be responsible for anything. I’m being facetious.

STOP THE NRA….. Why do we want to stop the NRA?

NRA

With all these school shootings and people killing their family and then themselves, the NRA has come under increased scrutiny. They represent a faction of people that believe in something that is ingrained in our constitution, the right to bear arms. The second amendment reads as follows: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. The question is should the NRA be made the scapegoat for what our founding fathers found important enough to make it the second amendment. By that I mean, there is only one before it and eight after it. Most people think the NRA is a bunch of lunatics that would love nothing more than to wage war on the streets, I think just the opposite. I think that their whole premise is that an armed society would prevent war on the streets. While I, personally, think that’s what they are saying, I don’t necessarily agree with either position. I don’t think guns make a difference as to how people behave or choose to express their frustrations. While, yes, guns in the hands of a immature, frustrated and angry person can cause some serious damage, so can many other things. The unabomber didn’t use a gun, should we ban firecrackers; Jeffrey Dahmer preyed on weaker people, should we ban gyms; Charles Manson used mind control on weak minded individuals, should we ban psychology; Marshall Applewhite talked 39 people into killing themselves so they could get on a UFO after a comet went overhead, in the name of some wacky religion, should we ban religion? The murder god collects his bodies either way. Guns or no guns.

The only thing that the NRA is really known for is supporting the Republican party. I don’t even know if any of the people were NRA members. No one has actually said that. Were these people NRA members; the schools shooters, gang members, organized crime syndicates? I know we have to let out our frustrations on someone or something but I think some people erroneously believe that getting rid of the NRA will get rid of guns, it won’t. It also won’t improve gun control. That’s what politicians are for. I personally believe that guns should not be allowed to anyone that can’t drink legally, I mean what fun is it to shoot soberly, right. That was a joke.

Guns should be allowed only to people that have a residence. If you have property to protect then you have a reason, according to the second amendment, to own a gun. If you don’t, then why do you need a gun, what are you protecting, your sneakers? If you made the owner (that includes those that rent) responsible for the guns that enter their homes then I am betting a lot less shootings would happen. If you read the second amendment, that is exactly what it states. Homeowners, as well as renters, are responsible for the freedom of their state, not their kids, not someone without an address, not someone that can up and move at a drop of a hat. This doesn’t mean you can’t buy your family members weapons, it just means that you are in a position to know whether or not that family member should be entrusted with a weapon and if you do get that person a weapon, then you might get held responsible for any actions that person does. Doesn’t that seem fair? And it’s exactly what the founding fathers had in mind when they wrote that amendment. You would need to show a mortgage or renter’s agreement as well as a license and only the person’s name on those documents would be able to buy a gun.

My problem is with attacking organizations because they represent something you don’t particularly agree with, even though it’s legal. The Repubs attack abortion clinics, notorious Demo supporters, but some have had their girlfriends get an abortion so their wives don’t find out. Why we do we attack these institutions, because of money? If the NRA were staunch Demo contributors and Planned Parenthood was a staunch Repub supporter, things would be reversed. The only organization that has, so far, given to both sides is the Marijuana companies and we have had both sides change their minds to support their lobbying efforts, right Colorado.

The only thing I really believe is in the freedom of choice as long as that choice doesn’t harm anyone else. Get an abortion if you like, buy a gun if you choose, I’m actually against legalizing Marijuana, but when and if it becomes the law of the land, then light up that doobie if you gotta have it, but just remember… puff, puff, pass. Don’t get greedy. And homeowners should be the only ones that can use a marijuana clinic. If their kids want some green tobacco, before they go out and drive to a party, then their dad or mom should get it for them so they can be responsible for the accident that might happen. Freedom of choice, ehh, responsible choice.

And let’s be honest, the most dangerous weapon against bad deeds is an education. I don’t own a gun but I do read, I write (some people might not agree) and I have a punching bag. The latter is for my back problems the first two are my self-defense measures.

The Free Trade Phenomenom

free trade

Holy crap, free trade is under attack. Are we going to survive? Yeah, we’ll be fine. Is free trade good, yes and no. Free trade agreements are made so we can globalize economy all over the world. So the world can become a community, that’s a good thing. So what’s the bad thing, well, while free trade has gone global, minimum wage and middle class has not. For globalization to work you first must have a globalization of fair pay and middle class wages. You can’t have one without the other. In any free trade treatise, (I looked that word up, it fits) it should be mandatory language that the country that wants these benefits must invoke a livable, sustainable and comparable living wage. Once that happens almost all other problems seize to exist.

If the government of all countries that are willing to enjoy the benefits of free trade were to impose a minimum wage that would make globalization a heck of a lot easier. Imagine that all countries had a middle class, there would be no need for tariffs at all. Manufacturing jobs would be in every country, almost. Shipping items long distance would be a thing of the past because it would be a whole lot cheaper just to build the items in that country because it would minimize shipping costs, take away from the bottom line. LG would cramped housebuild factories everywhere, not just where cheap labor is, because all labor is now comparative. That is the goal of globalization, isn’t it? As it stands, some of these countries that the President referred to are keeping wages artificially low so they can attract and induce manufacturers to go there. It’s a sound idea for the people that are running the country, reaping the reward of the manufacturing tax but these workers are living two families per home or live in homes that are 300 square feet, for a whole family, that’s like a college dorm.

People come to the United States with ideas of the American dream, the ability to buy a house and live in safe and secure neighborhood. America isn’t the only country that offers these things, so do others and people would love to migrate their too. Well, how about globalizing that dream to every country? How about if you couldn’t tell the difference between America and Haiti or El Salvador or any country in the world. Globalization is about making the world a better place, not about finding cheap labor. The U.S. is obviously in a position to try and rectify these situations and maybe taking a harsh stance on free trade would help it out. I don’t know, I’m not an economist but it seems to me that if everyone had a middle class, the backbone of great society, the free trade agreements wouldn’t be needed at all, isn’t that the goal, global harmony and unity not global cheap labor. I could be wrong, like I said, my economy degree comes from Crayola.

The payoffs of these actions would be incredible. Reductions in crime, illegal immigration (because everywhere is wonderful and no immigration would be illegal), deaths due to poor living conditions and hatred. Well, utopia has always been a dream of mine but it seems that the only way I’m going to see that is in the movies. I’m not saying this would lead to a perfect world, just a better one.

In a different note, sometimes, when you are correcting a problem, you are going to be hated. While I don’t agree with everything the President has done, mostly on immigration (DACA should be approved with attachments), some things that need to be corrected are going to be difficult and the person that fixes these problems will face opposition, sometimes in a great amount. Sometimes, being despised for doing the right thing is better than being liked and going with the flow when you know it isn’t right. It takes character to fix a worldwide problem but it’s better to be hated now and fix it then being liked and leaving the problem for the next guy. I don’t know if the “America First” agenda has to do with globalization, it might be a by product, but whatever works. Again, I don’t know if this is an attempt to fix globalization cheap labor but it seems that it can have an impact in promoting fair wages all over the world. Our former President’s, President Obama, biggest critique of the Free Trade Acts was the fact that countries were still not paying fair wages. I believe that President Obama’s thoughts and beliefs were that if this was enacted that countries would do the right thing and give those wages to their people and enact these laws because that would be what he would do, President Obama trusted in these leaders.

I believe in a strong America, I believe in a strong global community, I believe in a borderless global community where there’s only neighborhoods and no passports to get into those neighborhoods. I also believe in Santa Claus, so, at least in my lifetime, all of those are pretty much the same.

Freedom of The Press: Keep America Safe by buying a newspaper.

freedom of the press

The First Amendment, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights, was submitted to the states for ratification on September 25, 1789, and adopted on December 15, 1791. It reads as follows; Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Being that this is the first amendment, our founding fathers thought that these particular rights were very important for the success of a democratic nation to succeed. Those were their first thoughts and inclinations on what was needed to establish a free society. That was why the most important war fought in our country’s history, the revolutionary war, was all about. I have a tremendous amount of respect for news organizations. They are, in many ways, the bedrock of our great society. They inform the masses of factual events and raise awareness to injustices that would threaten those freedoms. How important is a free press? To a democracy, it’s as important as breathing. But it isn’t enough for a press to be free, it also has to be fair and accurate. How important is a fair and accurate press, to the people that make up the democracy, well, not to sound redundant, but it’s as important as breathing.

When the American settlers decided to form their own government and break from, what they saw as, an oppressive monarchy, they had certain realizations in mind. Those realizations, the first ten amendments as well as the preamble to the constitution, weregeorge washington thought of and written in a time when their human and civil rights had been discarded and just regained. They were written when monarchies made the rule of law and decided what was best for everyone. They, the king or queen, would decide what was best for the people and they would also decide what information the people should know, what religion the people should practice, what they can utter in public and if they were allowed to protest. If anyone decided to disagree with them, they would be jailed, tortured or executed.

One of the greatest philosophers of our time and the person that most influenced our Constitution, John Locke (I’m an Immanuel Kant fan myself), was very aware of what

john locke
John Locke

tyrannical monarchies could do and wrote the Two Treatises of Government. Not to go to in depth about his works right now, it pretty much said that people should pick who governs, for which the monarchy exiled him and would later try and blame an attempted assassination of the king on his works. His only fault was that he wrote something that he felt was right and true, that all people are created equal. We would later find out that he only meant people that looked like him but the point is that he distributed these treatises and would later be punished for his views. He had no idea of knowing that those treatises would be the principles that formed our government today. The one that he did not write, the one that he, himself, openly demonstrated was the right to express your views as well as publicize them.

James Madison is credited as being the architect of the first amendment. His thoughts were that if he had to choose between a free government or a free press, that a free press was more important. John Adams, our second President, didn’t agree. He would enact a

james madison
James Madison

Sedition Act that could arrest press members if they wrote anything that was not true. The Sedition act would be repealed after he left office. What these Presidents knew, and every President from George Washington to our current President, have had to contend with is that the press, with the release of information, empowered the people, for information, factual information, is power. Ask the NSA, they are an agency built around that very motto. They don’t exactly agree with the dissemination of that information but they love gathering it. They’re the tight lipped relative that hears all the secrets but never tells anyone.

The importance of investigative journalism is detailed in an essay by former Managing Editor of the Washington Post, Robert Kaiser. He discusses the importance of a free press

woodward and berstein
Woodward and Berstein

in his latest Bookings Essay. How powerful is the press, it brought down a President, Nixon (1972, Woodward and Bernstein expose Watergate), it forces lawmakers to enact laws, the civil rights laws (tv news coverage of the atrocities happening), it fights corruption (1902, Ida Tarbell profiles J.D.  Rockefeller and the Standard Oil Co.), it fight sexual harassment and inequality (2017, #me too movement and 1992, Florence Graves reveals sexual misconduct in Congress), it fights government overreach (1953, Murrey Marder dogs Sen Joseph McCarthy’s witch hunt and 2013, NSA Surveillance on American Citizens). When it comes to politics, some organizations seem more like lobbyists then reporters, you just have to read both sides and see where the similarities are and where they differ to get the truth, but most outlets report facts when it comes to the above mentioned items. The press is as necessary to free society as oxygen is to living, there I go again, being redundant.

True journalism, not the barbie and ken dolls that get on TV and tell you what outfits to wear, but true journalism like the Woodward’s and Bernstein’s, Dan Rather’s, Daphne Caruan Galizia (Killed in a car bomb 10/2017), Eliah Lovejoy (anti-slavery abolitionist killed by angry mob 11/1837), Irving W. Carson (killed covering the civil war 4/1862),

freedom of press rating
Do you notice that the one’s that are orange and below are countries that you would never want to live in.

Walter Ligget (drive by shooting while reporting about mafia and political associations 12/1935), Don Bolles (car bomb while reporting about organized crime 6/1976), Manuel de dios Unanue (assassinated by Colombian drug cartel while reporting on the cartel’s activities 3/1992), Chauncey Bailey (shot dead on a Downtown Oakland street on August 2, 2007, the victim of a crime syndicate he was investigating for a story) is what this country is made of.

They’re not all dead, nor do they have to die to be a true journalist, some are still living;

  • Eric Lipton of The New York Times

    For reporting that showed how the influence of lobbyists can sway congressional leaders and state attorneys general, slanting justice toward the wealthy and connected.

  • Eric Eyre of Charleston Gazette-Mail, Charleston, WV

    For courageous reporting, performed in the face of powerful opposition, to expose the flood of opioids flowing into depressed West Virginia counties with the highest overdose death rates in the country.

  • Matt Apuzzo, Adam Goldman, Eileen Sullivan and Chris Hawley of the Associated Press

    For their spotlighting of the New York Police Department’s clandestine spying program that monitored daily life in Muslim communities, resulting in congressional calls for a federal investigation, and a debate over the proper role of domestic intelligence gathering.

  • David Barstow of The New York Times

    For his tenacious reporting that revealed how some retired generals, working as radio and television analysts, had been co-opted by the Pentagon to make its case for the war in Iraq, and how many of them also had undisclosed ties to companies that benefited from policies they defended.

  • Susan Schmidt, James V. Grimaldi and R. Jeffrey Smith of The Washington Post

    For their indefatigable probe of Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff that exposed congressional corruption and produced reform efforts.

There’s more but I’m a blogger, not an author. Without these people, none of these issues would have been addressed, may I add at great peril to their safety and security. It isn’t easy telling the government that they are wrong, they don’t take it well, not well at all, trust me, I know.  Now, I know that some TV journalists have to fill their hour up, ratings matter so they can break these stories that are necessary, and I applaud them because I know that they want to hit the system hard with that they see wrong, they give you the fashion ten minute review so later then can give you a breaking news story. I don’t mean to degrade anyone.

Can we, today, invest in a journalistic magazine, buy an online subscription to a credible news source, not mine, a real one, keep America safe by buying a newspaper, trust me, you’ll thank me in the long run. By the way, I’m a fan of propublica, they make everyone look bad. Check out their site.

 

Why Healthcare and the Mafia are not so different.

healthcare ceo 1

This article is going to piss you off. It’s going to make you angry and then you are going to get a migraine and then you are going to visit your doctor for some hypertension medication and then you are going to realize that you just made more money for the ever growing profitable health care companies. The truth about healthcare is that it isn’t about health care, it’s about profit.

Did you know that Healthcare insurers, such as Aetna and UnitedHealth, are currently being traded in the stock market? If you know how the stock market works, you would be flabbergasted, outraged, beside yourself in dismay and a lot of other cool little soliloquies that express some concern, hopefully. If you don’t then this is a little crash course. When a company is in the stock market there sole interest is to provide profits for their shareholders. This means that they must try and find a way to make money on you migraine. Not only migraine but cancer, diabetes, heart disease and any other illness. The best way for these stocks to thrive is by not covering you as much as before, not enrolling people that are already sick (they take away from the bottom line), have holdings in the making of the medications that help you (i.e. the pharmaceutical companies), and to play hardball negotiations with hospitals and doctors on the prices they charge to save your life. Your life is not their first concern because if you have a long lasting illness that they have to cover, then they would rather see you die, that’s a little harsh but you are a profit sucking vampire that is taking good money from their shareholders. Now, they will united health ceonever say this out loud. No, they’ll make all the nice commercials that show you healthy with their health insurance, now what sense does that make? If I’m healthy, why should I pay for health insurance? But there is a fix. A real simple one. Make it illegal for health insurers to be for profit. You should never profit on someone’s illness. The good thing is that these companies honestly want you stay healthy as possible, the bad thing is that is not reality and once you become ill, a serious illness, they want to drop you immediately or they want you to drop dead. The money that these people make is also insane. Do you know how many people you can help with 16.8 million dollars. I’m subtracting a reasonable 1 million compensation for his work as CEO of telling people no, we won’t cover that bill. There is a solution, it really is simple, ready, remove greed from the equation.

I think that as a CEO of a health insurance company, the max you should make is $150,000.00 yearly. Let’s do a little math, a company start-up business strategic plan that actually has people before profit. Let’s say you pay $200 a month in health insurance for yourself and $50 per child. Let’s say you have the average amount of children of 2.4 per household, ehhhh, in keeping with a civilized way of thinking, we won’t count the .4 child. I don’t even know what a .4 child would look like. That’s $300 monthly. Let’s say as CEO of Never Never health Insurance, I have 500 employees, including myself, making an average of $100,000 per year. That’s 50 million a year. What I rake in from healthcare fees if I had a million insurers is, let’s see, 300 times 1 million families per month times per 12 months, carry the one, where’s my calculator? It’s 3.6 billion a year. Add another cool 2.4 billion if both parents are covered. that brings us to, ehhh, where’s that calculator, 6 billion dollars. Are you telling me that I could not cover every illness for every subscriber that I have at 100% with 6 billion dollars a year? My bad, It’s actually 5.95 billion, forgot to pay my staff. Not only could I cover you, assuming that all my insured don’t neidorff2come down with a serious illness at the same time, god forbid, but, since this would be a true non profit company, as they all should be, then at the end of the year, whatever is left over in the coffers would go directly back to the consumer. And let’s say that we had a really good year where no one visited the doctor, then you would only pay $60 a year for insurance that you didn’t use. Have to account for building and miscellaneous costs. That’s $5 a month for your whole family. That’s the incentive to stay as healthy as possible, the check you get at, let’s see, $440 a month times 12 months, ehhh, seriously why do I keep misplacing my calculator, $5,280 back if we have a really good year. That’s best case scenario.

This working business plan is very possible but it won’t come from anyone currently humana ceoworking in the Health insurance industry. No, these guys wouldn’t be able to afford yachts and fancy champagne if someone decided that healthcare is only meant to take care of people not CEO’s. And here’s the other great part, you could actually pay doctors, hospitals, nurses and all other medical professionals a little more because they are the ones that are actually helping you. If you reduce the Health Insurance companies payroll you actually increase the viability of actually getting good health insurance. Man, if someone ever decided to go ahead and start this company, 100% coverage at a minimal price, I would join it in a heartbeat.

Oh yeah, I forgot, the title of my article, well, because they both just want to rip you off, that’s why. I wonder if Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos feel like getting into the health insurance business, won’t make much money on the insurance company but I would buy there other products and their products only because I sure as hell wouldn’t want them to go out of business.

Political Opinion, mine and mine alone.

news orgs

There’s a lot of to-do about a comment that the President might or might have not said.  There’s certainly, and with good cause,a reason for the Demo’s to question the motives of the statement. Politics, as you have seen for the last 10 years, is about waiting and stomping on any off the cuff comment that might give you seats in the upcoming elections. I don’t blame anyone for the questioning of the remark but it sure did put a halt on good legislation while we’re analyzing “shithole countries”. Well, I have my take on that statement and that statement alone. I do it from a perspective of trying to see the neutrality of it and not being red or blue.

It is my opinion and my opinion alone that the President was criticizing these countries, if he actually did say it. The “countries” not the people. What’s the difference, plenty. How many times have we seen leaders of these impoverished countries get elected to office only to leave six, eight, ten years later with a bank account that has set them up for life. They’re now living in France or Spain or England or the U.S.. I’m not saying that the current leaders of these countries are embezzling but past leaders have. It is my feeling that he might have been criticizing the leaders of these countries, past or present, more than the people of the country and from a business stance, the actions that lead to extreme wealth to leaders while leaving the people impoverished, makes no sense. Had he said shithole people then there would have been no doubt but he didn’t.

I find it hard to condemn someone as a racist without it being 100% certain, especially an elected leader of a multi diverse nation like ours. I would hope that being a racist would be grounds for impeachment and dismissal from the highest office our country has to offer and/or for any publicly held office for that matter. The problem is that I have been called a racist. It didn’t matter that my wife was Colombian, my son half Colombian, my closest friend growing up was Puerto Rican, my closest friend in the military was white and my closest friend in the Border Patrol and who I asked to be my best man at my wedding was African American. So, with that being said, before I start calling someone the R word, I want to be absolutely and without a doubt in my heart sure that he or she is. Still, shithole countries is not very politically correct but the statement was said behind closed doors, I’m sure other Presidents have let their guard down and used colorful language before, to what extent and at whom, I don’t know. I don’t know how the President meant that comment, if he did say it, but that’s my take, for now.

What I do know is that this might have a chilling effect on any closed door meeting or bipartisan gathering in the future. I applaud the elected officials that stood up against the comment but from a logistical point of view I don’t know if it will play out right in the future. I might have put that card in my pocket for future use or maybe it was right to be transparent, again, I don’t know, only time will tell, we’ll see. One thing is for sure, there are some very stand up people in the Senate, on both sides of the aisle, willing to stand up to a remark that they do not quite agree with from the most powerful person in our country, good to see.