Month: June 2018

The headline read, “Italy Turns Away Hundreds of Immigrants.” True or not true?

True, as Matteo Salvini, Italy’s new Minister of the Interior, denied entry to the M.S. Aquarius, a rescue ship, that had plucked 629 would be immigrants from the seas off Libya.

Macron of France castigated Italy, but Mr. Salvini did not back down, but rather then banned all immigrant rescue ships from all Italian ports. 60% of Italians backed the new Minister of the Interior. When asked which are the two most important problems in the Euro Zone, 38% of Europeans said immigration, and 29% said terrorism (FYI, climate change was only 11%), and so it appears that the Europeans are as concerned as the Italians about unfettered immigration. Perhaps the Italians and Mr. Salvini are not just mean and cruel, but are looking at future migration pressures?

At present Africa has approximately 1.26 billion people, and this number is expected to double by 2050! Many of these people will be poor, and with Smart-phones and the internet, these poor Africans will see that life, in general, is much better in Europe. Why would many of them not try to get there?

Is this situation much different from what is happening with the exodus of many from Central America to the U.S.?

Most of the following statistics on Central America come from the internet, and although the numbers are less, the situation appears similar to Africa.

The seven countries of Central America have a total combined population of 46.7 million. Most, if not all of the Central American immigrants that are coming to the U.S. are coming from Guatemala (15.4 M inhabitants), Honduras (9.0M), El Salvador (8.1M),and Nicaragua (6.0M). Poverty in Central America is pervasive with half of the population living below the poverty line. In rural areas the poverty is even worse with 2/3 living below the poverty level. The most extreme poverty is in Honduras where 75% of the rural population lives in poverty, including 63% in extreme poverty, struggling to meet basic food needs. In addition the number of rural inhabitants who live in poverty is close to 50% in Guatemala, Nicaragua, and El Salvador. Despite the poverty Smartphones and the internet are alive and well in Central America. Similar to those rescued from the sea in Libya, why would many of the poor in Central America not try to get here?

How will the U.S. deal with future migration of the poor? Does anyone have a plan? Other than “let everybody in,” do the Democrats have a realistic idea?

Other than “keep everybody out,” do the Republicans have a realistic idea?

Is anybody looking at future migration? Even though my hearing is not great, I have not heard any ideas about how to deal with this issue now or in the future.

Although it should not come as a surprise, I have a few ideas!

Stay tuned!

Right from the gitgo let me state that I do not like to see parents and children separated for just about any reason. (Not counting when abuse or neglect is involved, when this separation is often imperative and for the good of the children.) I do not like seeing the separation of parents and children that is occurring at the border. No one, including those on the political right, likes to see children crying when they are being separated from their mommy. However, I stopped reading the newspaper accounts and stopped watching the T.V. reports on “the immigration crisis at the border,” because I do not know which reports are actually true. I am not alone.Before this “crisis”, according to Gallop a clean majority of 62 percent believe the “traditional news media” is biased. A full 44 percent believe the media is inaccurate, and another 39 percent believe the media spread misinformation.

Recently the media had a field day citing a child with Down syndrome who was separated from her parents on the border supposedly because of Donald Trump’s zero tolerance policy. But there was a big problem with that claim, considering that the child was not separated from her mother while crossing the border, she was instead separated and sent to an aunt after her mother found herself as a witness in a smuggling investigation.                                                                                                          In recent days, a picture of a small child appearing to be trapped in a cage while crying has been spread around the internet. It went so far that even some left-wing news outlets have used the photo to show how evil President Donald Trump is in their eyes.But there’s only one problem with the picture. It doesn’t show what the left is claiming it does.After the picture went viral, it was uncovered that the picture was taken at a pro-illegal immigration protest, and the child was being used in the protest.

And to top it off, apparently the crying little girl  on the cover of Time Magazine was never separated from her mother . . . this according to the father of the little girl!

As anticipated just about all of the Democrat politicians were up in arms about this “separation crisis,” even though this had been the policy under Barack Obama. Why?Because Donald Trump was the bad guy on the other side!

However, vicious innuendo should not have a part of this debate. Democratic Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal likened America’s zero-tolerance immigration policy to the “cattle cars of Nazi Germany,”

However, David Tuck, a Holocaust and an Auschwitz survivor, felt compelled to speak out against those who have so vehemently compared America’s immigration detainment facilities to history’s worst atrocities. Tuck said that seeing many Americans, including members of the political class – who should know better – nonchalantly embrace the term Nazi to describe their opponents is deeply disturbing to him.

 “I don’t believe it when I heard it,” Tuck said when he heard Blumenthal’s statement. 

 So let’s ignore Blumenthal the Blowhard, and get back to the basics of this “immigration crisis,” and the present family separations. Is there anybody who believes that this current emotional frenzy is not purely political?

As a criminal defense attorney pointed out in a recent letter to the Wall Street Journal, “ [I] can say with confidence that hundreds if not thousands of minor children are separated in this country every day by the criminal justice system. What is happening at our southern border is routine.”

Under Obama, when illegal border crossers were put into the criminal justice system, and families were separated. The Obama administration prosecuted half a million illegal immigrants and similarly separated families in the process. This policy of prosecuting immigrants for crossing the border illegally has been in place for multiple administrations, including the Bush administration.

Neither Democrats nor the media apparently cared about family separation back then. So why all the uproar now? What has changed, other than the president?  Donald Trump insisted that he was complying with and enforcing the law, which is his constitutional duty and responsibility. Despite the hubbub from the left, he was doing just that. Was Mr. Trump also playing a bit of politics here before he changed his position because of public outcry? Was this all just a part of “The Art of the Deal?” Yes, of course. In my opinion he was sending a message to the thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of Central Americans that might contemplate a similar excursion to the U.S. border in the future. If you think that I am exaggerating with these numbers, make sure that you read Part II of this series.

Stay tuned.

 

Earlier this month my local liberal paper had an editorial that I agreed with. Now one might not think that that is a big deal, but keep in mind that I rarely agree with what they have to say. The topic of the editorial was the federal debt and in their words “disaster looms unless responsible Americans step up.” (The emphasis is mine.)

What made them take this conservative stand? It was because of what Howard Schultz said. For those of you who don’t know Mr. Schultz, he is the very liberal retiring Starbuck’s executive who is apparently considering running for president in 2020. He said, “The greatest threat domestically to the country is this $21 trillion debt hanging over . . . America and future generations.”

In case any of you are not familiar with our increasing federal debt problem, let me relate some facts from this editorial:

The Congressional Budget Office predicts that an annual budget deficit of approximately $1trillion will be the new norm by 2020, and this will lead to a National debt of $33 trillion in a decade. The dollars just needed to service the debt will increase from $263 billion in 2017 to $1.05 trillion in 2028, and this will dwarf the annual military spending or the annual Medicare budget.

In other words we are talking bucoo bucks here, and the liberal editorial staff warns that “unless responsible Americans step up, disaster looms!”

Is there a way to change this runaway freight train that is headed for this upcoming big time disaster? Realistically there are only a few possible ways to alter the present projected course of the debt. First, raise taxes. Second, cut spending especially in reference to social programs. Or third, a combination of the two. (There are actually two other possible ways to derail this locomotive – one is to increase the amount of tax collected by reving up the economy – the “Trump solution.” And the other is to close your eyes and hope – this appears to be the Democrat’s way of dealing with this mess.)

I agree with the statement, “unless responsible Americans step up, disaster looms!”

Responsible Americans! I hope that no one expects to find this rare commodity in Congress, as a “responsible congressman” is as close to an oxymoron that one can get.  For the most part those in Congress are most concerned with getting re-elected, and this is done by playing to their base. Can anyone imagine a conservative congressman running for re-election by advocating raising taxes? Likewise can anyone envision a liberal congressman running for re-election on a platform of cutting spending, vis-a-vis stopping the freebies? The answer to both is, “No!”

Is there a solution? . . .  Yes, I have one!

My solution involves a pretty basic idea:

If we want Congress to act responsibly, stop making them run for re-election all the time, and this means “term limits.” One six year term for a U.S. Senator. Two two-year terms for a someone in the House of Representatives. If they were not always worried about placating their base, maybe there is a chance that they would act like responsible Americans!

Next I am going to focus on how California is doing in regards to the capturing and the holding on to the water that nature provides. A lot of the following information was gleaned from a recent Wall Street Journal editorial, and so it should be very up to date.

The Pacific Institute, an Oakland based environmental think tank,  has conducted research on desalination for more than a decade. In 2012 the Institute launched a series of research reports that identified the key outstanding issues for desalination in California. So what happened after all these years of research? As of May, 2016, there were nine active proposals for desalination plants along the California coast. Wow! This sounds like progress . . .until it comes out that this number is down from 21 proposed projects in 2006 and 19 in 2012. Since 2006, however, only two new projects have been built, and one of these is quite small!

The other ocean desalination plants are in Santa Barbara, Catalina Island, Marina and San Nicholas Island. Together they can produce about 4,000 acre-feet a year. This indeed is a very small amount when compared to the new Carlsbad Desalination Plant that produces 56,000 acre-feet per year.

As of January, 2018, California water officials have approved $34.4 million in grants to eight desalination projects across the state. The money comes from Proposition 1, a water bond passed by state voters in November 2014 during the depths of the drought, and it highlights a new trend in purifying salty water for human consumption: only one of the projects is dependent on the ocean. Instead, six of the winning proposals are for brackish desalination and one is for research at the University of Southern California. In brackish desalination, salty water from a river, bay or underground aquifer is filtered for drinking, rather than taking ocean water, which is often up to three times saltier and more expensive to purify. As of 2013, there were roughly 24 brackish plants in California. Together they produce about 96,000 acre-feet of water a year. Another three plants are in design or under construction, and these three will add only 9,000 acre-feet annually. An additional 17 have been proposed, adding only 81,000 acre-feet of capacity.

So let’s get this straight. It’s been almost four years since Proposition 1 was passed, and only now have “California water officials” decided to invest in brackish desalination. As noted above the 24 brackish desalination plants (2013) produced the water equivalent of two Carlsbad-like plants, and the one Carlsbad plant produces only seven percent of the drinking water in San Diego.

So far this approach sounds less like Israel’s vision and more like Capetown’s procrastination. However, don’t make your final decision until you have the the final part of this three part series.

In the next three essays, I am going to discuss a water problem that three different places in the world have, and then I am going to describe the three very different ways that each of these places has approached the problem. 

A friend of mine sent me an article from the L.A. Times and his accompanying question was, “Are these are next homeless?” 

California is an expensive place to live, and it is even more expensive to live in and around its major cities. Not surprising a lot of people want to live where the weather is nice, but everyone cannot live wherever they want. Let’s use some common sense . . .

If you want to live in X, you should evaluate whether or not you can afford to live in X.

After paying 50% of one’s income for rent, how long should it take to realize that you cannot afford to live in X.

About fifteen years ago a friend of mine and his wife realized that they would never be able to afford a house in Southern California. They decided that a choice had to be made – either stay in SoCal and rent or move someplace else. They used common sense, and moved to Texas. They left “home,” family, schools, and church, and now return once a year to visit.

Why don’t the powers that be come out and just state the obvious?

“If you and your family can not afford to live here, please use common sense and move to someplace that you can afford.”

The left has slowly but steadily gone after things that a lot of us regard as good old Americana. Are they done? Not by a long shot, and that’s why I ask, “What’s next?”

I am assuming that no one needs a review of the push to stop saying “Merry Christmas,” as this leftward push has not been subtle, but there are more encroachments, some subtle and some, not so subtle.

When I was in school, it was called “Easter Vacation” and now it is “Spring Break.” Columbus Day had been a National Holiday, and now in many left-leaning circles, it is now called “Indigenous Peoples Day.” On some T.V. shows aimed at very small children Halloween is now being referred to as “Dress-up Day,” and Valentine’s Day is “Love Day.” (Valentine’s Day was originally named after Saint Valentine and All Hallows Eve, Halloween, refers to the eve of All Saints’ Day.) To the left there can be no reference, no matter how distant, to anything religious, therefore the need to get rid of the names, Valentine’s Day and Halloween. But why would the left stop there? There is a rumor that there is a bill pending in the state assembly of California by a Democrat that proposes to combine Abraham Lincoln’s birthday and George Washington’s birthday into President’s Day and to add May 1 as “International Worker’s Day” (just another way of saying “International Socialist Worker’s Day.” (aka May Day, as is celebrated in communist countries!)

Speaking about things truly Americana, The Boy Scouts have been around since 1910. The Scout Oath begins, “On my honor, I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout law . . .

But wait, this has a reference to God, so, “sorry, no can do,” say those on the left who

have been working for years to undermine the Boy Scouts. First it was gay and transgender scouts, followed by openly gay scout leaders, and last year it was the welcoming of girls into Cub Scouts and Eagle Scouts. This steady undermining of The Boy Scouts has now resulted in a name change to “Scouts BSA” in 2019. However earlier this month finally some resistance from the Mormon Church. The Boy Scouts and the Mormon Church had initially formed a partnership 105 years ago based on shared beliefs in God, country, and the necessity of teaching morals and responsibility to boys. Despite the fact that approximately 20% of the Boy Scouts in the U.S. are Mormon, in the last five years these two groups have chosen different paths. As a result, the Church of the Latter Day Saints is severing ties with the Boy Scouts at the end of the year. With this loss of a big chunk of its members, I predict that the “Boy Scouts” will go belly-up, and thus another victory for the left.

So I reiterate, “What’s next?”

First let’s look at the facts before making a rash prediction about how the illegals are going to vote in 2020.

Perhaps we should be looking at George Soros differently! Maybe we should be viewing him in a more favorable light. Now before you immediately stop reading, hear me out and let me convince you.

I presume that just about everyone knows that Mr. Soros is a very, very rich left-wing looney. Ignore that fact for a second and read on. In California prior to Election Day, 6/5/18, this  billionaire put his money where his mouth is. In California he made an effort to reshape California’s criminal justice system by propping up radical, anti-law enforcement candidates for district attorneys. Unfortunately, for him, his exorbitant effort came to a screeching halt, with most of his candidates losing decisively. Throughout California, law-and-order prosecutors who didn’t spew liberal dogma or have hostile views toward police won.

But wait, I think that we should encourage Mr. Soros to try again. Perhaps we should tell him that he just needs to increase his effort by putting more of his money into his next effort. Wait! Wait! Don’t stop. Read on. Let me convince you.

In Sacramento County Mr. Soros poured $400,000 into the campaign of Noah Phillips, an anti-police and pro Black Lives Matter candidate. Mr. Phillips lost to the incumbent pro-police candidate, Anne Schubert, by a 2:1 margin. Since Sacramento County went for Hillary by twenty-four points in the 2016 presidential election, I think that it is safe to identify it as a “blue” locale. In this “blue” county, the Soros candidate got walloped, while George Soros essentially contributed $400,000 to the local Sacramento economy.

In San Diego, Soros backed Geneviéve Jones-Wright to the tune of more than $1.5 million which was funneled through a political action committee that propped up Jones-Wright and supported reform of the criminal justice system. I did not vote for Jones-Wright, in part because I am always suspicious of hyphenated last names, and mostly because she had no experience prosecuting anybody. Jones-Wright was thoroughly beaten by a margin of 63% – 36%. Here again while the George Soros candidate got walloped, he essentially contributed a ton of money to the local economy.

In conclusion, as I stated at the top of this essay, perhaps we should be looking at George Soros differently. He just put a lot of his money into the California economy, and has very little to show for it. Maybe we should encourage Mr. Soros to try again, but this time with more money! Perhaps we should continue to encourage him until his candidates get above 40% of the vote.

Did I convince you?