Posted on

How Did Donald, err Ronald, Do?

We own a condominium in a large condo complex, and the number of condo units has increased substantially over the years. We are one of the original twelve members, and now there are a total of twenty-nine members. The condo complex has a Condo Association called the Noteworthy Affiliation of Tenant Owners  and an association president. In the condo complex not all units are the same size. As it so happens, we happen to have the largest unit.

As part of the Condo Association agreement, all of the condo owners have agreed to chip in and pay yearly for security. Each unit has a different value, and the assessment for security is based on the individual value of each unit. Because we have the largest unit, we pay the most for security, and that seems fair to us. However there is a problem. Most of the condo owners are not paying their fair share, and to make matters worse, this underpayment has been going on for many years! Apparently at the last Condo Association meeting in Wales in 2014, the past association president and the 2014 board of NATO directors recognized that the scofflaws were not paying their fair share, and told them that they all must pay what they had agreed upon in the past . . . but gave them ten years (until 2024) to do so! We could not attend the 2014 meeting, and our representative apparently thought that this outrageous agreement was okay (FYI: She has since been fired!) Four years have passed, and at this point only five (us plus four others) of the twenty-nine owners, are actually paying their agreed upon fair share. Four more of the owners are coming close to paying their agreed upon fair share, but the remaining twenty owners are not close.

The 2018 NATO condo association meeting ended yesterday, and our representative, Ronald, reported back to us today.
Here are some snippets from the conversation between Ronald and us:
Ronald: “I told them at the outset that their behavior was neither fair nor acceptable.”
US:   “and . . .?”
Ronald: “I asked them if they realized that we are paying more than our fair share while they are welching on the deal made in 2014?”
US:  “and . . . ?”
Ronald: “I pointed out that we are paying far more on NATO security than anybody else, but they just nodded and looked at the floor.”
US:  “and . . .?”
Ronald: “I emphasized repeatedly that we are subsidizing 72% of the security for  NATO? I reiterated that we realize that 22 out of the 29 members of NATO  have increased their spending on security since that Crimea episode in the adjacent condo complex, but that they are still not paying what they agreed   to pay.”
A long pause then ensued . . .
US: “Well! Honestly, Ronald, we are not completely happy with your performance. You had them, and you went easy on them! We have the upper hand here, and you were way too nice! You let them off the hook, without getting anything in return!
Perhaps before the next NATO meeting, you should read ‘The Art of the Deal’ written by some New York fellow”!
Posted on

Let’s All Drink Together

What is she drinking? Or perhaps given that she is from the San Francisco Bay Area, I should say, “What is she smoking?” Sometimes I wonder just how dumb some of these politicians think that the general public is. Now granted that a lot of those in California are clueless, but Ms. Pelosi is speaking to the entire country when she opines on her Twitter account.
Her most recent tweet came in response to the June Jobs Report, which stated that in June, 2018 employers created 213,000 new jobs (22,000 more than expected), and of those created, 36,000 were manufacturing jobs. Now try matching what the numbers actually showed with what former Speaker of the House said. She tweeted, “The June #Jobs Report shows what is at stake from the brewing storm of rising health costs, spiraling trade uncertainty & an economy being hollowed out to enrich big corporations & the wealthiest 1 percent. Americans deserve better than the GOP’s raw deal.”
Huh?? Did she read the same jobs report that I did? What is she drinking?
The same jobs report stated that Hispanic unemployment was at 4.6%, which is an all time low. Similarly black unemployment was 6.5%, which is the second lowest level ever. Also wages rose 2.7%, which is only slightly below the 2.8% expected. However, Ms. Pelosi tweeted the following, “Corporate America is on track to spend $1 trillion on dividends and stock buybacks, while announcing tens of thousands of layoffs, refusing to give workers a raise and raising costs for families.”
Huh! Did she read the same jobs report that I did? What is she drinking?
Now granted, only those on the left are going to be following Ms. Nancy on her twitter account, but stop and think what this implies. Stop and think what she is actually suggesting . . . “I realize that anyone who is regularly following me on Twitter does not have the time, or the inclination, or perhaps the smarts to read the June Jobs Report. Do not bother to read the same jobs report that I did. Let’s all drink together!”
Posted on

Supreme Court; Should It Be Like Roulette?

As it stands now the makeup of the Supreme Court is pure luck, just like roulette. At present, the past three presidents, Barack Obama, George W.Bush, and Bill Clinton, have each nominated two and President Trump is on the verge of nominating his second Justice. This recent equality as far as presidential Supreme Court nominees, however is pure happenstance.
Here we are in the middle of another mudslinging, downright disgusting process of the approval of a Supreme Court Justice. Why is this process so nasty? Why do some senators go out of their way to insult and belittle the nominee? Why do some even go so far as to insult the religious faith of the nominee? Is this just politics as usual? Of course the thinly veiled attacks on the nominee’s reputation do play well with the senator’s base, but is that all that is behind it? No, obviously not, as the nomination and the subsequent vote to accept the nominee has dramatic effects for decades to come because the appointment to Supreme Court is a lifetime appointment. Other than judges are there any other lifetime positions? If there are please let me know. Other than retiring like Justice Kennedy recently did, the Supreme Court is a lifetime position, and so the political stakes are exceptionally high . . . perhaps too high!
Why does this have to be a lifetime appointment? The answer is that’s what’s in the Constitution. That’s what the designers figured would keep the justices free from political pressures for if they didn’t have to worry about their future, they would more likely be fair and just in their decisions. But that was then and this is now! There is one major difference between the 1770s and 2018. Life expectancy! In the latter part of the 18th century, the average life expectancy was 36 years, and in the early 1800s it rose to 37 years. That is far cry from today’s life expectancy. In 2007, the average life expectancy at birth for persons born in the United States was 77.9 years, an increase of 1.1 years from 2000 and an increase of 0.2 years from 2006, and by 2050 the average life expectancy is predicted to increase to 80 for men, and 83-85 for women.

In 1790 the average age of a Supreme Court Justice at retirement was about 62 years, whereas in 2010 it was about 77 years. Call me crazy, but I doubt that this is what the framers of the Constitution envisioned.
Personally, I think that Kennedy’s decision to retire was the right decision. After all he was 81 years old! Since there is no mandatory retirement age, there have been
justices that did not retire till 90! Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is now 85 years old – four years than older Kennedy, and five years past the average retirement age.
Personally, if I have a case going before the highest court in the land, I do not want a bunch of octogenarians deciding it, and that is why I am recommending the following “rotating mandatory retirement” for Supreme Court justices. I propose that one year and three years after each presidential election, the justice that has been on the Court the longest would be forced to retire.Since there are nine Supreme Court justices, each would serve as a Supreme Court Justice for an average of 18 years, and I think that is plenty long.
Let’s use Justice Ginsberg as an example. She took her seat on the Supreme Court in August 1993 after a nomination from Bill Clinton, and her present the tenure is three years shorter than the average tenure. With my plan, she would have retired in 2011, and Justice Kennedy who was appointed in 1987 would have retired in 2005.
There are two caveats to this plan. No single president could appoint more than three justices. If a president was elected for two terms (8 years in office), he would appoint only three justices – one at the end of the first and third year of his first term, and one at the end of his third year of his second term. Likewise if a justice died, the president would then have to nominate a new justice, even though it was not on the usual two year-four year cycle, but again each president could only nominate a total of three justices maximum. The bickering about Justice Scalia’s replacement would have been avoided since according to this plan, then President Obama would have already nominated his three justices, and so he would have maxed out.This plan would also avoid picking Supreme Court nominees based on age, as all would serve 18 years.  Before his decision, President Trump’s three leading potential nominees were all around 50, and so they could realistically serve for approximately 30 years as a Supreme Court Justice. That’s too long!
Posted on

Two Dismal Days for Dems

As D-Day is June 6 of each year, maybe from now on June 26-27 will be known as the C-Days for these were the days that the Supreme Court announced two of this year’s decisions in favor of conservatives – much to the dismay of the Democrats.
First, in a  5-4 decision the Court ruled in favor of the President in Trump vs. Hawaii.
Here Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority that admission and exclusion of foreign nationals is a “fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government’s political departments largely immune from judicial control,” quoting from an earlier case, and that the president has extraordinarily broad discretion under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) to exclude aliens when he believes doing so is in the nation’s interests.
Even though Democratic President Jimmy Carter did a similar thing in 1980, the Democrats cried foul. Were they impugning the integrity of Chief Justice Roberts? As I recall it was Justice Roberts who cast the deciding vote on the legality of Obamacare. In that case he sided with the more liberal justices in a 5-4 decision. Can anybody recall when Justice Ginsberg sided with the four conservative Justices in a 5-4 decision?
Second, the Court dealt a severe blow to the labor unions, ruling that public employees  cannot be forced to pay dues or fees to support their unions in a 5-4 vote. The Court ruled that the First Amendment protects these employees from being forced to support a group whose views are different from theirs. Justice Alito wrote for the majority, which based its ruling on the First Amendment, saying that requiring payments to unions that negotiate with the government forces workers to endorse political messages that they do not agree with. The Democrats cried foul with some calling the ruling an attack on workers and their communities! (That is an interesting take as the ruling appears to be exactly the opposite, i.e. something in favor of workers!) What’s astonishing is the Justice Kagan in her dissent stated the majority of the court “ is weaponizing the First Amendment”! Excuse me, but isn’t it the role of the court to preserve and stand behind the First Amendment?
And in that same week, if things weren’t bad enough for the Democrats, Justice Kennedy announced that he is retiring from the Supreme Court. Fasten your seat belts, as President Trump will nominate his second Supreme Court Justice on Monday, July 9th!
Posted on

The Supremes (But Can They Sing?)

With the retirement of Supreme Court Justice, Anthony Kennedy, two questions came to mind. An inquiring mind wants to know:
1. Do the four conservative justices (Thomas, Roberts, Alito, and Gorsuch) and the four  liberal justices (Ginsberg, Kagan, Sotomayor, and Breyer) always vote en bloc?
2. In the recent past did Justice Kennedy more often side with the four conservative justices or the four liberal justices in 5-4 decisions?
I had my opinions on each of these questions, but then I did some research and learned some facts. At this time I would ask each of you to answer the same two questions to see if your opinion is the same as mine.
On the first question the most recent data that I found was from a New York Times article from 2014 when Justice Scalia was still on the Court. Obviously Justice Gorsuch is not included in this analysis because he was not on the Court in 2014. This article reviewed the 280 signed decisions in argued cases over the prior four years. Over those four years even the justices that were least likely to agree with each other, did agree 66% of the time (Ginsberg and Thomas). As one would expect both the conservative justices and the liberal justices were likely to vote together
. . . but this did not occur 100% of the time. Sotomayor and Kagan voted in tandem 94% of the time and Kagan and Ginsberg were in agreement 93% of the time. This is obviously a lot of concordant opinions, however this means, that in 6% – 7% of the cases their opinions were different. Likewise Alito and Roberts were in agreement 93% of the time, and Alito was in agreement with Thomas 91% of the time. Again by definition this means that Alito disagreed with Roberts 7% of the time and disagreed with Thomas on 9% of the cases. Even though there is not enough cases to know for certain who Justice Gorsuch agrees with most of the time, at this point he agrees with Thomas and  Alito most of the time.
Keep in mind that these statistics are skewed by the fact that in 2014, almost half of the decisions by the nine member court were unanimous! !
I found these stats very surprising on at least two different fronts.
First I couldn’t believe that there were that many cases that had unanimous decisions. I do not recall ever reading about a recent unanimous 9-0 Supreme Court ruling, but apparently they were occurring not infrequently, at least in the four years prior to 2014. My suspicion is that these cases are not very interesting to the public, and thus not reported on very much. This could also conceivably explain why Thomas and Ginsberg agreed 66% of the time. Likewise it would contribute to the 91-94% concordance by both liberal and conservative justices. The other interesting tidbit is that the Supreme Court Justices chose that many cases that were seemingly open and shut . . .
9-0! (4 of the nine judges have to agree to hear the case before it is put on the docket.) Were these apparently obvious, 9-0 cases chosen because the Circuit Court had made an egregious error forcing the Supreme Court to correct the lower court’s ruling? I immediately think, “Ninth Circuit?”
So how did you do on the first question?
The second question revolved around how Justice Kennedy voted in the more controversial cases . . . those decided by a 5-4 ruling, with he being the deciding vote. The day after Kennedy announced his retirement the Wall Street Journal reviewed this issue. They reviewed all 5-4 decisions from 2000 through 2018. I am going to focus on only the 5-4 cases in which Kennedy was the swing vote.
From 2000-2014 Kennedy sided with the conservative justices in 5-4 cases between 40-50% of the time, whereas he sided with the four liberal justices from 0-35% of the time. (Here he sounds like a conservative Justice.) However, since 2014, he changed direction, siding with the four liberal justices over 50% of the time, and with the four conservative justices only 25% of the time. (Here he sounds like a liberal justice.) Surprisingly, in 2015-2016, he sided with these same liberal justices 75% of the time, and only in 25% did he go with the four conservative justices. (Again he sounds like a liberal justice.) But wait! In 2017-2018 Kennedy sided with the four conservative justices close to 70% of the time, and did not side with the four liberal justices at all in 5-4 cases.
Will Kennedy’s replacement on the Court be more like a moderate (Kennedy-like) or more like a conservative (Thomas-like)? Time will tell. Nonetheless, I doubt that the new Supreme will be able to sing!
Posted on

Just “Dumb”

Obviously I look at the world through a jaundiced eye, but don’t we all? I like to think of myself as a thinking, deducing, logical person, and I would venture that most, if not all, of you who are reading this consider yourself in the same way. Going down that same path, sometimes I wonder if many on the other side ever stop and think logically, because some of the things that many of them say are just . . . there is no nice way to say this! . . . are just “dumb.”

Let’s first consider the “Red Hen incident.” Kicking Sarah Huckabee Sanders out of her restaurant because she works with Donald Trump was  . . .  again there is no nice way to say this . . . was just “dumb.”  How could Stephanie Wilkinson, the owner of this Lexington, Virginia restaurant possibly think that asking the White House press secretary to leave mid-meal was a smart thing to do? The only possible answer is that she didn’t think! Not only did Mrs. Huckabee Sanders leave without further incident, but she also offered to pay for the dinner that she was not allowed to finish. Who was the adult in that restaurant? In the end which side did Stephanie Wilkinson help? Even Bernie Saunders has come out against the position taken by Ms. Wilkinson!
Next let’s consider the “Maxine Waters incident.” As everyone is probably aware Maxine Waters is the uber liberal Democratic congresswoman from the L.A. area. At a Capital Hill rally on June 23, 2018 she said, “If you see anybody from that cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. You push back on them. Tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere!”
Her making a statement like that was just . . . again no nice way to say this . . . was just “dumb.” How could she possibly think that encouraging possible violence against those in the Trump cabinet was a smart thing to do? The only possible answer is that she didn’t think! In the end which side did Maxine Waters help? Even Nancy Pelosi came out against the position vocalized by Maxine Waters!
Next we have Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal recently likening America’s zero-tolerance immigration policy to the “cattle cars of Nazi Germany.” As we have recently been made aware of, many millennials actually know very little about Nazi Germany, but surely Sen. Blumenthal knows a lot about Nazi Germany. This statement was . . . again there is no nice way to say this . . . was just “dumb.” With these five words he offended not only all Jewish people, but also anyone who knows anything about what really happened in the 1930s and early 1940s. How could he possibly think that this was a wise thing to say? The only possible answer is that he didn’t think! In the end which side did Richard Blumenthal help?
There are obviously many more examples of those on the left saying “dumb” things. They are occurring at least once each week. But’s let’s be clear on my position here – I am encouraging these non-thinkers to continue to take advantage to their constitutional right of free speech! They can and should continue to say all the “dumb” things that they want!
Posted on

Diversity Over Merit

A recent editorial in the Wall Street Journal detailed how the progressive mayor of New York City (NYC), Bill de Blasio, wants to water down admission standards at eight public high schools where kids are achieving. At present admission to these high performing high schools is determined by the Specialized High School Admissions Test (SHSAT), but according to Mr. de Blasio something is wrong with this because 21 out of about 600 middle schools send almost 50% of the students that are enrolled in these high achieving high schools. To me, a rational person would conclude that the education process at the vast majority of the NYC public middle schools needs to be spiffed up. However, the progressive mayor wants to lower the bar for admission by scrapping the SHSAT, and introducing quotas so that 20% of the new students come from high poverty areas. Never mind that these students will not have the necessary skills to compete at these high performing high schools . . . it will look very good on paper as the percent of “poverty-area” students (predominately black and Latino) admitted to these schools will increase. Again to me, logic would dictate that more of these “poverty-area” children should be receiving a better middle school education perhaps by going to parochial schools (via vouchers) or charter schools. In the New York City Catholic schools the bar is set high. In the  Catholic high schools 97.9% graduate and 92% go to college. As far as charter schools go, in NYC there is presently a waiting list of 47,800 students! Perhaps instead of lowering the education-bar for all of these NYC children, he should try to improve the education of more of them.
I can hear many of you saying that you feel bad for these unfortunate school children, but actually Bill de Blasio’s progressivism in New York City will have little effect on any of us. Would you have a different attitude if this progressive way of thinking did actually have a real life effect on us. What if the “lowering of standards” had an effect on something many of us do not infrequently?
Look no further than airplane travel and the air traffic controllers. Obviously the air traffic controllers are critical to the safety of any of us who fly. I would bet that most, if not all, of us, would want the smartest and the most qualified individuals occupying those positions in the control towers. Well fasten your seat belts and prepare for a hard landing. In May 2013 Obama’s FAA changed the process for hiring air traffic controllers and applied this new process retroactively. They decided that beginning in 2014 the Air Traffic Selection and Training exam (AT-SAT) would no longer be used to select candidates for training. The AT-SAT is an 8 hour test that assesses numeric ability, tolerance for high intensity work, and the capacity for solving problems. The AT-SAT was scrapped  and a Biographical Questionnaire (BQ) was added to the screening process. This questionnaire asks questions like “How many high school sports did you play?” and “ What has been the major cause of your failures?” If a candidate did not score high on this “woe is me” test, he/she was no longer eligible to be an air traffic controller! Whereas the AT-SAT assessed merit and ability, for this high risk (for air travelers, very high risk!) occupation, the BQ instead uses more subjective “standards” to foster diversity in the air control tower! Yikes!
So while in NYC the brightest students who are striving to gain admission to these high performing high schools will suffer for the sake of diversity over merit, all of us who travel by air are now at risk for the sake of diversity over merit. Go figure!!
7/2/18
Posted on

Immigration Crisis, Part III

They “talk the talk”, but when push comes to shove, would they “walk the walk?” I realize that I have probably used up my quota of clichés in that one sentence, but the question is whether or not those that bellyache the most about the border immigration policies, will actually do anything if they are given the chance. Specifically I am referring to most of the Democrats and an increasing number of the Republican members in Congress who are “talking the talk.” Joining in, many of the churches in the U.S. are “talking the talk” from their pulpits, while their congregations silently “talk the talk,” nodding affirmatively from the pews. The T.V. talking heads literally “talk the talk” as do those who write for newspapers or on the internet. All of these are inflaming the situation, as they seemingly have no problem criticizing just about any immigration policy, but do they step up . . . would they step up in a pinch? Would they “walk the walk?”
Many years ago, Food for the Poor, an organization tends to the poor in Central America and the Caribbean came out and said that these poor Central Americans would fare better being helped with food and shelter in their own country as opposed to trying to emigrate to the U.S. The book, Enrique’s Journey by Sonia Nazario, tells the true story about  a Honduran teenager’s harrowing journey through Mexico, and across the Rio Grande into the U.S. Suffice it to say that things did not turn out as he expected. How many of the “talk-the-talkers” are familiar with the work of Food for the Poor (or other charitable organizations that deal with the poorest of the poor)? How many of the “talk-the-talkers” have read Enrique’s Journey (or other stories that describe the plight of a Central American immigrant or refugee)?
As I have already stated, I do have some ideas on how to help with this problem. What follows will not satisfy everyone . . . in fact it will probably not satisfy even a few. 
But it is an idea!
First off: Those that do not “walk the walk” should not continue to “talk the talk!” If you cannot put your money where your mouth is, then, how can I say this politely, “shut up.” This applies especially to politicians, including President Trump and all members of Congress, but it also applies to church pulpits, as well as the talking heads on T.V., and newspapers. (Individuals will always have the First Amendment right of free speech, but once that individual is on a soapbox, he/she should first “walk the walk” before “talking the talk.”) Congressmen/women could obviously debate the issues on the House or the Senate floor. That is their job. However, in order to “talk the talk” for T.V. or the press, they would have to “walk the walk” first.
There will be two basic ways to “walk the walk.” Let’s call them “Direct” and “Indirect.”
First let’s define the “Direct” way to “walk the walk”:
Sponsor a migrant family. By sponsoring a migrant family one would be responsible for them for five or perhaps even ten years. Responsible in terms of providing food, clothing, and shelter for this family. If the food, clothing, and shelter are provided in one’s own home, then the migrant family could be employed by their sponsor for at least the minimum wage. Potential migrant families would sign up to be sponsored in this “Direct” program. There would be a form to fill out by both the sponsor and the recipient individual or family so that preferences like religion, nearby family, etc. could be matched. Only after a matching sponsor is identified can the migrant family enter the U.S. It would be encouraged that a potential migrant family’s application be filled out at the U.S. embassy in their own Central American country. Migrant families who made the journey across Mexico to the U.S. border without being accepted by a chosen sponsor would not be considered for legal entry into the U.S.
There would be no politics involved in this program All politicians who desired to “talk the talk” would have to “walk the walk” in this “Direct” program. All churches would likewise have to participate in this “Direct” program, if they wanted to express opinions from the pulpit on this immigration subject. To editorialize on immigration, all local newspapers, and local T.V. channels would have to “walk the walk” by volunteering for this “Direct” program. Individuals likewise could participate in this “Direct” program if they so desired, although I would think that the “Indirect” program would be better for most individuals.
The “Indirect” program would involve trying to make the lives of the poor better in their own countries. For instance, a family in Honduras would be immensely thankful for a 400 sq. foot cement house. Building such a house in Honduras costs around $7000. Multiple families in the U.S. could “walk the walk” by combining their contributions to build such a house, perhaps every year or two. Since education is the key to any future hope of escaping poverty, churches or organizations, such as The Rotary or The Knights of Columbus could provide books and build schools in Central America. The cost of a school in Honduras is approximately $40,000. Likewise bloggers would have to participate in this “Indirect” program. Although the exact details of this “Indirect “ program would need to be further worked out, it is an idea!
Of course everyone knows that this type of idea will not fly. There would be a lot of objections, especially from the politicians.
My question to each of you is: “Are you merely “talking the talk” or are you actually ready to “walk the walk?”
Posted on

Immigration Crisis, Part II

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?
At least half the world’s population lives on the edge of survival because of the effects of poverty, and as Jesus said, “You will always have the poor among you, . . .” (John 12:8).
Is it possible that we, as a nation or as individuals, can eliminate poverty in Africa or in Central America? Obviously ‘no’; we cannot even come close to eliminating poverty in our own country. Does this mean that we should remain indifferent to their plight? My answer is ‘No,’ but emoting and politicking for the press does little unless some ideas follow!
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!
Posted on

Immigration Crisis I

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,”
“Really, Senator Blumenthal? Either you have a short and deluded memory or you are just lying to score political points!”
Instead of pointing out how atrocious Blumenthal’s comment was,  pundits and politicians on the left have echoed that sentiment.
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. 
”They know nothing of the Holocaust. They are politicians, looking to get paid,” he said, repeating that those who make the comparison “know nothing.’ When asked to compare the American border detainment facilities to actual concentration camps, Tuck responded, ‘“ is a country club. I was given a piece of bread in the morning. A piece of bread in the evening; I had to survive with my life. I have a number on my arm to prove it — from Auschwitz.”                                                                                                                          
 
 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.