Update from the Sunland
No.839
22.1.18 – 28.1.18
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To
all,
The follow-up news items:
-- I noted limited knowledge of the continuing
appropriations extension in last week’s Update [838]. In the form of
closure (no pun intended), Congress passed and the President signed into law
the same day the Federal Register Printing Savings Act of 2017 [PL 115-120; HR
195; House: 266-150-0-14(5): Senate: 81-18-0-1(0); 131 Stat. xxxx].
The relevant section of this law is Division B-Extension of Continuing
Appropriations Act, 2018 that extends appropriations to 8.February.2018, and
ended the federal government shutdown that had begun at 00:01, 20.2.18
(weekend) . . . at least for now.
There was a collective sigh of relief; however, I do not sense the
urgency of solving the root problem.
If Congress devotes the time and energy to a DACA remedy, perhaps as
part of the broader immigration reform legislation, they are not likely to pass
a proper, constitutionally required appropriations law. The clock is ticking.
-- The special prosecutor's investigation into Russian
election meddling [782, 804] is progressing. They have finally reached the apex,
seeking to interview the fellow in the Oval Office. He has repeatedly proclaimed his willingness and desire to
testify before the special prosecutor.
Given his penchant for what he euphemistically labels truthful
hyperbole, I cannot imagine any competent lawyer supporting an interview or
testimony in any form. Yet, he is
arrogant enough to defy competent legal counsel. I suspect he will say I wish I could but my lawyers say
no. We shall see. For someone who gurgles he has nothing
to hide, he sure does hide a lot of things. I'm just sayin'.
On
Thursday, the fellow in the Oval Office proposed a path to citizenship for
nearly two million undocumented immigrants qualified under the DREAMer (beyond DACA)
criteria, if lawmakers agree to appropriate US$25B to expand barriers along the
Mexico border and make other changes to the immigration system, including restrictions
on family-based immigration and an end to the immigration lottery program. I must say it is encouraging that he
would defy the Republican Party leadership and that he apparently backed off
“the wall” notion. I fear that
“barriers” may not be broad or deep enough to become viable. There has been no indication where the
funding is going to come from. At
present, it appears the fellow in the Oval Office wants to borrow more money
from the PRC, increasing the national debt, since he has offered no clue where
the money will come from. Mexico
was a non-starter from the get-go.
As expected I suppose, the right-wing talking-heads have picked up the
chant of calling him Amnesty Don.
I listened intently to the entire speech given by the fellow
who occupies the Oval Office at the annual World Economic Forum (WEF) at Davos,
Switzerland. Chairman,
Chief Executive Officer and President of J.P. Morgan Chase Jamie Dimon has
offered what seems to be the best description of the WEF: “It is where
billionaires tell millionaires what the middle class feels.” So it was. The President offered a softer tone from his usual
vitriol. He actually sought
international movement toward the United States to join the new economic
boom. Yet, every time he says
“America First” I cringe, as it reminds me of the pre-World War II isolationist
movement in the history of this Grand Republic. Lately, he has tried to mitigate his apparent isolationist
or unilateral advocacy with a qualifier, “. . . but that does not mean America
alone.” That sounds like a
positive adjustment. However,
given his history, it sounds more like Kim Jong Un . . . we will be with you as
long as you do it my way. The more
he persists the more he sounds like the Ugly American-in-chief. His continued assault on the Press was
not well received.
Comments and contributions from Update no.838:
Comment to the Blog:
“Apology accepted, even if it's a bit long. You help me appreciate my minimalism.
“If Apple or any other corporation is bringing money back
onshore, rest assured they are not doing it to be of service to the nation. One way or another, their motive is
greed.
“I see Chinese smuggling to and from North Korea as less
than important. The hope I see in
that situation is reunion with South Korea in both governments' mutual hope
that a united Korea can stand against the neo-colonial powers much as Vietnam
is doing. That self-determination
is the only goal that makes sense of the Kim family’s behaviors over the
decades.
“Yet another continuing resolution proves the fallacy of the
budget-process-regulating bill the name of which I no longer remember. It ought to have been called the Kick
the Can Bill. The stated premise,
back when the Republicans professed concern with the budget deficit, was that
mandatory, automatic budget-balancing cuts would force future Congresses to
make sense of income and outlays. It was actually stated that legislators of the future would
be forced to make more sense than the ones arguing for the law and thereby
break the deadlocks in the budget process. That stated goal, of course, was a monumental failure. The real goal, as with all Republican
initiatives back to the Reagan Administration, was to cripple and shrink civil
government and its corporate regulatory powers. This time, the Democrats made an apparent additional failure
by taking a stand for the DACA recipients and then caving in. They should be ashamed of either their
lack of backbone or of using those people who are contributing to the USA as a
political tool. I can't tell which
applies, but either way, they failed. Now both parties have another three weeks to make more messes.”
My response to the
Blog:
LOL Glad to be of service. Perhaps I tried to include too much information
in one paragraph. Minimalism is
good, but can be overdone.
First,
I do not share your apparent perspective that the only motive for corporate
actions is greed; profit is not greed, and even profit is not the only motive. Second, regardless of motive, it seems
to be that it is better to have corporate cash onshore than offshore. We’ll see how this plays out.
I
do not see the defiance of international sanctions as unimportant. However, I do agree a united Korean
peninsula is the objective of both countries. The DPRK tried a forceful reunion 67 years ago and
failed. The problem today is each
country wants the other to submit to reunion under their primacy. The Kim family in the person Kim Jong
Un is not interested in self-determination; they are on their third generation
of dictators and have only been interested in domination of the South.
I
believe we are agreed. I see each
continuing appropriations resolution as a glaring public demonstration of the
failure of Congress to perform its fundamental constitutional duty. They should all be ashamed. I believe you are referring to the Balanced Budget
Act of 1997 [PL 105-033; 111 Stat. 251; 5.8.1997]. I do not believe Congress has ever
complied with the law they created and passed, and was signed into law by
President Clinton. Worse, as noted
previously, I blame We, the People, because we keep electing these Bozos to
Congress. Perhaps, I have been and
remain naïvely optimistic that someday we will gather our senses and emphasize
negotiation, compromise and accomplishment rather than ideological
intransigence.
Re:
DACA. I believe your ire is
misapplied. It is the Republicans
who have been and continue using DACA folks as a political fulcrum. The most obvious representation of that
fact is a recent tweet from the fellow in the Oval Office to the effect that
“no wall, no DACA”—that sure sounds like leverage to me. President Obama in the person of
Homeland Security Napolitano issued a memorandum on 15.June.2012 that essentially
created the DACA program after the DREAM Act repeatedly failed to pass
Congress. Further, the Republicans
have consistently maintained their calcified position of border security first,
and then they will consider talking about immigration reform, including the
DACA remedy. Now, the fellow in
the Oval Office has joined the chorus.
President Obama did exactly the same thing that the current guy did last
September—just in the inverse.
They both challenged Congress to do its job. I can and will argue that border security cannot be
successfully accomplished without immigration system reform, and vice versa
actually. Proper border security
must be a system in depth, including integration of state and local
constabulary in at least the intelligence portion of immigration
enforcement. The silly insistence
upon a physical barrier at the border line as the answer to border security is
foolish and extraordinarily wasteful like medieval city walls for defense in
contemporary times.
. . . a follow-up comment:
“I have yet to find the level of minimalism that is ‘overdone’
for me. The important ‘too much
information’ in your paragraph is saying the specific suburb you chose. It gives potential miscreants an idea of
your wealth, therefore making you a potential target. You’re well off, Cap.
“People, apparently including you, fail to understand the
nature of corporations. It’s a
feature of any business law course. The corporation is a legal device created for the legally
specified purposes of making money and of reducing liability for the owners
(other than non-profits, which are a separate issue). Any other motivation is secondary and is
a feature of individuals within the corporation. Ignore mission statements and related verbiage. I was taught in college to write them. They have no legal force. I have a degree in that stuff. In some places the law requires making
money for the owners or shareholders to be placed ahead of all other factors in
decision making, no matter how humanitarian. Failure to recognize those facts is naive and results in
misunderstanding by individuals inside and outside the corporation. My college education specifically
emphasized that over and over, and none of this is the least bit difficult to
research.
“‘The defiance of international sanctions’ is a
high-sounding phrase for smuggling, a permanent factor of trade. I’m concerned with whether North and
South Korea can unite under a not-the-Kim-family government. I do not agree that the Kims’
motivation is domination of the South. They seek to prevent their nation from being dominated by
Russia, China, the United States, and other nations that would colonize their
economy. Hence the nuclear
saber-rattling. Domination of the
South would take a different tack.
“Thank you for the name of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. That is an outstanding example of why I
left the Democratic Party. Clinton
was elected as a Democrat, but in policy terms, he was more Republican than the
Republican Party of that day (and more skilled, too). I don’t completely blame the people for
electing these tools. Given the
big money and extremely skilled marketing/manipulation behind the politicians,
voters haven’t had a real chance to understand the election process until the
brazen insanity of Trump came along. Like Clinton, he’s an outlier. In his case, he’s a minority President with a declining base.
Democrats, in many cases, still
believe in the sincerity of their party leaders due to precisely the same money
and manipulation from most of the same sources. Perhaps the Internet is helping to change that.
“The Republicans simply and directly oppose all immigration.
That they will not allow the DACA
recipients (Dreamers) to help build a better nation is no surprise. What I learned from the last shutdown is
the DNC Democrats’ unwillingness to help the Dreamers. I had expected them to have sponsors who
benefit from immigration, legal and otherwise. The Democrats had great leverage due to the close split
between the parties in the Senate and the division among the Republicans. The Republicans were taking the heat for
the shutdown, and the Democrats held the cards. They folded. They are either
cowardly or corrupt.”
. . . my follow-up response:
I
would not consider ourselves well-off; however, we are comfortable and that is
a blessing.
Re:
corporations. Interesting
observations. In legal, chartered
terms, you are correct. Yet,
despite those legal terms, human beings run corporations. Some of those human beings are
ruthless, single-minded people virtually devoid of compassion in pursuit of
their charter. Regardless, all
corporations are not singularly driven by greed. That is my point alone; your characterization seemed to be
too broad and indiscriminant.
Re:
Korean peninsula. I thought the
topic was reunification of the Korean peninsula. First, foremost and above all else, the DPRK regime (dictatorship)
is driven by self-preservation of the Kim dynasty. Everything else, including reunification, is over-shadowed
by that motivation of primacy. The
DPRK’s action must be seen in that particular illumination of reality. I cannot see an extension of the Kim
dictatorship to the South, and Kim will never agree to any reunification without
him in absolute power.
Re:
immigration. Unfortunately, I see
the actions of Republican leaders in exactly that light—anti-immigration. The persistent public xenophobic
statements of the fellow in the Oval Office and the consistent, near-mindless
chat of border security first above all else by virtually every Republican leader
paint a rather dark image for immigration reform. There are elements of the fellow’s stated position that are
quite appropriate, e.g., the lottery system and chain-immigration. However, even in those comparatively
non-contentious elements, the Republican Members of Congress (with few notable
exceptions) have maintained their resolute defense of border security first . .
. and then, somewhere down the road we will consider something we will label
immigration reform. The
Republicans are wrong. The Democrats
called their bluff, and then blinked and folded, as you accurately stated. Comprehensive immigration reform and
updating has been required for decades.
The Graham-Durbin proposal was an attempt at bipartisan compromise
(inadequate to my thinking), but better than intransigent stagnation imposed by
the Republican leaders. As each
day plays out, the Republicans in general appear more and more like the
reject-anyone-not-like-me fellow in the Oval Office.
. . . a follow-up,
follow-up comment:
“I am correct about corporations beyond the strict legal sense. You overestimate the influence of
individuals' moral values on corporate behavior. That behavior is typically rationalized by presenting the
justification at a high language level, which is my degree field. My entire college education is geared to
corporate life, and it's about nothing but making money for the company or for
oneself. When those books and
instructors talk about things like ‘difficult decisions’ and ‘understanding
consumer behaviors,’ every bit of it is about making money based on those
decisions and that understanding. That
certainly includes my training in international cultures and in racial and
religious diversity. Understanding
how to make the most profit in Chile or Nigeria has nothing to do with having
sympathy or empathy for the people in those places.”
. . . my follow-up response:
I
appreciate your opinion; in this, we shall respectfully disagree. Corporations provide goods and services
in demand. Successful corporations
evolve with the societies they serve.
It is not all about greed.
Another contribution:
“The Dems claim we have 800k illegals when in fact we have more
like 3.6 million and if they are given amnesty, it will become 36 million due
to chain migration .. And most of these somehow have got aid from our social
programs .. Why do the Dems want this financial burden rather than send these
thieves back and tell the Mexican President to take care of his own
people? Because they see this 36
million people as a guarantee the Dems will get their power back via the ballot
box !! They could care less about the well being of these "dreamers"
..
“As for Trump refusing Shumer's so called ‘deal’ .. Shumer said he
would allocate funds for the wall in exchange for amnesty of all these thieves
.. The dems have said this in the past and never followed through and Trump
recognizes this .. We need to do a massive audit of what all these illegals
have cost our country!
“We shall have to wait and see the bill Monday .. Mexicans that
came here legally and became citizens are even mad at the idea of all these
thieves getting by with living off our country illegally ...not fair to them ..
Will guarantee the Mexican government would not let us go live there without
citizenship!!”
My reply:
I
believe your numbers are correct; however, the content of those numbers is
wrong. It is my understanding
there are roughly 3.6M undocumented non-citizens in this country. That number includes visa over-stays,
border crossers, altered status folks and others. Also included in that number is the subset of an estimated
800K individuals who qualify under the DACA criteria. Your hypothetical speculation of unrestrained expansion of
the number of undocumented non-citizens to 36M is without foundation or
substantiation—pure conjecture.
I
also believe you are significantly simplifying a complex problem in similar
fashion as quite a few American citizens are doing. Your “these thieves” is indicative of that
simplification. While I am certain
there are some undocumented non-citizens who are taking advantage of flaws and
known gaps in our inadequate immigration system, they are not criminals in that
the flaws they are using were created or allowed by Congress. The fraction of undocumented
non-citizens who commit felonious crimes is even smaller. “send these thieves back”
presumes we know the identity, nationality and location of every person in this
country without valid documentation (authorization); we do not have that
information . . . because Congress has refused to reform the immigration system
for a defense in depth. Next, “tell
the Mexican President to take care of his own people?” We have no authority to dictate to
anyone what they should do. The
collective group of undocumented non-citizens is not comprised of all Mexican
nationals. Further, some of the
countries refuse to take back deported individuals, which leaves them in a
strange limbo state.
The
Graham-Durbin proposal was a bona fide attempt to find an acceptable compromise
position. The fellow in the Oval
Office rejected that attempt. Even
Schumer tried to find a compromise position that was rejected. My way or the highway is not a
collaborative position.
“We
need to do a massive audit of what all these illegals have cost our country!” On this, we are agreed. Unfortunately, such an audit requires
the cooperation of all those undocumented non-citizens. There is little incentive for them to
participate in an audit. As long
as we continue to publicly condemn all of the undocumented non-citizens as
thieves, rapists and criminals, we will make no progress.
Just
a footnote, even if we build a mile-high, 1,954-mile, solid wall over mountains,
down the middle of rivers, through lakes and into the oceans, we will not stop
those who see the risks of traversing the wall as less than the risks of living
in their native countries.
Further, such a wall does absolutely nothing about the 3.6M undocumented
non-citizens currently in this country.
In addition, such a wall virtually guarantees that those undocumented
non-citizens will remain in this country.
Lastly,
I have lived and worked in other countries legally. Those countries of which I have direct knowledge and
experience, possess and operate far more progressive immigration processes, but
even those progressive countries are not perfect or Impenetrable, but they are
far less so than this Grand Republic, IMHO.
As
with most things governmental, I think the blame for our failure to remedy the
immigration situation rests predominantly on We, the People. We voted for intransigence and stagnation
of our representatives in Congress and the Executive Branch. As long as we continue to elect these
folks, we will always get what we’ve got—serious dysfunction.
. . . Round two:
“History is clear:
“The 1986 amnesty was justified by promising enhanced border
security. ‘Temporary resident status’
led to permanent residency, citizenship, and the population of illegal
immigrants nearly quadrupling.
“Politicians didn't learn.
“George W. Bush's comprehensive immigration reform plan would have
granted 12 million illegal immigrants an opportunity to earn legal status if
they worked, passed a criminal background check, and paid a fine. Fortunately, that effort failed.
“President Barack Obama's Gang of Eight bill offered several
flavors of amnesty including a path to citizenship for 11 million illegal
immigrants. The House did not even vote on this bill.
“Heritage Foundation's Hans von Spakovsky cautioned: ‘Congress
should not be in the business of rewarding law breaking, incentivizing criminal
behavior, or providing benefits and preferential treatment to illegal aliens
ahead of legal immigrants who have followed the rules.’
“Yet, there are conversations about amnesty happening today.
“Some propose amnesty for 3.6 million DREAMers—a population five
times larger than current DACA recipients—and work permits for their parents. Others—including many congressional
conservatives—have expressed support for a narrowly tailored three-year legal
status only for 690,000 DACA recipients.
“America's immigration system is broken and has been for a long time.
The president and congressional
conservatives are committed to fixing it the right way.
“The left's solution—a massive amnesty scheme with promises to
enforce the law sometime in the future—doesn't work.
“The only reason I use the term thieves is because they come here
expecting financial assistance without even attempting to become citizens ..
they get cash jobs and don't pay into our tax system and send money to family
in Mexico... they slip in their cousins and aunts and uncles and grandparents which
becomes chain migration and the large figure I mentioned before. The left wants this so they can
hopefully use them at the voting booth.. Venezuela's minimum wage is maybe a
dollar a day and people are starving .. Mexico's corrupt government is much the
same .. but these people must follow our immigration laws if they want our
help.. Trump wants to accept the children less than 18 and up to two parents
but the rest need to go through citizenship requirements if they truly want to
live here ! The wall will not keep undocumented in this country .. we will send
them back through openings called gateways!! They will return the LEGAL way
through those same gateways ..”
. . . my reply to round two:
Facts
are facts—not fake news. Yet, we
both know and recognize that people interpret those facts in different
ways. History is the facts, but it
is also the interpretation of those facts by many voices that eventually paint
a picture that certainly should be clear.
I
believe the law you were referring to is the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986
[PL 99-603; 100 Stat. 3359; 6.11.1986] [557]. I was not a fan of the 1986 law then,
and I remain critical. I see that
law as an attempt to take the easier path in solving a complex problem. The easy path is not always the proper
path. I do agree in general that
the 1986 law did not solve the problem, i.e., failed miserably, and quite
arguably made the situation worse.
The
Congress during the Bush (43) administration sought the easy path as well, but
they could not gather sufficient support.
The
so-called “Gang of Eight” proposed legislation was not the work of President
Obama, but rather a bipartisan coalition of Members of Congress . . . to be
clear.
I
will quibble with the presumed root premise of your argument. Branding all undocumented non-citizens
as illegal immigrants is too broad, indiscriminant and frankly injurious. Further, such broad labels and
condemnations fail to recognize the valuable contributions of a large portion
of undocumented non-citizens have made to this Grand Republic. Whatever we decide to do, we must be
more delicate to recognize, acknowledge and respect the positive contributions
of large portion of undocumented non-citizens. We have been a land of immigrants and a nation of
immigrants. My ancestors fled
Europe and religious persecution, landing in this land in 1686; they had no
visa, authorization or permission.
Concomitantly, broadly labeling all undocumented non-citizens as
criminal law-breakers fails to recognize or acknowledge the reality of their
lives—a compassionless action. The
majority of undocumented non-citizens are law-abiding, productive people who
have caused no injury or harm to anyone else, and have remained net positive
contributors to our society. It is
not their fault our borders and societal systems are so permeable. Most of them were simply trying to
improve their prospects in life and the welfare of their families—that is NOT a
crime. Lumping those good people
together with dangerous or violent felons is wrong in every possible aspect. It is in this sense that I reject
Spakovsky’s indiscriminant statement.
Individual
Members of Congress propose all sorts of bizarre, off-the-wall things, e.g.,
several actually proposed to make seeking (well short of obtaining) an abortion
a felony, punishable by prison time.
So, let us not get too riled up about congressional proposals. What matters are legislative proposals
that make it through committee scrutiny into the mainstream legislative
process. I do not agree with
limiting a path to legal status and potential citizenship to only DACA
qualified individuals. There are
too many good people, who will make good, productive citizens, among the body
of diverse undocumented non-citizens.
“The
president and congressional conservatives are committed to fixing it the right
way.” I believe you are
being far too generous with that statement. A 1,954-mile long, physical wall is ludicrous, extraordinarily
wasteful and would ultimately fail to achieve the intended objective after such
improvident expenditure. Neither
side has shown any willingness (as yet) to produce a proper defense in depth. So, nope, I do not buy it.
Amnesty
is a cheap and easy quasi-solution; it is NOT a viable or worthy solution. Such an action is equally
indiscriminant to the other extreme.
Border
security cannot be accomplished without immigration reform, and conversely,
immigration reform cannot be realized without border security. Further, as I have stated, border
security can only be achieved by a defense-in-depth system, and immigration
reform will serve the principles of this Grand Republic by recognizing the bona
fide need for continual immigration of unskilled to highly skilled individuals
and families. We cannot and must
not ignore the reality that some of the immigrants we need cannot afford the
proper, legal process, i.e., we need a proper, enforceable, guest worker system
that does not burden small business owners / operators.
. . . Round three:
“I have lived in Arizona most my life and the workers we
need to pick crops etc arrive by buses from the border AFTER they have gone
thru border processing showing green cards .. That is acceptable… You state
that “it is not their fault our borders and our social systems are so permeable”
.. Well that is exactly why a longer wall is needed where possible and
necessary and why a mass audit of our social system is needed!!
“We should not let them stay just because several
presidential terms have allowed it. Yes our country was built on immigrants and I too have
ancestry that came from Europe early in America's history and served in the
Revolutionary and Civil Wars. But
back then we needed to build a country .. Everyone worked together to build
cities and systems.. There was no official government system set up to assist
the people....no taxes taken from the people to support new immigrants. It has become too much on our economy to
support every immigrant that now comes in and lives solely on our social
systems!
“Reagan had a plan 30 years ago and the Dems promised
funding then didn't follow thru..this is a fact. And this is what has gone on for thirty plus years to the
point we are overburdened now! The
Dems keep talking DACA so the President is offering solutions ...if the
Dreamers are true Dreamers and have shown they contribute to our society rather
than just take, let the audits roll to determine that! Mexico does not allow
citizenship in THEIR country if an applicant has nothing to offer .. Think
about that!! Research it!!
“I call them illegal because they came here against our
constitution and its laws!! Sugar
coat it all you want .. Times are different now than when our country was at
least 1/20th of its current population.. There comes a point where the foot
must come down .. Unless you agree to set up tents on your acreage and allow
some of them to live, feed them, provide them transportation etc. It is time to deport and stop further
entry (wall-less permeable).. IT IS NOT AMERICAS FAULT THEIR GOVERNMENT DOES
NOT ASSIST OR PROTECT THEIR PEOPLE!! We have our own citizens including veterans who could be
better served if our social systems were not overburdened by every illegal
entry who comes because their country does not assist them and ours does!! God bless America and keep her strong !!
God bless Trump for trying hard to
once and for all limit immigration. Its time the few people who constantly diss
him, mostly Hollywood (I would be embarrassed to be in that category), shut up
and just sit back and watch America improve.”
. . . my reply to round three:
We
are agreed on the guest worker program.
Unfortunately, you seem to believe the wall is the answer to border
crossings. I regret to inform you
that no wall by itself will be successful in stopping those who have the will
for a better life on the other side of the wall. Without a defense in depth, the wall will failed in its
intended purpose.
I
also agree that no one should be allowed to over-stay their authorized
visa. However, again, tracking
entry visas and visa durations takes a defense in depth and involvement on all
levels of government to be successful.
I also agree that only citizens and authorized immigrants should be
allowed to avail themselves of societal benefits at taxpayer expense. That said, compassion for our fellow
human beings is part of our heritage.
I think you are trying to say is, we should never be taken advantage of
by anyone.
I
also support a general, broad audit of our social systems to ensure only
authorized individuals are accessing those systems. Concomitantly, we must have a path of remedy for those we
have been inappropriately allowed such access.
Contrary
to your apparent impression, I am not trying to sugarcoat anything. I am simply trying to show some
compassion and understanding for those who sought a better life for their
families and themselves. No, you
are quite correct; it is not our fault their native governments failed to
protect them and to allow them to prosper. Likewise, we must acknowledge our culpability in this
situation.
Yes,
indeed, God bless this Grand Republic and give us sufficient wisdom to protect
our citizens and our way of life.
Unfortunately, I do not see the performance of the fellow in the Oval
Office in the same light as you apparently do. In fact, I see him as part of the problem. If a solution comes, it will most
likely be despite his adverse inference.
. . . Round four:
“Bleeding heart liberals will be our demise .. The problem is you
listen to them too much .. They really don’t care about the well being of all
these immigrants, they want you to feel bad about not wanting to support them
financially .. They just see these immigrants as votes to keep their party
strong .. As a result our country as we have known it will become socialism and
in as bad a condition as Venezuela and Mexico itself ... Sad, sad”
. . . my reply to
round four:
I
try to listen to all voices from one extreme to the other and those in the
middle. I also try to the best of
my limited ability to determine the facts in any particular case or topic. I form my opinion when an image appears
from the mass of dots collected.
You are welcome to criticize my process as you wish. I must acknowledge that you may have a
far better grasp of the facts than I do, so I listen and try to absorb your
perspective. Yet, at the end of
the day, zealous defense of one perspective or another does not make it
correct.
Venezuela
is a near perfect example of socialism gone dreadfully awry. Conversely, Sweden offers an excellent
example of the opposite performance.
From my perspective, the key discriminator in these two examples is
governmental corruption . . . but hey, that’s just my opinion.
My
very best wishes to all. Take care
of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
