Update no.839

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                        :-)