Update no.847

Update from the Sunland

No.847

19.3.18 – 25.3.18

Blog version:  http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

            To all,

            We have seen the Uber Technologies-Volvo automobiles with autonomous driving capability operating in Tempe, Arizona.  They are always operated with a human driver supervising the automation.  Circa 22:00 Sunday, 18.March.2018, an Uber automated automobile struck a woman.  She died early the next day.  As a consequence of the accident, Uber suspended use of the automated vehicles in four test cities— Tempe, San Francisco, Pittsburgh and Toronto—pending the outcome of the investigation.  A few days later, the police released the car video of the incident.  The woman was walking her bicycle across the darkened street, not in a crosswalk, apparently texting on her phone, and she never looked up from her phone.  Likewise, the driver, who was tasked with monitoring the vehicles operations, had his head down in the seconds before the impact.

            Several elements strike me as particularly odd.  First and foremost, what the hell was that woman thinking crossing a street at night on foot pushing her bicycle, texting on her phone, never looking up at the approaching headlights?  I certainly wonder if this was a death-by-car suicide.  Or, was she playing some kind of how-many-negatives-can-I-accumulate?  That said, something went dreadfully wrong with the software in that particular car.  The scanner on the roof should have easily picked up (regardless of lighting) an object (her) approaching the lane of traffic and the closure rate (constant bearing decreasing range) indicated a collision was imminent.  According to police, there were no indications the car or the driver attempted to brake, which that fact alone is testament to the failure of the system and the associated distraction of the driver.

            A thorough investigation is warranted.  I sure hope they identify the flaws and fix them quickly.  The technology is too important for a host of reasons and I would truly hate to see the deployment of the technology stopped because of this accident.  Based on what I saw on those video clips, the accident would have had a high likelihood of occurrence without the automation in play.  However, we must not lose sight of the fact the woman’s conduct was certainly contributory to the accident; she was not innocent.  There are very real reasons for laws against jaywalking.

            For those who might have even a remote curiosity about why the Russian meddling investigation is so freakin’ important, I strongly urge and recommend you watch Season 7 of the HBO series “Homeland.”  You may not fully appreciate the back-story of the principal characters since the previous seasons would be missing (and starting from Season 1 is not necessary); however, the timeliness, applicability and relevance of the storyline could not be better or more applicable to the contemporary topic.  The characters are dealing with information (and related) warfare in contemporary political activity, and more importantly, we see how counter-operations are evolving.  While it is a fictional characterization (of what might or could happen), the program certainly offers a graphic demonstration of the consequences and difficulties in waging information warfare.  For those who may already be watching the series, we would all appreciate your perspective and opinions.

            More turmoil from never-never-land surrounding the BIC, AKA the fellow in the Oval Office!  This is becoming a regular feature of his tenure in the office.

            I have long touted and tried to conduct my professional affairs by a simple phrase articulated by Admiral Grace Hopper—“Manage things, Lead people”—wise words.  I have witnessed in life and history the conduct of more than a few ‘leaders’ / managers.  More than a few of those have encouraged chaos and conflict.  Many in that category were dictators seeking to strengthen their positions and grip on power.  I have never seen and have no recollection of anyone fostering this degree of chaos, conflict and uncertainty.

            I know many of his supporters and believers have pointed to his “breaking the mold” and “doing things differently.”  Well, they got what they sought.  He is like none other than I have witnessed, know about, or have even remotely heard about even in rumor.

            The one persistent question that flashes back to me multiple times a day remains: where is the threshold of tolerance for the BIC’s most loyal followers & believers?  Even Himmler and Göring abandoned Hitler as the noose tightened and their fearless leader’s erratic and destructive behavior worsened.  Many (not all) hardened fanatical SchutzSaffel members abandoned The Leader eventually.  So, where is the limit for each individual?  Perhaps we shall find out in time.  I am not looking forward to that discovery beyond a morbid curiosity.

            Better late than never!  Congress finally passed an FY2018 appropriation bill—Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 [PL 115-xxx; HR 1625; Senate: 65-32-0-3(0); House: 256-167-0-7(5): 131 Stat. xxxx]—and promptly left town on recess.  With less than a day to yet another government shutdown, the BIC tweeted:

“I am considering a VETO of the Omnibus Spending Bill based on the fact that the 800,000 plus DACA recipients have been totally abandoned by the Democrats (not even mentioned in Bill) and the BORDER WALL, which is desperately needed for our National Defense, is not fully funded.”

5:55 AM - Mar 23, 2018

Then, hours later, a public statement: “As a matter of national security, I’ve signed this omnibus budget bill.”  He went on to add, “I will never sign another bill like this again.”  Apparently, his parents did not teach him about using absolutes like ‘never’ when none of us can predict the future.  Nonetheless, the BIC did what he had to do.  I share his revulsion of what Congress did.  The omnibus spending bill was not just an appropriations bill.  There were 51 other acts attached to the spending bill, and the BIC was correct—it did not include any DACA remedy provision.  Where I depart with his portrayal comes when he blames Democrats for the failure to include the DACA remedy; that’s really rich.  He sells his snake oil claiming the inevitable cure-all; the border wall will solve the illegal immigration problem and chooses to hold the DACA kids hostage to get US$25B from the Treasury for his border wall—not from Mexico, rather from We, the People.  Republicans, Democrats . . . there is no difference; they all love to spend money they do not have.

            The BIC reversed himself, again at least in part, on Friday and decided to allow currently serving transgender people to remain in the armed forces, but he banned the future recruitment of most individuals who are considered transgender.  Last summer, he said he would no longer allow transgender individuals to serve in the military.  I guess a regression in part is a good thing.  However, to me, it is like taking one step forward after taking 10 steps backward.  The transgender issue is no different from the matter of females serving in the combat arms years ago.  Homosexuality used to be a cause for revocation of a security clearance or dismissal from service, because sexual orientation represented a threat, i.e., a foreign agent might blackmail a homosexual person into illegal compliance to avoid exposure.  Anatomy or sexual orientation, actually none of the social factors is an element affecting performance.  Military service should be based solely on performance.  Either you can do the job, or you should do something else within your particular skill set.  I recall taking a series of flight aptitude tests in my younger days; none of those tests had anything to do with my gender or my sexual orientation; they only focused on factors involved with performance as a pilot.  I give him limited credit for backing off his ban, but respectfully, any ban in any form is wrong.  Transgender citizens are citizens, and if they can perform the skills involved with any particular military occupational specialty, then they should be allowed to serve at full status.

            Congress passed yet another morality law that takes a blunderbuss to matter of swatting a fly—significant collateral damage to accomplish a noble objective.  I have been against these foolish and intrusive morality laws for most of my lifetime, and this law is just another example of social conservatives going too far.  The bill in this instance is the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act of 2017 [PL 115-xxx; HR.1865; Senate: 97-2-0-1(0); House: 388-25-0-17(5): 131 Stat. xxxx] they finally passed with an overwhelming majority, which in itself is disappointing.  The president is expected to sign the bill into law.  As a consequence and in anticipation of the bill becoming law, Craig’s List terminated the personal section of its website, ostensibly because they see legal risk beyond any subscriber benefit.  The offense of human trafficking for sexual purposes is a legitimate public law objective, but this law will eliminate communications that do not even remotely verge on that criminal conduct; therein lies my objection and condemnation of this law (and others).  Further, as with virtually all morality laws, all of us are exposed to the whims of some overzealous prosecutor in private affairs that should be beyond the authority of the State.  This law is wrong, far too broad, and an exceedance of congressional authority.  The best we can hope for is a constitutional challenge to remedy this transgression.

            Comments and contributions from Update no.846:

Comment to the Blog:

“If the House ‘Intelligence’ Committee found no signs of collusion, it’s because they didn’t look for any.  Nevertheless, obstruction of justice is a crime, and an excellent organized-crime prosecutor is studying Trump’s back trail and bringing charges against his associates.

“The rants coming from the occupant of the White House seem more like desperation than anything else to me.  The bluster and bullshit that served him (to a degree) as an executive and a reality TV star are not working as well in his current arena.  As with many people, he is increasing the volume and intensity of an approach that once worked for him.  If he has a direct role model, it’s less Hitler and more Putin.  You and I could potentially suffer dire outcomes from our level of opposition, but we’re both pretty far down the list of people opposed to Trump.

“I agree with your analysis of Putin’s poison gas action.  I’ll note that getting rid of people has worked for Putin in the past, but he rarely gets this level of public notice with it.  If a doctor and nurse who knew how to handle the situation just happened to be in the area, it’s the work of either a Higher Power or British Intelligence.

“The Tillerson firing was a serious misstep, but completely in character. That will cost the U.S. still more in world standing, which we can ill afford.  McCabe’s vindictive dismissal could be expensive indeed.  He will be believed by the Mueller investigation before Trump, of course.  McCabe may well have information that will nail down one or more charges.  I’m not certain how the legal procedure will work, but it ends with Trump a ‘former’ President well before the end of the term.”

My response to the Blog:

            I would not go that far, but I will not argue the point, either.  Yeah, the BIC has virtually built an obstruction of justice case against himself, all by himself and handed it to the special prosecutor on a silver platter.  Obstruction may well get him removed from office, but I suspect it will be money laundering, corruption or some other combination of felonious business activity that might send him to prison.  Yes, I strongly suspect there will be more indictments as the noose gets tighter and tighter.

            Indeed!  The BIC’s rants do come across as desperate, which in turn suggests the investigation is getting demonstrably closer and making him decidedly uncomfortable . . . perhaps in fatalistic anticipation for what he perceives is to come.  I think he admires all dictators, although I suspect you are correct . . . he is closer to the Putin model than the Hitler version, although to my knowledge the BIC has not assassinated anyone as Putin has done.  Although Hitler favored conflict among his lieutenants more than I have observed in Putin, the BIC is closer to the Hitler model in that sense.

            Coincidence is always hard to accept.  As I said, I think Putin selected the means of assassination for very precise and specific reasons, just as he did in the assassination of Alexander Valterovich Litvinenko (1.11.2006) with rare polonium-210-poisoning.  He could have selected a myriad of less obvious means, but he did not, which makes the choice quite intentional.

            I suspect we shall bear witness to the procedures the BIC will face.  No matter how much I may feel the process is warranted and appropriate, I still find it extraordinarily sad that We, the People, and this Grand Republic must suffer such witness.  These affairs are never good, no matter how necessary they may be; unfortunately, they must be endured.

 . . . Round two:

“We, the People will witness proceedings brought on by the willing gullibility of too many voters, exacerbated by the electoral college and by our general awareness that our political system offered no worthwhile major-party candidates and generally doesn't.  It's a personal opinion whether sadness is a more appropriate response than anger.”

 . . . my response to round two:

            Well, I am in the sadness category.  The BIC represents a societal stress within this Grand Republic, not particularly unlike slavery did two centuries ago.  I fear the same outcome, although the division among any political territorial entity does not portend the same conflagration, but it could be similar.  The situation unfolding in Austin has troubling implications; I fear the bombings may be loosely and pervertedly linked.

            Oh my, you just could not resist taking another shot at the Electoral College, now could you?  The Electoral College has absolutely nothing to do with this situation.

            What we are missing in this on-going discussion is the root cause(s), the underlying causal factors.  While some of the people who voted for and support the BIC did so simply because they always vote for Republicans regardless of who the candidate is; there is nothing we can do about that segment of citizens—they vote for a label, not the person.  It is the thinking / informed segment of the BIC voter / supporter population that attracts my attention.  The BIC has tapped into broad dissatisfaction that is so strong that people would abandon moral standards, personal conduct, or just about any other metric to support a man they perceived as anti-establishment.  There are very real reasons so many people see him as their political messiah.  Unfortunately, their desperation blinds them to the consequences of his serious personality flaws and the implications to the fabric of this Grand Republic.

 . . . Round three:

“The Electoral College has everything to do with our situation. Have you forgotten that Trump got a few million fewer votes than Clinton?

“There is no ‘thinking, informed’ Trump voter.  Thinking, informed people do not vote for a businessman with multiple bankruptcies, otherwise poor business history, and an unsavory personal record.  The only thing Trump does well is self-promotion.  Unfortunately, he does that well.  Broad dissatisfaction with the status quo did indeed fuel voting, but that does not make Trump voters informed or thoughtful.  Trump was the only (very slender) hope for real change once the Democratic National Committee eliminated Bernie Sanders as their candidate.  Remember how many of us either didn't vote or voted for smaller parties?  That's what happened.  We were informed and thinking. Trump's handlers (probably with support from Russians) made the most of that, and he personally understood that factor far better than any Establishment power broker.”

 . . . my response to round three:

            I truly appreciate the fact that you (and many others) do not like the constitutionally mandated Electoral College.  There is no requirement for you to like it.  Hillary chose to rest on the polls and her perception of the popular vote, and certainly appears in hindsight to have not cared much about the Electoral College, which was her choice entirely.  Her failure to mind the rules that have governed presidential elections in this Grand Republic for more than two centuries cost her the election and foisted the BIC on all of us.  That was not the fault of the Electoral College; that blame rest solely with Hillary Clinton . . . not the Electoral College.

            I shall not join your statement: “There is no "thinking, informed" Trump voter.”  Such rejection seriously underestimates a significant portion of the citizenry of this Grand Republic.  While I share your disgust of the BIC, I urge you not to discount or diminish those who voted for and support the BIC.  Our task is to understand those citizens and work to overcome the issues they raise, i.e., what attracts them to seriously flawed men like the BIC.

            Re: “Remember how many of us either didn't vote or voted for smaller parties?”  Oh, I am keenly aware of that segment as well, which is an entirely separate but related matter for the next and future elections.

            Re: “with support from Russians”  There is little doubt in my little pea-brain that Russian information warfare agents used social media to support the BIC.  None of that indicates collusion on the part of anyone in this country including the BIC & his minions.  Putin undoubtedly sees the BIC as more malleable to their purposes, or at the very least, keep him neutral, as he has dutifully been for the last year.  They would not have had that condition with any of the other candidates including Hillary.  They chose well.  They also invested well in cultivating their “business” relationships with the BIC & his organization.

            The combination of all these factors was like a perfect storm that got the most unlikely candidate a major party nomination and elected to the highest office in the land.  As I have stated previously, we have only ourselves to blame.  Hopefully and collectively, we have been taught a very valuable lesson; and, we learned from this mistake and will not make even a remotely similar mistake in the future.

            Time shall tell the tale.

Another contribution:

“I would like to request you take me ‘off’ your mailing list for your Updates.  I don't care to read the constant ‘barrage of comments’ you have for our President.  I'll just give you a couple of examples that bother me.  You constantly refer to him as ‘that fellow’ in the office.  I feel this is very disrespectful to call a sitting President because of the way you feel about him & his policies.  No one ever called President Obama (or any other President), ‘that fellow’ that I know of.  I don't care who is in the Oval Office, I feel there should be some level of respect for that office no matter who's the President at the time.  I know you understand ‘respect,’ you learned it in the Military & the Corporate World.  I'm sure you never called your superiors ‘that fellow,’ or you probably would've been fired!

“Truthfully, I don't care much for President Trump (personally), or some of his tweets, but I get why he does it.  But what I do love about the President is what he's done for our Country in a little over a year.  The economy is booming, thousands of new jobs are being created & old ones coming back, looking out for our trade deals, getting the average worker bonuses and pay raises (oh, I forgot, they're ‘crumbs’ according to Nancy Pelosi (I'm a Master Legislator) by his policies (so companies are giving them out), the stock market has been great overall, etc.  But he doesn't get any credit for what he's doing right.  The news outlets (w/ the exception of Fox News!), left, far left, deep state, & Hollywood, all perpetuate this crap day in & day out.  They just keep recycling the same old s*** every day, and frankly, I think it's disgusting how he's being treated compared to President Obama & President Clinton.  They weren't the most ‘moral of Presidents’ w/stand out records.  Obama was the worst President ever, but they don't talk about how he got the U.S. into the most debt ever by the time he left office!  And all the crap about his ‘sex life/marriage,’ who's he's slept with or not, is ridiculous.  I really don't care about that I want to know what he's actually doing for our Country to help ‘us, the average citizen!’  And I believe he truly does care about helping us, that's what's great about him being a successful businessman, he knows how to make great deals!  And ‘he’ wants the United States to succeed!  But that's all you hear about (his ‘sex life/marriage,’ etc.) because they don't want to say anything good about our economy right now.  Remember all the ‘left people’ in Hollywood & news/business people that got ‘caught’ w/sexual harassment complaints, charges, etc?  Boy, did they ‘shut down’ that talk as soon as they could!  Remember President Clinton and Monica Lewinsky?  How come he's not the ‘scum of the earth’ for doing that!  And Obama wasn't a ‘white knight’ either, in fact, probably most Presidents weren't!  I'm sure he's not the first or last to ever be disloyal to a spouse (how many people can say that, even on your mailing list)?  What's that saying about ‘not throwing stones’?  Wow, it amazes me of the hypocrisy going around since he's been our President!

“I'm so proud that he's a huge supporter of our Military and our Law Enforcement (because the left is not & they show it).  And when it comes to Law Enforcement, I'm a HUGE advocate for them as you know!  And before you give me a lecture on what I don't know, I know this: my son is a sergeant w/ the County Sheriff's Dept. & he almost lost his life protecting the lives of the public!  He was shot in the line of duty on 09/26/05, when he was just 24 years old!  He was shot by a convicted drug felon (an illegal alien) who had just got out of prison.  And it was a ‘domestic’ police call he got called out to, which are the ‘worst calls to ever go on’!  There were a total of four officers on that call, w/ him being the lead one since he was there first and he was facing the felon head on, giving him the commands to put down his weapon!  And we know how that turned out; he didn't & shot my son, while all four officers shot him DEAD!  THANK GOD!  By the Grace of God, he had a surgeon in [his town] that was a "combat surgeon" that was considered one of the best, thank God!  He saved his life & legs!  He had (4) surgeries; was told he probably wouldn't walk for a year (did it in a month & a half); & wouldn't be able to go back to work probably for 18 months (did it in 3 months)!  He had steel rods in his right hip to knee, and left knee to ankle.  He had both legs broke!  And he still has to deal w/ the pain he gets in his legs if he sits too long or stands too long.  He's a ‘walking miracle’!  But he still serves the public, trying to protect all of us!  I couldn't be more proud of him for what he has been through and continues to persevere!  So I'm a MOM who has seen a son go through the worst thing in his life & still wants to protect the innocent people!  He's serving his Country in this way.  That's what Law Enforcement people of all kinds do: they put their lives on the line EVERY DAY they're out there!  And to hear how the people in Government (the left, etc.) talk about Law Enforcement & their followers and people that vote for them, is disgusting to me!  I bet Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Shummer, Maxine Waters (all she's smart enough is to say ‘Impeach 45’!), Hollywood, etc...wouldn't give up their ‘protection people’ in a second!  No, they'd want them to protect them, but they sure like to put down the Law Enforcement men and women that risk their lives protecting them!  It's disgusting to say the least!  So unless ‘anyone’ who hasn't gone through something like this w/ their child, I'd say they need to start ‘supporting our Law Enforcement’ and shut the hell up about ‘what they think they know about them’!  I know there are some ‘bad Law Enforcement’ out there, but on the whole, I think they're pretty great and should get the recognition & pay they deserve, but don't!  Yes, I'm very passionate about this subject because I'm a mom who almost ‘lost her only child’ to a criminal (just like the ‘illegal criminals’ committing crime after crime) & being ‘protected’ by these sanctuary cities!  So I have ‘no sympathy’ for these people that protect these ‘illegal criminals’ that commit crimes (killing, raping, etc.).  I would love to know how they'd feel if one of ‘their loved ones’ got shot, raped, or killed by one of these illegals!!!  This topic pisses me off when they don't know what they're talking about or haven't gone through something as horrific as that!

"The last thing that bothers me the most is personal: you liken ‘Trump's typical supporter as an uneducated, redneck moonshiner in the backwoods of the Appalachia’ is so disrespectful, disgraceful, disgusting and wrong!  THIS IS ‘hateful rhetoric,’ and ‘hateful rhetoric is hateful rhetoric’!  Just because I ‘don't have a college degree’ doesn't mean I'm stupid or anyone else who doesn't!  I know you said your ‘apologies’ to the one that brought it to your attention, but I think you really need to ‘apologize to everyone’ who are President Trump supporters, especially those in your family!  And maybe not make those kind of ‘general comments’ in the future?  There's not only me & my husband (who by the way, has a college degree & is pretty smart too), but my son (he's smart, he went through college to become a cop, but doesn't have a 4 year degree), his father, my sister [sister & brother-in-law] (they're both extremely smart as well), and many more of my family!  You shouldn't generalize everyone that supports President Trump as this kind of person!  It's just plain wrong and shameful (especially because a lot of your family do)!  We have a right to support who we want, just as you & Jeanne do!  This is just my own opinion...”

My reply:

            You are entitled to your opinion(s).  Facts are facts, and there are only those facts.  All of us have the right to express our opinions on those facts, but we do not get to make up pseudo-facts.

            For the record, I did not begin referring to him as the fellow in the Oval Office until 3.October.2017 [823]—9 months into his presidency.  You may have noticed, I have abandoned that earlier reference to my current reference form—the BIC (Bully-in-Chief) on 18.March.2018 [846].  The labels are appropriate for the disrespect and denigration he persistently makes to the Office of the President.

            Re: “I feel this is very disrespectful to call a sitting President.”  You are correct, of course, and not the first to call me out on my “fellow” reference.  Perhaps you missed my consistent explanation.  He has grievously disrespected the Office of the President of the United States of America, vastly more so than any president in the history of this Grand Republic.  I will give him the respect due his elected office when he respects the Office that is far bigger than him.  My respect and loyalty are not blind or unilateral.  He is only the current caretaker.

            Many years ago, I took an oath of office that in part states: “. . . I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same . . .”  That oath says nothing about loyalty to the President other than as reflected in Article II of the Constitution, which I volunteered to risk my life to defend.  The President is not my superior.  He works for us, all of us, me included.  He is an employee of We, the People.  When he does the things he does, he is disrespecting me and many other citizens.  He does not deserve the respect due to the Office.

            I praise Scott[your son]’s service, as I do our son’s service to the community.  We prayed for Scott[your son] when he was wounded.  Yet, your son’s service does not justify your demeaning or defiling those you disagree with.  Democratic politicians are no different from Republican politicians; they all spend more money than they have; they just spend money on different things.  I know of no politician that “puts down” law enforcement.  They call out the bad agents among law enforcement, and there are indeed bad officers.  Similarly, the actions of one illegal alien does not condemn them all for the actions of a few, just as we should not condemn all law enforcement for the bad decisions of a few bad officers.  There are reasons people come to this country.  We must deal with root causes, not symptoms.

            I do not care a hoot in hell who he has sex with.  I care a little where he executes his dalliances, part of my condemnation of Bill Clinton.  I do very much care who he abuses, to feed his ego or for any other reason.  He may lust after and worship his daughter more than any other human being other than himself, but that is his problem—not ours.

            Re: “hateful rhetoric.”  Perhaps you missed my whole statement in Update no.844.  I will reprint for this exchange.

“I often laud frankness and plain speaking.  However, there is a huge difference between fellows like me and an uneducated, redneck moonshiner in the backwoods of Appalachia, and the President of the United States of America.  His choice of words, as demonstrated this week alone, represents a rather undignified and actually disrespectful conduct with respect to the history of the Office of the President.  No matter what the fellow’s background is, he chose to run for and was elected to the office; he does not get a pass.”

I included myself in that spectrum of our citizenry.  Further, I doubt there are many (if any) moonshiners left; it was a caricature.  I point to no one in particular.  My point was, the President of the United States is held to a much higher standard and rightfully so, because he represents all of us, not just the chosen, or those who support him.  There was no hatred or animosity toward anyone and nothing about college degrees in my statement.  I try very hard to choose my words carefully, although I confess I am not always successful; and, unlike the fellow in the Oval Office, I readily apologize when I make mistakes, as I often do.  Please do not selectively edit or read anything into my words.

            When I served in the Marines and worked for various corporations, I recognized, acknowledged and respected the reality that my freedom of speech was constrained.  I wore a uniform that represented my service and the country I served; therefore, anything I said or did reflected upon the Marine Corps and this Grand Republic.  His tweets, outrageous speech, and his public conduct offend me the most . . . well, beyond his serious personality flaws.  That is one of the primary reasons I feel he disrespects the office he occupies.  So much of his speech is his thoughts, his feelings, his opinions and do not represent We, the People, or this Grand Republic, or our illustrious history.  He is not a king or even a dictator (although he desperately wants to be); he does not enjoy the divine right of kings or royal prerogative. 

 . . . follow-up comment:

“I appreciate that you answered me.  And I'm not going to waste anymore of my time trying to ‘debate’ you over each & every thing you ‘know is wrong’ w/ my answers.  That's why I find it ironic that it's a ‘forum to have vigorous debates’?  You say that, but your actions, words & attitude go against everything you state!  We know you're smart, we get it, we've all heard it from you & Jeanne over the years!  And I'm not as smart as you, but that's okay.  So no, I don't feel it's a place where you can honestly debate one another.  And to be honest, I haven't read all of your ‘Updates,’ because they're somewhat difficult to read & understand because you don't write for the ‘masses’ in your writing style.  I get it, that's your style and it's fine, but I like to read different styles, those that I can understand better or look things up when I don't (which I have done w/ your stuff too), or ask my husband to explain to me.  Each to their own, right?  I'm happy you're so successful.

“The only thing I will take issue with is regarding my son.  He's not the ‘first one’ to ever be injured or killed by an illegal alien (you stated the ‘actions of one illegal alien does not condemn them all for the actions of a few’ and ‘you know of no politician that puts down law enforcement’)!  Are you kidding me, it's not ‘one person’ that was injured or killed by these people, it's SO MANY PEOPLE that have been injured, raped or lost their lives!  It's on the news, maybe you don't hear about it because all the news stations don't want to report on an illegal alien killing, raping, injuring others (or it's a few seconds of coverage), then they bury it!  Remember Kate Steinle?  There are so many others that are being affected by these bad illegal aliens (that should be deported and in prison) and they're not because of the ‘sanctuary cities’ hiding them, supporting them, putting them first over their own ‘legal residents’!  I know there are many good illegals out there too, but please don't tell me it's only been ‘one person’ affected by the bad ones!  If you haven't heard the democrat politicians ‘put down’ law enforcement (i.e. Obama, Holder, etc.), then I don't know where you've been?  Most of them have, they play it on Fox News (I know, not all the rest!  Maybe that's why you haven't heard it)?  What about the ‘black lives matter,’ etc., all that crap that happened under President Obama (helping to fabricate the Ferguson talking points for CNN)?  How many ‘good officers’ lost their lives by people going up to their patrol cars & shooting them in the head, killing many of them?  And the government could only come out & say ‘we support all the people that were protesting law enforcement,’ ‘we are behind their anger at law enforcement’ at the time!  They constantly complain about law enforcement when something goes wrong and ‘the few bad officers’ have killed someone.  I get it, I do, but to not be on the side of the people that are protecting their asses, day in day out, risking their lives, is shameful to say the least!  Maybe those politicians can hire the illegal aliens to ‘protect them’ instead of our loyal, hard working, law enforcement & give them a job?  And maybe all the millionaire politicians that want to protect all the ‘bad illegal aliens’ can have them ‘move in & live w/ them in one their mansions’?  And I never ‘defiled anyone’ (yes, I looked it up & [my husband] read it & said that's not the right word that would apply here).  So I have EVERY RIGHT to feel the way I do regarding what happened to my son!  And shame on you for trying to ‘minimize’ it by what you said.  I sure hope you ‘never’ have to go through that hell!  I'm a mom who's experienced this upfront, so please don't tell me ‘I'm wrong’ on how I feel!  You may be smart intellectually, but ‘I'm a protective mom’ who definitely shouldn't ever be told that I'm wrong from someone who hasn't gone though what I have!”

 . . . my follow-up reply:

            To my recollection, I have never told you or anyone else you (they) are wrong.  I may disagree with but I respect your opinion(s) (and those of others).  Disagreement does not mean wrong.

            You are correct.  I “don't write for the ‘masses.’”  I write what I believe based on the facts as I know them.  I am confident enough to present my opinion(s) for public debate . . . not that my opinions are correct; they are only my opinions.  I readily recognize and acknowledge that I could be wrong; and, I am always open to being educated about facts I was not previously aware of.  However, a vigorous debate is that contrast of interpretation of facts.  Opinions not based on facts are of less consequence to me, but I try to never reject opinions regardless of the basis for those opinions.

            Holy moly!  Jackie, [m]y “one” comment was a generalization, not a literal statement.  Like you, I can cite numerous felonious crimes by illegal aliens in this country.  So, please allow me to more accurately state, we must not condemn the whole for the actions of a few of that number.  Conversely, it appears you are over-generalizing to the other extreme . . . as the BIC so often does.  The BIC publicly stated, “They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.” [16.June.2015]  The pronoun ‘they’ means all, unless otherwise qualified, which in this instance it was not qualified.  They are not all druggies, criminals, rapists and such.  Respectfully, most are law-abiding people who try very hard to comply with our laws.  I am not a fan of the sanctuary cities phenomenon in this country, but I appreciate the conundrum those cities face.  To them, crime is more important than failed border security.  The situation regarding the lack of immigration reform is worsening, and I denounce Congress for not finding a solution.  Like you, I demand a solution.  I simply urge us all not to condemn all illegal aliens for the actions of a few.

            Re: Democrat politicians putting down law enforcement.  I believe, once again, you are over-generalizing criticism of excessive force law enforcement actions.  I have long been troubled by the resistance to law enforcement by some individuals; resistance is a form of threat.  I believe we can all point to excessive force events by law enforcement.  Just as I reject general condemnation of Democrat politicians of calling out inappropriate law enforcement actions, likewise I reject broad tolerance of excessive force by law enforcement.

            FYI: I take a very hard line regarding resistance to law enforcement.  If an individual believes he is being wrongfully targeted, he should file a complaint and/or civil charges.  As mentioned above, resistance to law enforcement is a form of threat, and there should be no surprise law enforcement officers seek to neutralize the threat.  Far too many of these videos clearly show resistance rather than compliance.  Most (not all) show appropriate law enforcement response.  In fact, in some instances, I think law enforcement officers were dangerously reserved in their response, and that concerns me deeply.

            My very best wishes to all.  Take care of yourselves and each other.

Cheers,

Cap                        :-)