Sunday, December 30, 2018

Truth not considered will never be considered the truth.

If truth is not given a chance, if we will not even listen to it, not even consider the matter, then what hope has that truth?

With us, none. We will not consider that truth to be a truth. If we do not even let it have a hearing, it will not have a hope.

That which is truth will be truth, regardless. But, in our minds, it will be a falsehood and a lie. All you need to do to turn a truth into a lie is to give it no stage to stand on. Shoo it off the stage, and you can make-pretend it's false.

The measurement of your faith comes not when you are healed, but when you are not healed.

Note: Thought rewritten 12/31/18. It originally said, "The measurement of faith comes not in being healed, but in not being healed."

If We Chase Demons where Demons don't Exist, We Chase Ghosts -

 When you have those running from their shadows running the government, you have a government that isn't running well.
  A government that chases shadows will never govern properly. If you were the enemy, and you wanted to destroy America, you would get it to chase shadows. Sometimes, I wonder if that isn't what is happening to us.
  Speak of a deep state, and chase it. Speak of George Soros as the Anti-Christ, and chase after that demon. These are the ghosts, so to speak, and a government that believes in ghosts will never function properly.
   When you see the press, do you see the enemy? In your mind's eye, do you turn the media into some evil spirit? Those who see their own shadow only to flee from it are much the same.
   They create enemies out of shadows. They look into the night, and monsters jump out at them.
   They look under the bed for ghosts, and they chase the ghosts of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
   There are some of them who go even further. They give more credence to the National Enquirer than they give to their own Intelligence Community.
   A nation that chases its ghosts will be less likely to chase material foes. It might not acknowledge that racism still exists. A nation deluded looks past its actualities.
  So confused by what is and what it not, the people of such a nation will not even recognize the real enemies. They will spot those enemies and say that it is they who are the ghosts. They will confuse the real for the ghosts and the ghosts for the real. No racism here, they will say, so if you see it, is is only a ghost. Science might try to tell them that climate change is real, but the world will still be flat to them. They will say it is actually climate change that is the ghost.
   Give them beggars from Central America, and they will see ISIS terrorists. Is this not seeing ghosts? Does not such a country govern out of a fear of its ghosts? If you chase away the immigrants because they are all criminals and murderers, are you not governing from a sense of fear?
   False fear.
   Are you not being irrational?  Yes, criminals will be among the immigrants, but not every immigrant will be a criminal. If you see criminals in all of them, you are seeing ghosts. And, if you lock them all out, you are governing out of a fear of ghosts.
   Yes, there are people who believe in ghosts, and I do not know but what some ghosts exist. There are those who believe in alien spaceships, and I do not know enough of the matter to know but what some alien spaceships might have visited us (though, I doubt it).
   But, for the most part, a ghost is an imagination, and an alien spacecraft is a spacecraft that's not touched our skies.
   Can I ask you this: If we can see that an individual person can turn irrational, why do we suppose it cannot happen to a segment of society? Do we say an individual is susceptible, but it will never happen to a large group of people? Why not? If it can happen to one, it can happen to many. A nation will never be so deluded? I wish it were all so easy, but we should look around and wonder that things are not that easy.
   When I look around, I wonder if that saying is not correct -- the one that says, we're all a little bit crazy. I wonder if we are not all a little bit crazy -- as a society, as a whole.
   Yes, look around and see if we've not gone a little bit haywire. Another saying has it that you are only as good as the company you keep.
   So, what of us, then? If we are choosing ghosts for our company, what has become of us?

 Note: Slight changes made 12/31/18. 


Saturday, December 29, 2018

Any Chance the Medicine could have Shocked Their Systems?

  Is there chance modern prescription medicine can shock those who have not been exposed to it?
Of all the short posts I have written tonight on the deaths of the child immigrants, this might be the least credible.
  Still, I wonder.
  Both Jakelin Caal Maquin, 7, and Felipe Gomez Alonzo, 8, were taken to the hospital. I would imagine, both received prescriptions. I read how Felipe was prescribed Tylenol.
  But, the question is, how familiar to their bodies were medications of any sorts? Where they were from, are pills and medicines commonly taken by many of the people? Can simple medicine, such as Tylenol, shock the system, if the body is not used to such medicine?

Do You Release Someone While They are Running a Fever?

  Normally, I don't believe you release someone running a fever from the hospital until the fever is under control.
  So, why was Felipe Gomez Alonzo released less than two hours after it is noticed he was running a fever of 103f?
   A timeline released on the treatment of the 8-year-old who died in the custody of U.S. Customs and Border Patrol shows he was about to be released at 1 p.m. on Christmas Eve, but it was then noticed he was running the fever, so he was not released until 2:50 p.m. The timeline does not say whether his fever went down, but even if it had, it would seem you wait longer than that to see if it was stable.
   While it is Customs and Border Patrol who might be investigated for their care of the child immigrants, the hospital should also be in question. Is it normal to give second-class treatment to the immigrants?

Friday, December 28, 2018

The Similarities in the Deaths of the Children

   Both the 7-year-old girl and the 8-year-old boy who died while in custody of U.S. Customs and Border Patrol, were from Guatemala. Both ran high fevers.
   Which, should make us wonder if they carried a disease from Guatemala.
   This should not cause us to look past any poor treatment they received in the U.S.
   Also, they came into the U.S. in the same general area of the country. Could they have picked up a disease here? This, too, should be considered. 

If not Offered Water, is that a Serious Human Rights Violation?

   Would this be a serious human rights violation? The father of a 7-year-old girl who died in custody of  U.S. border authorities says they were not offered water.
   Would seem to be, if true.
   Says a story from the New York Post:
   "US Customs and Border Patrol has claimed it properly cared for Jakelin, providing her and her father food and water, and doing everything it could to save her life.
   "Her father has maintained that they were not offered water."
   "Jakelin's death has raised questions about how migrants in the hands of US authorities are treated and has fueled criticism from opponent of President Trump's tough immigration policies."
   The child, Jakelin Caal Maquin, died earlier this month. The father, Nery Caal, remains in the U.S., having applied for asylum.
   Although this report -- that the father says water was not provided -- is found in the middle of this news story, it seems the accusation is worthy of a story in and of itself that would play high on the news wires. Perhaps such a story was written somewhere, and did receive good play. But, if so, I missed it -- and this is a story I have been following.

https://nypost.com/2018/12/26/jakelin-caals-mom-too-distraught-for-funeral-after-girl-dies-in-us-custody/

Jakelin Caal Maquin Laid to Rest on Christmas Day

   Claudia Caal Maquin, the mother of Jakelin Caal Maquin, who died in the custody of U.S. border officials earlier this month, was too distraught to attend the funeral of her daughter.
  Of interest to me, the funeral came on Christmas Day. I do not know if that was coincidence, or if it was scheduled for that day on purpose.
   Religious songs were sung at the grave site in the small, impoverished Guatemalan community of San Antonio Secortez. A grandfather also reportedly was too distraught to attend. Only two uncles and a grandmother represented close family at the funeral. The father, Nery Caal, remains in the U.S., held in a migrant detention center after applying for asylum.
   The family are Mayan, of the Q'eqchi tribe, a people nominally Catholic, though retaining worship of pre-Christian deities.
 

Thursday, December 27, 2018

If You're a Smart Smuggler, You Use a Freeway, not a Footpath

   I think many are ahead of me on this, already realizing it, but it is a bombshell to me: Most of the illegal drugs crossing into our country are coming in with those entering legally, not with those coming illegally.
  Read from an article in the today's online Washington Post:
  "Trump has tied illegal immigration to the opioid crisis specifically and illegal drug smuggling broadly. But that, too is misleading.
   "In February 2017, former Homeland Security secretary John F. Kelly -- and now Trump's chief of staff, for the next few days -- testified before Congress that most drugs that enter the U.S. across the border with Mexico come smuggled in vehicles or on the bodies of people crossing into the U.S."
   I would imagine there are no roads that do not pass through points of entry. And, if you pass through a point of entry, you are coming legally. Take one of these ports of entry, San Ysidro, and you have 100,000 vehicles entering a day. Do you have time to thoroughly search each vehicle?
  If there are drug-sniffing dogs, can you seal off the drugs so they cannot be sniffed? I would guess so.
  We have a law -- it's called the U.S. Constitution -- against illegal search and seizure. I do not know how how that law plays out at the border. I would guess the possibility of drugs makes searches legal. At any rate, as I said, you likely cannot make a thorough search of each and every vehicle.
  So, what is the smartest way to smuggle drugs into the U.S.? Do you make pack mules out of those sneaking in across the desert? Anything they bring is extra baggage. They pare down to the least they can carry in order to make it across the desert on foot. So, what if they get caught? And, what if they turn themselves in for asylum as soon as they cross?
  The drugs will never be delivered.
  But, if you use the people coming legally, you can stash a fair-sized load as long as you place it in places not likely to be searched. Instead of walking in, you ride in. Instead of sneaking in, you have free passage and welcome passage.
   Greased entry.
   I don't know if any of the roads crossing the border are to be classed as freeways. Perhaps so. At any rate, the choice, in essence, is whether you choose to smuggle your drugs on a freeway or on a footpath.
 

Wednesday, December 26, 2018

'Trust Only Me' is a Siren Voice

   There is a voice in our midst, saying, "Don't trust the main media; trust only me."
   Now, if you can convince someone that you are the only purveyor of truth, and that no one else is to be trusted, you can bind them with your chains and lead them away.
   If you can convince people that everyone else is a liar, you will be left the only liar standing.

Tuesday, December 25, 2018

At Christmastime, no Room at the Inn for the Migrants

   Bless the world, this time of the year. We do not all have the same opinion on migrants, and you are welcome to differ with the view I post below and whether their situation should be compared to that of Mary and Joseph way back on that first Christmas. Those who oppose the migrants coming, and do not feel the analogy applies, remain wonderful to me.
   To others of us, there are parallels.
   "And she brought forth her first-born son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn." (Luke 2:7)
   A Deseret News editorial notes, "This oft quoted verse of scripture does not say, 'there was no room in the inn.' It emphasizes, 'there was no room for them in the inn.' "
  I think of the two words emphasized in the editorial: "for them." Those of us who see the analogy as being appropriate see the migrants waiting in Tijuana as being in a "for them" situation. The U.S. will only process about 60 of their applications a day. There is no room for more. Meanwhile, about 100,000 people are passing through the same San Ysidro Port of Entry each day. For most, passing back and forth between Mexico and the U.S. is not so difficult. But for them? For the migrants? No room, no room at the inn.
   And, there is more to this no-room analogy. Each of us have different views on immigration. Bless those who are concerned that they could over-populate our land. I can see how that could be a concern. I, though, see it as a "no room for them" thing. Our population is growing. No one that I know of is suggesting we place a general cap on it. This growth is not something we fear. But, what of the migrants from south of the border? For them? No room, no room at the inn. We don't have enough room in America for all of them who would come.
   Now, I, myself, even wonder if we would have room if all 9 million people in Honduras were to come this way. Still, consider that the U.S. population has increased by about 17 million since the census of 2010. No room would seem to be no room. If we haven't space for the 9 million, why is bed space happily found for the 17 million?
 
 
 
It's a perfect time

It's a perfect time for Christmas
 It's a perfect time for love
It's a time for giving, a time for living
 A time for God above

It's a perfect time for Christmas
  It's a perfect time for truth
It's a time for reading, a time for heeding
 A time to begin things with "Forsooth"

It's a perfect time for Christmas
 It's a perfect time to give
It's a time for merrity, a time for charity
 A time to help others live

Note: Two new verses written to the poem 12/27/18 to replace the two I didn't think were good enough. The old verses were:

It's a perfect time for Christmas
 It's a perfect time for getting together
It's a time for sharing, a time for caring
 A time for sleigh bell weather

It's a perfect time for Christmas

 It's a perfect time to gift
It's a time for merrity, a time for charity
 A time for giving a lift

Also, just to hold this, I might could replace the last line of stanza two with 

A time for things spoken forsooth
or
A time for all things spoken forsooth
or
A time for all things beginning with forsooth
or 
A time for beginning things with forsooth

Other possible stanzas:
It's a perfect time for Christmas
 It's a perfect time to grow
It's a time to be better, a time to be a go-getter
 A time  ---

It's a perfect time for Christmas
 It's a perfect time for the brotherhood of man

It's a perfect time for Christmas
 It's a perfect time for family

Note #2: Tweaked poem again 12/29/18



Poison the People Against the Press 
and a Bastion of Freedom is Weakened
  
   Consider, if you will, on how we are now being taught to not trust the main media. Perhaps we should consider on what is happening.
   The best way to fight truth is to silence it. And, one way to do that is to teach that the source is not reliable. I think of the times I've pointed out something on Snopes, only to be told that Snopes is not to be trusted.
   Kill the messenger, and you kill the message.
   The same is true of the main media: If you kill that messenger, you kill the messages it seeks to give. If you poison people's esteem for the media -- if you get them to where they don't believe it -- then it doesn't matter what the media says, you've disabled it. To the degree people don't believe it, you've disabled it.
   A car can sit in the driveway and still be owned. But, if it doesn't drive, it doesn't drive. A broken-down car never gets to its destination.
   And, if freedom is our destination and the car breaks down?
   So, is there a lesson here in how to disable a free press? It does not matter so much that a nation has a free press, if you've discredited it. Having a free press only matters if that press is to be believed. If you poison people's minds against it, you reduce the effectiveness of that press.
  A press's power is in its trust. If you can discredit it, you can disempower it.
  And, one of the bastions of freedom will be lessened. 
  A nation that would not lose its freedoms should not let this happen. Perhaps we think it a small thing -- what is going on -- but is it?

Sunday, December 23, 2018

There's no Purely Socialistic Country Anywhere on Earth

   There is no such thing as socialism. At least, there is no such thing as a completely socialistic country. No, not anywhere on earth. It is non-existent in the world I live in. And, I happen to live in the same world as you and everyone else.
   Well, it depends on the definition you use. I'm reading this one:
    "A political and economic theory of social organization that advocates the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."
   Look around and tell me where you can find such a country? Russia? Certainly not. China? No. Cuba? No.
   And, no, no and no to all the other countries you might come up with. Some of them are totalitarian, not socialistic. Now, if you venture in the Scandinavian countries, then you will be getting closer. Switzerland, Sweden and Finland do have a number of co-operatives.
   But they aren't exclusively made up of co-operatives.
   And, is there any nation on earth where the government decisions on the economy are made by the people, themselves, as opposed to being made by government leaders?
   Socialism, in its pure form, simply does not exist. Socialism is an umbrella for a lot of things. But, perhaps in its purest form, it would be community ownership of all businesses and community decision-making for all governmental policies concerning the economy.
   I could be wrong. I could be overlooking a community somewhere that does this. But, I don't think so. I don't think there is a truly socialistic country anywhere on earth.

Saturday, December 22, 2018

Is Socialism Democracy, itself?

    Some would say socialism is democracy, itself.
    The community (the voting public) takes ownership of the decisions under democracy, and the members of the community are equal. Is not this the very basis of socialism? And, of democracy?
   So, are socialism and democracy one and the same thing? They can share the same principle: Let the people make the decisions.
   So, socialism is democracy, itself. It depends on the definition, but that argument can be made.
   Pause for just a moment, now. While people making all the economic decisions might be the theory behind one of the forms of socialism, has this ever actually ever been practiced? Has ever any country actually turned the decisions of the economy over to the people? Has ever a nation existed where the people actually ran all the businesses -- co-ops all?
   (Note: One sentence added 12/23/18)

Is Venezuela an Opportunity to Learn of the Effects of Welfare?

  So, with the coming of democracy, came socialism to Venezuela. And, in this case, I speak of welfare.
   And, 50 years later -- in rough terms -- the nation's economy collapsed. The question becomes, did a reliance on government aid addict to the point, the people were less inclined to go back to work.
   Did they forget how to work?
   I do not ask this question because I have much reason to believe it true. I ask it because questions should be asked. If you flee the question, you flee the truth. You don't learn from that you refuse to consider.
   I do not even know if many of the Venezuelans were even on welfare. Yes, they had welfare, but how significant was it? Did it pass from one generation to the next? What of the destinations of those now fleeing Venezuela? Are they gathering to countries with strong welfare nets? That would indicate they are seeking the welfare they are addicted to.
   I only wish there were someone studying these questions. I wish there were a study. Venezuela is a test tube, of sorts, in that there is so much to be learned from the history of that nation's economy.
   And, if there is no study to be conducted of welfare in Venezuela, and whether the people became addicted to it, and to some degree disabled, then we are passing on a chance to learn from history.
   Those who will not learn from history must repeat it, it is said. But, sometimes, the lessons of history do not lie on the surface. It takes a little digging -- a study -- to uncover them.  There may or may not be a gem to be learned from. But, we will never learn if we do not dig for it.

Friday, December 21, 2018

Socialism Comes in Different Stripes

  There are different types of socialism to be had. It is government regulation of business. It is government ownership of all businesses. It is government utilities. It is the leveling of everyone's paycheck so all are paid equally. It is a welfare net so that everyone becomes safe from poverty. It communal ownership. It is communal living. It is quotas to ensure equal employment for minorities.
  Even tax bracketing might be considered a form of socialism. And, if we were to place everyone in jobs to ensure employment for all, that might be considered socialism. Some might even take it so far as to suggest socialism is democracy, itself.
  There being so many variations, if you want socialism, you must first decide what type and what degree you want. Lump them all together, if you will, but each should really be considered on its own merits.
   So, to label someone a socialist does not clearly define who that person is. What type of "socialist" is this Bernie Sanders? What are the policies behind Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez being a "socialist"? Are these two to be considered equal to Karl Marx?

Venezuela as a Test Tube Nation and Two More Questions I have

   The world's economic test tube, I have called it. And, though I am not enough of a scholar to so much know if that is correct, I wonder.
    And, I continue to wonder what we can learn from Venezuela. Yes, it seems its economy was ruined by socialism. But, there might be other lessons to be learned.
   Like, what of the welfare state that was created? Is it still in existence? People are fleeing the country for reason of poverty. If the welfare net were still in place, it seems they would be receiving some economic relief from that welfare, and therefore not in need of fleeing.
   And, while socialism probably is responsible for the economy's decline, is capitalism responsible for its glory years? What kind of economy was in place in the 19th Century? Back then, I believe, this was a poor nation. It wasn't until oil was discovered about 1914 or so that the economy took off.
   Do we, then, credit capitalism -- or oil?

Thursday, December 20, 2018

With Socialism came Venezuela's Economic Decline

   Venezuela, the world's test tube country, when it comes to economics. And, from what I read, if we go no further than Venezuela, capitalism works, and as soon as socialism comes along, the economy declines.
   Venezuela was a dictatorship through the years it rose to great economic power, but its economy remained largely unfettered from government interference -- capitalistic. Then, democracy won out and guess what came with it?
   Would you believe socialism?
    And, from what I can tell, Venezuela's economy went into decline about the same time.
   What is a surprise to me is that socialism has been around so long in Venezuela. I wondered if it didn't wait to get its foot till Hugo Chavez came to power in 1999. But, no, socialism in that country goes back many more decades, getting its foot, I believe, with the first democratic government.

Wednesday, December 19, 2018

Charity includes being Honest Enough to Tell Both Sides of the Story

   Three million people have fled Venezuela in the past three years. It is a refugee crisis rivaling that of Syria. As the economy has collapsed, the people have fled.
   Wow. I never knew so many have fled. I'm shocked at the level of the crisis.
   And, is the economic crisis to all be laid at the feet of Socialism? There comes a post, on Facebook, saying 60 years ago, Venezuela was two times richer than China, and four times richer than Japan. It had the world's fourth-ranked economy (first in Latin America). Its health system was said to be the best in the western world. It's currency was second only to that of the United States.
   And?
  "In only 10 years Venezuela was destroyed by socialism," says the meme.
   Say nothing, then, of economic decline before Hugo Chavez took power in 1999. Say nothing of the economic crisis prompting the deadly Caracazo riots in 1989. Yes, the oil industry was nationalized as far back as 1976, but that was only after an oil crisis was already underway.
   Say nothing of the successes under Chavez.
   My point is this: Too often we smear the truth. We take our side of the story, and tell that side, not both sides. Our cause should not be the side of the right, or the left, but the side of truth.
   Yes, great evidence exists socialism failed Venezuela -- caused much of its downfall. I can wonder but what if free enterprise were unleashed on all of Venezuela's economy, the nation might figure out how to get its oil out of the ground -- it has the largest reserves in all the world -- but is socialism, alone, responsible for Venezuela's economic demise?
   Unless Socialism goes back further than I am aware of in that country, it is not all to blame.
   We speak of how we are too divided as a nation. We speak of how this is one of the greatest of all our problems. Well, if we would not be so divided, we must learn to be more honest than to just tell one side of the story. If we would not be so divided, we must learn to be more charitable one with another, for charity certainly includes giving the other side its due.

(Note 12/20/18: I studied Venezuela's economy more the next night. Telling both sides of the story is important, but telling what you learn after your post was published is also important. The principle that you tell both sides of the story remains, but the idea socialism might not be the only dominant, noticeable thing that led to Venezuela's economic decline might be wrong.)

There's Cause to Love this George Soros

   So, we have hatred for George Soros? I do not understand that. What I do understand, is that he has funded democracy efforts in many countries. His foundation has been credited for being a cradle for the democratization of Georgia.
   This hatred between Republicans and Democrats, if we could look at the good done by those on the opposite sides of the aisle, it would be well. Why the need to tear each other down?
   There is a saying, Love your enemies. It is a principle worth practicing. If we see Soros as an enemy in the sense he falls with the Democrats, perhaps we should love him, anyway. From what I see, he is a good person, whatever you think of his politics.

Tuesday, December 18, 2018

Create an Environment for Apathy and You will have Apathy

  Apathy can be the product of the environment, at least to some extent, and so I wonder at the environment we have created when it comes to current events and social issues.
  Okay, politics, if you must.
   Politics and religion are taboo, you know. Don't discuss them at social gatherings, and don't discuss them at work. What kind of environment, then, do we have? Is it not one that fosters apathy? If we do not allow discussion of social issues, if we teach that it is in poor taste to discuss them, that is not creating a healthy environment.
   We lament low voter turnouts. I do wonder if how we teach each other that discussing politics is in poor taste is one of the reasons. It's got to be.

Monday, December 17, 2018

We Don't Value this Freedom, so We don't have it

  A nation that does not value its freedoms will lose them. If we have freedom of speech, but do not value it in all portions of our lives, we will lose it in those situations.
   Actually, we already have -- We've already lost freedom of speech in one big area of our lives. That we look around, saying, "Where? Where?" only reveals how little we value freedom of speech in that area. If we valued it, we would be able to see we don't have freedom of speech in that place.
   The workplace.
   And, no one really misses it. No one complains, because it is not a freedom they want, in the first place.
   And if they don't want it, that is the same as to say they don't value it.
   Can't discuss politics and religion? For most, no loss. And, those who feel this way should be extended the freedom of not having to discuss these two taboo topics.
   But, by the same mark, those who do want this freedom should be allowed to enjoy it. Time on the job comprises half a person's waking weekday hours. So, for half of our waking weekday hours, we are without one of the basic freedoms of a free society.
   But, we are on someone else's dime, it is argued. We are being paid to work, not to talk about politics and religion.
   But, notice this: We can talk about the weekend, about the movie last night and about sports, but we cannot discuss politics and religion.
   I can see a work policy that says you should not offend others. I can see a policy that takes away that "freedom of speech." But, I do believe in the right to civilly discuss the news of the day and the issues that are before our country. No, I do not believe that right is the right to take away from your work. I do believe that if your job is such that there is no time for discussion -- whether it be about the game last night or the immigrants at the border -- then, no discussion is no discussion. Politics and religion are out along with movies and sports and how little Ashta is cutting her teeth.

Sunday, December 16, 2018

On God and Public Issues

  Should a person seek revelation on public issues?  Immigration, climate change, the NFL flag controversy . . . Is it all just a matter of personal opinion? Or, can God help?
  I do know this: How you treat another person is a matter covered by gospel teachings. And, many of these things do involve how we treat each other.
  Others would add that whether you keep the law is a matter of right and wrong.
  So, some of these questions are worthy of God's help. And, they can be right or wrong.
  Saving the planet? If climate change is as endangering as some say it is, yes, we should seek God's help.
  I believe two people might have differing opinions on immigration, yet each of them might believe theirs is the right position. Bless them both. If they are seeking to please God, that is much of the battle. It is good to get it right, yes, but it is also good to be trying to get it right, to be seeking the answer God would have.
   If a nation is a God-fearing nation, it will seek God's help. And, if the people of that nation are to likewise be God-fearing, they must also turn to God as they form their opinions.

Quotes of Faith

   Found another quote reflecting the faith in God being displayed by the migrants. Ruben Garcia is director of the Annunciation House shelter, where the father of the seven-year old who died is staying. Said he, speaking of that grieving father, "All of us were moved by the depth of his faith and his trust that God's hand is in all of this."

Separation at the Border for Jakelin Amei Rosmery Caal Maquin?

   More family separation policy at work, this time in the death of 7-year old Jakelin Amei Rosmery Caal Maquin?
   She died in the custody of border officials after she and her father crossed into the U.S. and were apprehended.
   They life-flighted Jakelin to a hospital. But, did they allow her father to come along? I see no report of that. Now, when children are taken to the hospital, isn't it standard to let a parent come with them? More: Isn't it traumatic on the child to separate her from her father? If you don't want death, you aren't helping her by creating the emotional trauma that comes with being separated from the father.

Saturday, December 15, 2018

Save Those Who are Forced to help the Cartels and Gangs

   Among my thoughts as I thought about the blog I wrote last night:
   I suggested it should be easy to distinguish between a poor person from the Mayan highlands and a terrorist or MS13er. So, I suggested that in vetting them, we should quickly let the poor highlanders in. Actually, it might not be so easy to tell that someone poor is not involved with a gang or cartel. The gangs and cartels often force people into participation. So, do we screen these folks out in our vetting? They are perhaps the most in need of fleeing their home countries.
   Here's part of the answer: Many of them should qualify for entry into the U.S. under asylum laws. If they are forced to join the gang against their will, that certainly is persecution. And, they are part of a social group -- albeit one yet to recognized  -- in that there are a number of people who forced against their will into helping the gangs and cartels. These asylum cases may take longer, but they should be tried.
   And, here's another part of the answer: I once called for what I called a "sing visa," in which those who turned in criminals and helped in the prosecution of them were granted visas into the United States. I, again, think this would be a good idea. Only, let them apply not only for turning over information that might lead to convictions for crimes against the United States, but for crimes in their home countries.
   We speak a lot of how we should help clean up those countries instead of bringing those people to America. Well, this is going half way with that, anyway, in that we would be helping clean up those countries. We could offer them witness protection while they were being court witnesses against criminals in their home countries. Too expensive? I only know that some have said we should help clean up those countries, and if you are going to do it, this is one of the ways you do do it. No offense, but put your money where your mouth is, so to speak.

Friday, December 14, 2018

Let in this Jakelin Amei Rosmery Maquin and Her Father

   If a child dies in the custody of border agents, does it raise our concern for these people?
   Jakelin Amei Rosmery Caal Maquin, 7, from the Mayan highlands of Guatemala. Dead on arrival, or shortly thereafter.  She and her father sneaked across the border, along with 161 other migrants, at a remote spot in New Mexico. Her sudden illness and death came shortly after they were apprehended.
   What of the death of this 7-year old? Does it make us reconsider our policies? We do not know at this time if Jakelin and her father first tried to enter at another site, or if their first effort at crossing the border was at that remote spot in Mexico. But, it remains that some migrants do make their way to points of entry, only to find there are not enough government workers to even take their asylum applications. So, they go to another spot along the border do gain their entry.
   We do not want them in, so we don't provide enough staff to even begin processing them. Such is our strategy, and such is not the strategy of justice.
   Nor of humanity. It forces them to flee the point of entry and seek a desperate, dangerous, and less legal crossing. I say "less" legal, but that word might not apply,  for the 163-person party Jakelin was part of apparently did turn itself in upon crossing the border. How many wanted to apply for asylum, we may not yet know for certain, but it appears that was their intent.
  Should we ask ourselves where the harm would come to our great nation, if we if had policies that allowed Jakelin and her father in? What harm if a child and her father were allowed to come from poverty on the Mayan highlands to live on our proud soil?
   Do not let the humble disturb our pride?
   It is not that, you say. It is the others who would come with them. If we let two in, we let them all in. And, they pour into our hospitals and overflow our welfare nets. And, among them come terrorists and gang members and murderers and every type of criminal the mind can imagine.
   This is what we get, if we let in the child and the father from the highlands of Guatemala.
   There is a solution, of course, and it is an easy one. We are big on quotas, are we not? Why not let in the poor from the Mayan highlands, let them be beneath the quota? Vet them, of course. Verify they are the poor of the Mayan highlands, and let them in. Check for criminal backgrounds. Then, within days, let the 7-year-old child and her father in.
  Should it be so hard to distinguish a 7-year-old and her father from the Mayan highlands from terrorists? No it shouldn't, so, yes, let them in within days.
   And, let all such candidates in. If there be 10,000, let them in. Oh, there may come a point where too many come, and the saturation level is reached. But, 10,000 or 20,000 is not that number. The quota imposed, should not be imposed to stop worthy migration, but to bring a stop when we cannot care for more.
   There are faces on these immigrants, and they are not all the faces of terrorists and MS13ers. There are the faces of 7-year-old Jakelin and her father. And, if we would look at the faces of many -- perhaps all -- of the 161 who came with this father and child, perhaps we would see nothing but the faces of people like those of Jakelin and her father.
   These, we should let in. If we know of the voice of humanity, we let them in.

(Editing done and changes made 12/15&16/18)
 

Thursday, December 13, 2018

Of Balaam and the Angel and being Sensitive to the Spirit

   Sensitive to the spirit? I can tell you one way I think we can be sensitive to the spirit. When something is told to us, or when a news fact come up, we can ignore it, or we can consider it. If learning the truth can take being sensitive to it, is not this part of the spirit of revelation? There may be more ways to be sensitive to the spirit, and let prophets and such go there. But, us? We as individuals are also entitled to personal revelation. And, it follows that if we are to get any, we must follow the processes that bring it.
   If you hear of a statistic, it may be to one person meaningless. But, if a person is listening to the still small voice, so to speak, he will consider on that statistic. If you hear of a circumstance, or learn of a story or an event, to one person it might be meaningless and no conclusion is drawn from that event. To another, who listens, there is something to be learned.
   The story of Balaam and the Angel, in the Bible, to me is one of the most instructive stories on revelation. Balaam went to the Lord, taking the king's plea that the Israelites be harmed. Now, the truth should have been obvious to Balaam: The Lord was not going to curse his own people.
   Even so it is with us. There are things in the events that pass before us that should be obvious. But, like Balaam, we can be blind to them. We might be listening so much to our friends and the talk of the world that we are not even open to the truth.
   Balaam's dumb donkey saw the swordsman in the pass. But Balaam, himself, was blind. Even so it is with us. We might think to castigate those who would tell us the truth, even as Balaam thought to punish his donkey, but it might be that our anger is against that which is right.

 

Wednesday, December 12, 2018

Do We Toss Aside 'Love Thy Neighbor' for 'America First'?

   It is said, in the talk of our day, we should care for our own before we care for others. But, let us wonder, does such a belief leave room for the commandment to love thy neighbor as thyself?
   Mark that part of the scripture: "as thy self."
   Help our vets. Help the starving children right here in America. These are our own. It is said we should help all of these before helping anyone coming across the border.
  These -- the vets and others - they are like family. But, of course, we want to help them. Do not think differently.
   But, what of our neighbor? If the vets and the firefighters are those living with us, should we not consider that the person from Honduras is to be considered our neighbor? Love thy neighbor as thy self? Do these words have meaning to us, as a society?
   If we would be Christian individuals, must we not practice Christianity? And does this not mean loving our neighbors? So, then as a society, what should we do? Doesn't it seem that if we are to be a Christian nation, we must also love our neighbors . . . as ourselves?
   There may be value to the thought of  America first, but such a motto can also reflect a loss of values. If "love thy neighbor as thyself" is to be tossed aside for "America first," we must wonder which direction we are headed as a nation.

(Note: Slightly edited and added to 12/13/18)
Knowing the truth
comes not in hearing it, but in listening
to it.

Tuesday, December 11, 2018

The Right of the Immigrant is the Right to a Hearing

  Is there obstruction of justice at the border? Are we purposefully restraining our ability to hear the vast number of cases? Could we bring in more immigration judges, but we choose not to, because we know the fewer cases we hear and the longer we put them all off, the fewer people who will make it into the U.S.?
   Is this our strategy against the immigrant? Should we not consider that a strategy that impedes justice is a strategy that obstructs it?
   The right to a fair trial is spelled out right in the Constitution. How do we deny these migrants their day in court? Where is our conscience? How do we dare say, All we want you to do is to come legally, then deny them the legal process to come legally?
   If we are choosing to limit immigration by choosing to limit the judicial process that allows it, are we not obstructing justice? Our efforts to block them from coming should not include efforts to block them from justice.

Stopping the Medically Contagious is not a National Emergency

   President Trump will tell you not only of the terrorists who are coming, he will tell you of those coming with contagious medical conditions. Give me $5 million to build a wall to stop them, he will say, for this is a national emergency.
   Citing a need to stop terrorists is one thing, how far should he get with the argument against the diseased? Are there so many of them pouring in that it becomes a national emergency to stop them?
   I think not. I think Trump is trumping up reason to stop the immigrants. We do not face a national emergency in the medically contagious coming from the south countries.
Revelation 
is nothing if not a chess player

  Consider the scriptures telling us to ponder, if we want to know the truth of all things, if we want revelation. And, consider the chess player, and how he considers on all the moves he might make, and what happens in each case.
  His success depends on how much he thinks, how much he ponders. The game opens to him if he opens his mind.
  So are the wonders of heaven. They open to us if we open our minds.
  The person who would receive personal revelation must practice the same art as the chess player.

Monday, December 10, 2018

'Goodwill to All' allows for 'Happy Holidays'

   Christmas is not the insistence that others believe as we do, it is the allowance that they may believe differently. Merry Christmas to us, and Happy Holidays to them. Charity for the beliefs of others is more the spirit of Christmas than is the insistence that the holidays be all things Christ.
   Let us be Christ-centered in our own observance, but not force our Christ on them. It is good that we teach of Christ, and that we use Christmas to share our beliefs. But, let us also remember the words that are part of  Christmas, itself:  "Goodwill to all." If we would have goodwill, we would have it toward the Buddhist, the Muslim, and the Atheist.
   Let Christmas be a time that unites humanity, not a time that divides.

Sunday, December 9, 2018

More Meaningful Voices than Mine Call for Due Process

   My voice is not alone. There are better positioned and more more considered voices calling on us to give the migrants their due process.
   "The Immigration and Nationality Act states that any immigrant who enters the United States, 'whether or not at a designated port of arrival,' may apply for asylum. Yet the federal government is not prepared to handle the large number of asylum-seekers who legally come here," writes Bob Carlson in a letter to the New York Times. Bob Carlson is president of the American Bar Association.
   "Our immigration legal system in underfunded and undermanned. We need additional judges and support staff to eliminate the backlog of more than 700,000 cases in immigration courts. Nothing should be done to impede access to counsel or diminish due process of law for people seeking asylum."
   And, in another letter, in the same Dec. 9 New York Times:
  "I am particularly concerned to see government efforts to weaken due-process rights. Migrants, like everyone in America, deserve determinations of their claims by independent, impartial and fair procedures." The writer? Ramsey Clark, attorney general in the Johnson administration.
 

Commandments 
don't change just because governments become involved

  If the law says, don't kill, that law remains even though governments might create laws exonerating those who kill within the boundaries of their own property.
   If the law says, feed the poor and care for them, that laws does not go away simply because it is government making the call on whether to let them in at the border.  

Saturday, December 8, 2018

Should We Help Them Not, for They've Brought on Their Own Trouble?

   I wonder on how it is said we should not help those at the border, we should not let them in, for they have brought on themselves their own predicament.They crossed Mexico at their own peril. They irresponsibly endangered their own children by bringing them through cartel country. They came, when all along they knew it was illegal to come to America.
   Are not there the words of scripture?
   Perhaps thou shalt say: The man has brought upon himself his misery; therefore I will stay my hand, and will not give unto him of my food, nor impart unto him of my substance that he may not suffer, for his punishments are just—
   But I say unto you, O man, whosoever doeth this the same hath great cause to repent; and except he repenteth of that which he hath done he perisheth forever, and hath no interest in the kingdom of God.  (Mosiah 4:17-18 in the Book of Mormon, which is a book of scripture of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints)
 (Note: Three sentences added 12/9/18
If America is to be great again, 
it must be good again.

Friday, December 7, 2018

If Helping Them Falls into the Box of Doing That Which is Good . . .

   I'm not a fan of the wall and the policies that come with it. Judge a matter by the good or damage it does to that which is good. I think of these people -- needy and homeless, sitting and waiting for help on the border of the U.S. and Mexico. Are they not the poor among us? Or, do we say they are someone else's poor and therefore not our concern, not our responsibility? Are we not taught to help the poor? Is this not a Christian principle and even a commandment? Does not helping them fall into the box of doing that which is good?
   Judge our policies at the border, then. Judge them against doing that which is good.

Thursday, December 6, 2018

Racism is the Domain of Those in Power

  Persecution is the domain of those in power. And, so it is, racism is the dominion of those with power.
  Think of Germany, and the persecution of the Jews. Without being in power, Hitler could not have murdered six million European Jews. Think of the United States, and of the slavery of the blacks. Without having power over them, the whites could not have enslaved and persecuted the blacks.
   And, wonder on this: How so often it is that racism is the result of government; So often, government is the top of racism. It is not always so, but so often, when racism is practiced, it is a government doing the practicing; It is a government doing the discriminating.
   On the flip side, how often do a people in subjugation display racism against their rulers? They dare not. I am not a student of such history, but would guess it rare, if at all. When you are so busy defending your own worthiness -- or maybe even being brought to believe you truly are worthless -- you aren't inclined to believe in your own superiority.
  Those who are forced to be humble, seldom wear the emblems of pride. An elitist is never a person without power to practice that elitism. So, if you don't have power to practice being a racist, it is hard to be one.
   And, so it is, those subjected to racism are in some regards not inclined to be racists, themselves. And, when it does happen, it is often because that person obtains an edge of power, himself. In today's society, minorities sometimes do often have enough power to strike back.
   I consider the thought, Power corrupts, and suggest one example of this can be when one race has power over another. I think of an LDS scripture, that says, "It is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion."

They are Americans by Choice; We, only by Chance

  "You? You are an American by chance. Me? I am an American by choice," Mexican immigrant Leo Barraboza says. "I chose this country. I picked it."
  Leo isn't original with this thought. Still, it is something I never heard, and a wonderful thought.

Wednesday, December 5, 2018

If You Assault Someone for being an 'Illegal Alien', that's a Hate Crime

  Perhaps the most hated people in all of society are not even mentioned in any of the hate-crimes laws of our nation.
   The laws might enhance penalties for assault based on ancestry, disability, ethnicity, gender, national origin, race, religion, or sexual orientation. Maybe even political beliefs gets tossed in there from time to time.
   But, what if you attack them because they crossed the border illegally? No group in America faces so much resentment and ill will than do these "illegal immigrants."
   You might argue they are covered in the categories of race, and national origin, but many will tell you they don't oppose legal immigration, only illegal immigration. That they are Mexican or come from Mexico is not the problem.
   Now, it cannot be said that everyone who opposes "illegal immigration" does so in hatred. Many who oppose the undocumented immigrant, love those of them who who they know -- Maybe even love them all, including those they've never met.
   But -- make no mistake -- hatred of the "illegal immigrant" rides in the hearts of many. To suppose that some of this hatred cannot spill over into hate crimes is surely inaccurate.
   I do wonder how many undocumented people are victims of hate crime. I wonder if there are any statistics. Even using the current language (race and national origin) many perpetrators could be prosecuted.
   I am probably not a proponent of our current hate crimes laws (let me study it more). But, I do think it noteworthy that the laws might not be being applied to immigrants as quickly as they are to those of other social categories.

It's Okay to Vote for the Color, but not Against it

  When is it wrong to cast a vote based on race, and is doing so to be considered racist?
   I have considered the Mia Love / Ben McAdams race. Did some vote against Mia because she was black, albeit they would never want that reason to be known?
   Think on the election of Barack Obama. There can be no doubt blacks voted for Obama because he was black. Was that wrong?
   No.
   I would say it is not wrong to vote for someone because they are of your race. This is akin to supporting your friends and neighbors . . . and church members. (Not the best of reasons for voting for someone, but acceptable.) Think of how many LDS people voted for Mitt Romney because he was LDS.
   So, what of voting against Mia Love because she is black? Why is that, then, wrong -- and maybe even racist?
   When you oppose someone because of their color, it is because you do not like that person because of their color. A touch of hatred is coming through. Racism. If the blacks who voted for Obama did so not because they really wanted Obama, but because they didn't want John McCain (2008) and didn't want Romney (2012) because those two men were white, that would be wrong, even racist.
   Its okay to vote for the color, but not against the color.

Tuesday, December 4, 2018

Remember Shepard, but what of the Smaller Case of Emiliano Morales?

   You will remember -- though vaguely -- the brutal attack 20 years ago on Matthew Shepard, a gay 21-year-old freshman at the University of Wyoming. Robbed, pistol-whipped, tortured, tied to a fence, and left to die. It would have been good Oct. 12 to have commemorated the 20th anniversary of his death.
   There must have been news stories on the anniversary, and I just didn't give them my attention. Bless Matthew Shepard. Bless him in the heavens. May to this day we mourn his death.
   But, there is a small appendage to the Matthew Shepard story that doesn't get told. After the attack on Shepard, the assailants, Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson, returned to town and McKinney picked a fight with two Hispanics, Emiliano Morales and Jeremy Herrara. Morales and McKinney were both injured in that fight.
   As of ten days after the crime, no charges had been filed in that attack. I wonder if they ever were. And, I wonder if the attack on Morales was investigated as a possible hate crime. Yes, it would be wrong to assume it was a hate-of-Hispanics crime, but given that the attack on Shepard was a hate crime, it would have been appropriate to investigate whether the attack on Morales was also a hate crime.
   Either way, was McKinney ever charged in that attack? If not, why not?

A Good Hate-Crimes Bill would not Assume the Crime a Hate Crime

A good hate-crimes bill would not convict without a trial. It would not automatically classify every attack on an LGBT as a hate crime, but would require there be something in the assailant's history showing a hatred of LGBT. If the assailant attacks someone in a manner that makes it clear it is because he is LGBT, yes, that is evidence enough. But, if you are just attacking an LGBT person, and it is just assumed you are doing so because he is LGBT, no, that is not enough.
We are a nation that believes in due process. We are a nation that believes in innocent until proven guilty. We cannot just assume it a hate crime without any evidence. A hate-crimes bill that says crimes committed agains the Jews are all hate crimes is not a fair law. There must be evidence that the perpetrator held a hatred of Jews. Due process? We must give the accused due process, and not assume he (or she) is committing a hate crime, just because the victim is an LGBT.
Due process? To abandon this tenant of justice is to abdicate in our belief in justice. It is one step forward, but one step back. Let us not give up the justice we have while in search of the justice we need.

Monday, December 3, 2018

If We are to Overcome Our Racism, We Must Recognize it

A person can vote against a black person while citing numerous other reasons for not wanting that person elected, while deep in his heart, it is because the candidate is, indeed black. Do we say this is impossible, and that it would never happen?
I judge no one person of this. I only say it can happen. And does. Somewhere out there, there is this level of racism. To suppose that this level of racism does not exist is to not fathom that there are different degrees of racism. It is to suppose that we can go all the way to being a radical racist, without stopping a a rung somewhere along the way. Racism is not an all or none thing; It can come in degrees. And, it can come in open admission you are a racist as well as it can come in hiding it from even admitting to your own self that you are a racist.
I consider that recognizing that there are degrees is one of the important social issues of our day. I wonder if this type of racism occurs, to some degree, in most all of us. It is something we should want to root out of ourselves, and out of our society.
But, if we are to overcome this fault in ourselves, we must recognize that we have it. It goes back to the repentance model we learn in church. We cannot overcome a fault unless we recognize it, and feel sorrow for having it. There will be no repentance without these two things.
If we will not even admit such a person exists -- much less look for it in our own hearts -- we are far from the road of repentance.

Sunday, December 2, 2018

In Hate-Crimes Legislation, Let Us Legislate against all Forms of Hatred

 We could use a better hate-crimes bill. But, as we come up with a new one, let us make it more inclusive. What are we to say, Hate is only hate when it targets a group? Only if it sets after Jews, or LGBT or immigrants is hatred a harm?
  If we are to enhance penalties against hate crimes, let us include all crimes of hate.  Hate is hate, and harms as much whether it targets a group or just a person. If we find in the person's history a record of hatred against any group of people -- Jews, LGBT, immigrants or anyone -- let us prosecute it as a hate crime. But, let us not leave out hatred that is not specific of a group. If we find a note saying, "I hate you, Josh Washington," let us prosecute that, as well, as a hate crime, even though Josh fails to be in a protected group. 
  

Saturday, December 1, 2018

If We Believe in Rule of Law, We Believe These Migrants Come Legally

 To read the law is to know they come legally, these migrants.
  "Any alien who . . . arrives in the United States . . . irrespective of such alien's status, may apply for asylum."
  If it says, "irrespective of such alien's status," what does that mean? It tells us they do not to be approved in advance; They do not need to be carrying paperwork. 
  The law spells it out. They are coming legally. The question then becomes, Is it we who do not believe in rule of law?


Friday, November 30, 2018

Racism Comes in Various Shades

   Racism comes in many shades. To suppose there are not people who do not want to vote for a black person, but do not want that reason to be known, is to suppose that that shade of racism doesn't exist.
   It is to suggest that no one would ever not vote for a black person while trying to cover up that racism is the reason.
   I tried to get the above thought printed in the online comments to a news story. Unfortunately, the comment was put on hold. Was it rejected because of a rule against name-calling? Racists do exist, and to suggest I'm calling someone names by saying racists do exist is to suggest that such a thought should never be verbalized or expressed, with the pretext being that it is uncivil to say such a thing. Or, was it that my comment was considered too speculative? To begin with, most comments are speculative. What opinion isn't? And, secondly, no, it is not overly speculative. Are we to say it is impossible for such a person to exist -- a person that would not vote for a black person and then try to hide or cover up that that is reason? Or course this is going to happen. Whether it is rare might be the question, but that it will happen is not.
   It is said, that to repent of a wrong, you must first recognize it is wrong. If we do not, as a society, allow ourselves to acknowledge the racism I refer to, what hope have we of repenting of it?
  Too often, we push off discussions such of this by saying, "Don't play the race card." Yes, the "race card" might be played too often, but this is not one of those moments. The shade of racism I speak of is is real. Or, do we deny that such a person as I speak of even exists? Or, do we say that while such a person does exist, their existence should not be discussed as that would be offensive to someone?
   Push off the matter if you will, but this is a matter that should be discussed.

Thursday, November 29, 2018

It Might Make for Healthy Debate, but not for a Healthy America

   Record turnouts in the midterm elections? And, we see the divisiveness in the electorate as cause? We are angry with each other, this America. Some hate Trump and some hate Hillary, but we all hate each other.
   It might make for healthy debate, but it doesn't make for a healthy America.
   It might deliver a high voter turnout, but the cost of hating each other will exact a greater cost than it is worth. If you arrive at a high level of democracy by traveling the road of hatred, you are on the wrong road, regardless where it takes you.

Wednesday, November 28, 2018

What 'Their not Sending Their Best' has Wrought

   A record 14,000 migrant children are being held in detention centers. Why so many? Because we do not want catch-and-release;  We do not want immigrants to be released while they await hearings, because we fear they might escape and not return for those hearings. So, to spare ourselves their escape, we detain them. And, is there another reason so many migrant children are being held in detention centers? Yes; We do not believe in chain migration, which is the practice of letting migrants join extended family members. So, hoping to reject and deport them, we detain them, rather than letting them reunite with their families.
   Think back on the words of then-candidate Donald Trump when he was just announcing his candidacy. "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best."
   What has come out of those words? With the election of Trump, came exerted efforts to cut back on immigration, not the least of which were trying to end catch-and-release and chain migration.
    And, what is the end result, or one of them? No less than 14,000 children being institutionalized in detention centers. No less than 14,000 children being separated from the natural and nurturing bonds of their families. Consider on these children. And, consider on those words, now years old, from candidate Trump. "They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing  those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists."
    And, this is where we're at: Thousands of children are being separated from the natural and nurturing bonds of family in the name of policies we fear have been allowing criminals into our country.
    Who, in the end, has it ended up we are afraid of? The children?
    And, what have we done with them, these children? Sent them to what amounts to a soft jail? For their quarters are closely guarded and they are not allowed out.
     I think we should reflect anew on who we are considering our criminals, on who we are jailing. We started off wanting to keep out the rapists and others who cause problems. But, did we quite visualize who we would end up punishing?

Tuesday, November 27, 2018

If the gun is your friend, 
you will need to find 
an enemy to use it.

Has Trump Continued to Separate Children from Their Parents?

   Is the family separation policy alive and well -- you, know, the one that got President Trump is such trouble months ago? Is the Trump Administration persisting, anyway? Did it say it would stop, but hasn't?
  No less than about 2,300 teens are being held at a closely guarded site in Tornillo, Texas. And, read this from The Associated Press story, "federal immigration policies have resulted in the detention of a record 14,000 migrant children, filling shelter beds around the country to capacity."
   I read the story hurriedly this afternoon, and it was not until just now, when I came back to capture the above quote, that I noticed the next sentence. "Almost all the teens at Tornillo came on their own hoping to join family members in the United States."
   No, this might not be the separating of children from their parents as they both arrive at the border. Still, it is a separation, and one wonders about the worthiness of it. Is separating children from their parents and/or family ever a good thing?
   We should go back to the judge's ruling, and read it, and see if it applies.


Quotes of Faith

   I relish the times I read of those in the migrant caravan placing their trust in God. A story of the Sunday rush on the border included this quote, from Maria Louisa Caceres, 42:
  “We thought it was a peaceful march today, but then I saw everyone running and I thought, ‘This is it, God will touch Trump’s heart.’ ” 

Monday, November 26, 2018

The Real Victims of War are Those Who 'Survive'

   Going to war can be the right thing to do, and a good thing to do. But war, itself, is never good. It decimates. It mutilates. And, not just the bodies of men, but their souls.
   The victim of war is not just the man who dies -- not just the one who is killed. No, in war, the victim is not just the one left bleeding on the battlefield, but the one whose spirit is left to bleed for a lifetime.
   Ask yourself who can survive it, for those who survive in the flesh often do not survive in spirit. The souls of the soldiers are ravaged by this affliction called war. And, the hearts of nations are seared, as well.
   Consider, then, on war. Consider on its casualties. Consider on them, even before it starts. Consider on what it does to the hearts of men. It sets hatred even in the hearts of good people. Even when the cause is just, and noble, it can spawn a hatred of others that the rightful warrior would be better off without.
  Warriors, beware.
   The turning of a heart to hatred, is bad enough. Often, though, it doesn't stop there. I think of my days on a sheep farm, and of my dad taking one of  our dogs down to the pond, and regretfully having to drown him. My best buddy got the taste of blood in its mouth, so to speak, and became a danger to the sheep.
    I think of the number of times these mass shootings have come at the hands of military veterans. Coincidence, you say? I think not. Rather, I think to cry.
   Bless these veterans. Many of them seem to come through unscathed. Perhaps many of their spirits do survive. But, how completely? Even if their spirits survive uncankered, do they survive untouched? Can one see bullets rip though the chest of a bunker mate without being haunted for life?
  Few spirits are spared when it comes to war.
  No, war is not a good thing. Those who win sometimes lose their souls. If they let it canker them, it will. Search among the soldiers for a man who doesn't hate, and you will have found the good soldier. There may be many. Yes, I imagine there are. Bless them, for what they have gone through does have the power to canker. You can't be placed on a easel without fear the painter will come.
  No, bringing death upon others is never good. He who hails it has not survived. And, he who relishes it has been destroyed.

Sunday, November 25, 2018

We have been one of the most enslaving nations of history. And, out of this came freedom? Out of this came equality?

  Bless us, for what we have become. We are a nation of contrasts. We forced the Native Americans on what to some degree was a forced death march, the trail of tears. We are the first (and only) nation to have used a nuclear bomb. The largest carpet bombing in history came at our hands. We may have exterminated whole tribes of natives. We did not start with giving women the right to vote. The list could go on. We are not perfect.

  But, we seek to become it. We change our ways, when they are wrong. This nation stands as the beacon of liberty, and the land of equality.

Friday, November 23, 2018

The Legacy of the Pilgrims Depends on their Motives

   It is said, those early Thanksgivings were little more than celebrations for slaughtering American Natives -- celebrations of conquest, celebrations of what sometimes amounted to genocides.
  I'm new to this debate about the founding of Thanksgiving, and a few hours study will not catch me up with those who have been discussing it for years.
  Still, I have some thoughts. If you are at war, and your society's survival depends on a favorable outcome, you should thank your God when he delivers you from the hands of your enemies. Whether this is what happened, I may not be entirely certain. But, I wonder.
  On the flip side of the argument, I wonder at how the natives were captured for slavery, for while you might not have heard, Native Americans reportedly were taken and sold off to slavery. Now, what does that have to do with protecting yourself against the enemy? My thoughts jump to the African-American slavery, and I note that of all the slave cultures in world history, America's is among the foremost.
   I cannot think entirely fondly upon a people who rank among the most enslaving people in history. And, out of this grew freedom?
   Who started King Philip's War, the American-Indian war at the time, and the bloodiest war in American history (in terms of percentage of  population killed)? What were the motives? Did we seek only to protect ourselves? Or did we see the natives as people to be annihilated? Did we see them as lesser humans, or perhaps not even quite worthy of the designation of "humans"? Did we view them only as savages, people to be swept off the face of the earth?
   I do not know the motives of the American colonists. I only say if their motives were honorable, their history was honorable. But, if they sought to administer death to a people they could have lived among, what they did, indeed, is a stain upon our nation.

(Note: Some editing and adjustments were made and a new head added the morning of 11/24/18/)
War is when 
we murder each other, 
but refuse to call it murder.
--

Thursday, November 22, 2018

The Saints-Falcons Game: Where was the Press When We Needed it?

Why is this not a news story? Why is it millions of Thanksgiving NFL TV watchers witnessed it today, yet it is going unnoticed?
  I could hardly believe my eyes. I had to come home, and watch it on YouTube to verify I saw it correctly.
   Now, as you know, the National Anthem kneeling controversy swept the nation last season, cutting into league revenues. This season? Not so much.
  But, let me ask: If -- during the Star-Spangled Banner -- most black athletes were not placing their hands over their hearts, while most whites were -- wouldn't that be a story?
   Of some kind.
   I mean, just a little bit of a story
   At least as a follow-up to the flag controversy, right?
   No. Wrong. It is more than a follow-up; It is a continuation. Perhaps, any way, though I guess it depends on why they didn't have their hands over their hearts. If these players are not placing their hands over their hearts as a way of showing support for the blacks they feel are being discriminated against -- if they are just doing that instead of kneeling -- it is all the same controversy.
  And, reporters are sitting there watching this, and not reporting on it? Yes, I must wonder what is going on. Why is the press not reporting this?
  Let's say you watched Holli Conway singing the National Anthem before the Saints-
Falcon game today, and you counted about five white players who put their hands over their hearts, and none who didn't. Let's say you counted about two black players who placed their hand over their heart, while maybe eight did not.
  Just a coincidence, I suppose, right?
  Certainly, nothing to write about.
  In another controversy in our nation -- about whether the press is an enemy of the people, I have stood with the press. But, I cannot excuse the press on this matter. Even if you don't approve of the kneelers (or those who don't place their hands over their hearts), and even if you can see the NFL suffered financially because of the controversy, and even if you don't want to hurt the NFL . . .
   News is news. You're a newsperson. You don't ignore the story and look the other way and hope it will go away; You write it. This is America. We call you the fifth estate. You are a part of the democratic process. If you abdicate on that responsibility, America fades a little bit from being America.

Wednesday, November 21, 2018

Why is No One Delivering Thanksgiving to the Migrants?

   If these migrants at the border are in need, if they are poor and afflicted and persecuted . . .
   And, if we in America are so good, and charitable, and caring . . .
   And, if it is Thanksgiving (I'm just thinking, just supposing) . . .
   Well, I kind of wish some group here would get a bunch of Thanksgiving dinners over to them. No, I don't just wish; I'm disappointed in us that this it isn't happening.
   Or, maybe it is. Maybe I just haven't heard.
   I do hope it happens. This is America. I believe in the people of this land. I believe many of them are good and caring. I believe they reach out to those in need.
   So, I want to see it happen so I can keep on believing in the goodness of the people of our land. Oh, I guess I will keep on believing. I do know these people exist. They are all around me. I just hate to see that none of them are stepping forward at this time -- that they, instead, are either themselves swallowed up by a disrespect of the migrants, or they are afraid of offending those who would be outraged if someone stepped across the border to offer them Thanksgiving meals.

Tuesday, November 20, 2018

Obstructionist Government isn't Good Government

  If a government entity were asked to process marriage applications, and 1,000 came in, and it only processed 100, that wouldn't be considered good government. If a government entity didn't fulfill its mandated job, wouldn't that be dereliction of duty?
  So, why is it okay with us that the San Ysidro Port of Entry is processing only 100 applicants a day? Neither is this good government. If as many as many as 10,000 might show, shouldn't efforts be made to process their applications in a timely manner?
   Don't you want good government? Isn't that the goal? Or, do you argue for a government that stands in the way of its own job?
  In an unprecedented move, thousands of soldiers called to the border. And yet not many -- if any --  additional workers to process the applications. Is this justice? Well, is it just to be denied due process of law? Is it even constitutional?
   This goes beyond whether you are going to accept or deny their applications. This is a question of whether you will give these migrants their day in court. Argue, if you will, that many court cases take six months before they come to trial. I will argue that in this case, you are putting them off a purpose -- without just cause.
   I read how 70,000 vehicles come through the gates each day at the San Ysidro Port of Entry. Seventy-thousand! Plus, another 20,000 people walk through the pedestrian entry each day.
   That's got to be more than 100,000 people a day! You cannot tell me the San Ysidro Port of Entry and the two other port of entries in the San Diego area cannot be retrofitted to process more refugee cases.
   If government has a job, and it doesn't do it, that isn't good government. And, if government stands in the way of justice, why is that not to be considered obstruction of justice?
 

Monday, November 19, 2018

If the Fence Lacks Legal Standing, You should be Allowed to Jump it

   You are not entering America illegally if you enter it the way law specifies. If law says you go to the port of entry, and present yourself for asylum, then why would that not be considered legal entry? The law specifies it.
   And, if there's a fence between you and the port of entry? Should you crawl over it? Would that be legal?
   Do not confuse this with entering on someone's private property. You are not. This is federal land. And, federal land comes with designated uses. If the land in question is designated, in part, for entry of asylum seekers, you are using the land only for the designated purpose.
   So, again, what about a fence, should you want to crawl over it? If you damage that fence, there could be charges for damaging federal property. But, just crawling over it? If there is nothing illegal about entering that port of entry, crawling over a fence that lacks legal standing to stop you, then, is not illegal.
  I would guess our federal troops have strung barbed wire, or such, across the top of the fence, making it difficult or impossible to crawl across it. What then? If they can't jump the fence, then what of just walking through the pedestrian lanes at the port of entry? The migrants considered such a surge today, and the San Ysidro Port of Entry closed for a few hours.

Sunday, November 18, 2018

Of Starfish and Jellyfish and of Their Washing up on Our Shore

   I think of the old story of the person walking along a beach, picking up starfish and tossing them back in, and someone comes along and says, "You can't save them all. Why do you even try?" Today, the story line has changed. The person is walking along the beach, picking up starfish and examining them to see if they are starfish worth saving. If they are veteran starfish, or firefighter starfish, he saves them. But, if they are immigrant starfish, he looks at them and asks what they are doing on his beach, and by what right they rode the waves that got them there. These waters near the shore are his, he reminds them, and they should not be swimming in them if they do not belong. Then, he stoops down to pick up another one -- and is stung as soon as his fingers touch it., "No, you are not a starfish at all," he says. "You are a jellyfish," And, with that, he concludes to pick up no more starfish for fear of being stung by another jellyfish. 
   So, what it boils down to is this: Are we judging fairly? Are the thousands of caravan migrants no more than starfish? Is it not enough just to refuse the jellyfish? Or, must we refuse all the starfish, as well?
  
I see a meme on Facebook from David N Smeltz, but shared by one of my own Facebook friends, that says:
It is not right when an elderly person on SS has to pay out there whole check on medication. Immigrants get it free!
And, I reply:
I thought back to the quote you offered from Abraham Lincoln as I read this, and of how if our nation is to fall, it must fall from within. I commented then that I was reflecting on possible ways this might be happening. What if the enemy knew they didn't need to ever fire a shot, that they could divide us from within? Gary, our Intelligence Community has told us the Russians are seeking to divide us, that they are using social media to divide us. This is not a conspiracy theory (unless you suppose the FBI and CIA belief in conspiracy theories), it is fact. So, if we know the Russians are seeking to spread hatred and division on Facebook, shouldn't we look at what we are seeing and look for posts that are divisive and at least wonder? Most of them might not be from the Russians (this one appears to have been generated by a regular person, but it does imitate the theme of a lot of others). I'm just saying, if we know the Russians are fomenting hatred and division and we know they are using Facebook, which of all the posts we seeing even qualify as candidates? Ones like this one do.

Saturday, November 17, 2018

If You do it the Way the Law Says, how are You Breaking the Law?

   The thought is, if the caravan migrants crawl over the fence, instead of through an open gate, they are coming illegally.
   Are they? Is this true?
   I think on how national and international law says one of the ways of applying for asylum is to present yourself upon entry, and to ask for that asylum at that time.
   If the process says that is the way you do it, how is it illegal? If the law says do it this way, and you do it that way, how are you breaking the law?
  Perhaps I need to find the actual text for the national and international laws. Perhaps that would clear it up for me. Maybe the laws specify or indicate you cannot crawl over a wall or a fence or a gate.

The Tale of the Man on Tossing Starfish back into the Sea has Changed


I see the following post on Facebook, from a Sybele Capezzuti:

California doesn't have enough shelters for evacuees fleeing wild fires, but their arms are opened to migrants 

And, I post my reply:
Another meme sowing seeds of division, pitting one needy people against another and suggesting we can only help one. I think of the story of the man walking on the beach, picking up starfish as he goes and tossing them back into the sea. Another man comes along and criticizes him, saying, "You can't save them all." These days, the story line has changed a little. These days, the man walks along the beach, picking up the starfish, and examines them before deciding whether to toss them back in the sea. "Are you a Democrat or a Republican?" he asks. "Does your cause even have anything to do with helping those who we Republicans care about, because I've only got time and money for them."
I would like to say the Democrats are the same way, but I don't see that. They seem willing to help everybody.

If We Believe in Rule of Law, We Let Them in for Political Persecution

  Consider on the five categories of people, one of which you must belong to in order to qualify for asylum. One of them leaves the door wide open for many people to qualify under.
  Race, religion, nationality, political beliefs, and social group.
  If a government intimidates its people in any way to vote for it, that constitutes persecution based on political belief. If a government forces its people to support it -- in any way persecuting them -- it is those people's right to take asylum in another country. If a political group or rebel group is killing people in order to gain a political advantage, the whole general population of that nation is being persecuted based on political beliefs. Death is persecution; It works that way. The threat of death and the fear of death is persecution. 
  You might call this a loophole in the law, but it is only a loophole if you think it is not good reason for letting them come. If you think it is good reason, it is not a loophole. Either way, it is the law, and living by the law is living by the law. If the law gives you a right, then it is rule of law that must be kept, not whether you do not think the law is not just because of your personal beliefs. It is the law, itself, allowing them to come, not a loophole allowing them to circumvent that law.
  If we believe in rule of law, we let them come. Circumventing the law and trying to get around it is when you do not let them come. Believing in rule of law is believing in rule of law. If you believe in it, you let them come.