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.

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.

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?

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.’ ” 

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.

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.

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.
--

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.

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.

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?
 

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.

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.

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.
 

That They Come for Economic Reasons should not Disqualify Them

   They are coming for economic reasons, goes the argument, and not to escape persecution. So, why must we let them in? Nothing in the law allows them to come for economic reasons.

  Because a person can be seeking entry truly more for economic reasons yet it is the persecution that qualifies them. That you are economically deprived and that is why you want to come, does not erase the fact you are persecuted and that is why you qualify.

 Trumpty Dumpty built a great wall
Trumpty Dumpty had a great fall
 All the king's horses all the king's men
Couldn't put Trumpty together again

  The wall that be built, he sat on like a thrown
He told the people to stay on land of their own
  But so many there were, they knocked the wall down
And down came the wall, and the man with the crown

  Thought of this poem (which I wrote back when Trump was just assuming his presidency) as the migrant caravans began arriving, and I heard of one of the refugees saying he was going to wait till the rest arrived, so they could all storm the fence at once.

We Could Figure Out what's Wrong with Our Health-Care System

  Solving our health care system mess might be fairly easy, after all. Simply make it a study of incentives. Look at the current system -- the components -- and look at the incentives created by each of them.
  Where you place your carrots determines where the rabbit comes to feed. If we would just stop and consider everything about our current system, and what carrots there are in each place, we would figure out what we are doing wrong.

That They Oppose this Bill Doesn't Speak Well of Them

    Why would anyone oppose such a bill? The bill calls for justice, that's all. It would prohibit President Trump from firing Robert Mueller. But, Republican leaders are opposed to such a bill -- not even letting it come up for vote -- because they say Trump isn't going to fire Mueller.
Pass the bill, anyway. Special counsels should not be subject to the presidents they are investigating. And, with Jeff Sessions having been forced out of office, is it -- as the Republican leaders are asserting -- a foregone conclusion Trump will not take action against the Mueller investigation?
   Of course you pass this bill. Why anyone would oppose it only leaves you to wonder that they might not want justice.
   Two side notes, though:
   One, if you don't pass the bill, and leave Trump open to firing Mueller, and he does fire Mueller, that is obstruction of justice.
   Two, if you do fire Mueller, what good will that do? By now, the investigation must be close to being wrapped up. What has been collected, has been collected. You can fire Mueller, but you can't set fire to the evidence.

Why is Our Free-Market System more Expensive than Other Systems?

  In America, we believe in the free-market system. And, we believe it holds prices down. Competition always does that.
  So, it should strike us as a little odd that we pay the highest prices of any nation for our health care. What, do we say: that we have wandered from what we pretend to be? That we are not as free market as we suppose we are? Or, do we suggest the free market system isn't working, after all?
  Look at the countries with nationalized medicine. Look at the countries with one-payer systems. How do we explain that their systems are less expensive than ours?
   Our is not the free-market system at its best. It is a system in need of overhaul.

Rescue Efforts don't Come with the Directive: 'Rescue Yourself'

  I consider on the suggestion that rather than allowing the migrants into the U.S., we should teach them to fight for the betterment of their own countries. Am I fair to make this comparison: Suppose someone was attacked in an alley, and the cops came along just then, and -- seeing the person was in danger -- tossed them a knife, saying, "You need to learn to fend for yourself."
  It is said, "Never take a knife to a gun fight," and I'm not so sure but what asking them to stand up and fight the gangs and governments comes with the same level of expectation.
   Rescue efforts don't usually come with the directive, "Rescue yourself," but that's what we're asking them to do.

Timely Post by Boyd Matheson in the Deseret News

   Amazing how timely Boyd Matheson piece in the Deseret News is. The story went online Friday, and the hard copy hit the news stands today. Boyd discusses how there is a the difference between Country First and America First.
  And, now comes French President Emmanuel Macron just today, in effect rebuking President Trump for his nationalism. Nationalism is not patriotism, he said in what might have been one of the hallmark speeches of our time.  The news story I read also spoke of how of how nationalism is what brought about World War I. Evidently, some of the sentiment of those at the meeting was, in essence, "President Trump, attitudes like yours caused the Great War in the first place."
  I think you have to feel for President Trump at this moment. He was embarrassed on an international stage. Still, it occurs to me that his America First agenda does have a conflict with his Make America Great Again motto. Part of America's greatness is that it is a world leader. And, if you are to lead the world, you have to persuade the other nations you have their interests at heart. They won't be following you and you won't be leading them if you don't even suppose to care about them. If your message, in essence, is, "We don't care about you. All we care about is ourselves," you aren't setting yourself up as a leader of nations. 
   We can abdicate our role as a leader of nations. We can step away from our longstanding role as a leader to the world. But, I doubt that is the way making America great again is going to be achieved, and I doubt this attitude will last.
   America is a natural leader in the world. Whether it rebounds during Trump's administration, or after he is gone, America will return. It will send more of a message that it is, indeed,  interested in the welfare of other nations.
   And, that is an attitude you must have if you are to lead them.

Note: Edited a little 11/12/18, but still haven't gave it a careful read to consider it edited.

Jim Acosta did no Wrong

  Jim Acosta. I find no fault with his conduct at the press conference. He kept the tenor of his voice amenable. He simply expressed some things to leave them for President Trump to comment on. That is what a press conference is all about. I don't see that Acosta yanked the mike away when the White House aide tried to take it from him. She grabbed at it and he simply refused to yield it to her. Did he in any way strike at her? Not at all. When she reached in to grab the mike, their hands and arms did touch. That is not his fault, as he was not the one initiating the contact.
   So, banning him from the White House press conferences? I think that not justified. Is this an intrusion of freedom of speech? Yes, to an extent, it is. It is restricting the press, in that it takes away his access to report. It is punishing him for what he said, thus punishing a person who was expressing free speech.
   Acosta was contending that the migrant caravan coming up through Mexico does not constitute an invasion. Trump (in essence) said, That is your opinion, Mr. Acosta. Why don't you stick to running CNN and let me run the nation? Then, he said something like, Enough, enough, and seemed to be motioning for someone to cut Acosta off. And, that is when they tried to take the microphone away from him..


 

Truth does not go Away just because it Enters a Political Realm

   Truth does not go away just because it enters a political realm. If a principle exists, it exists. If a rule of human nature exists, it exists. If something is right or wrong, it is right or wrong even on a public stage. If you are not to gossip, and not to spread false rumors, those things apply to public life as well as to private. If you are not to wrongfully judge, then you are not to wrongfully judge those in the news any quicker than those in your community.
  If you are to love others, you are to love others. If it is good to help others, it is good help not just the neighbor next door, but the people across the sea.
   Or across the border.
   "When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in?" the scripture asks. Does the validity of the scripture end when it enters on political grounds? Or, are we expected to take people into our nation just as quickly as we are into our individual homes?
  Our public lives should equal our private lives, and the morals we practice in one should also be practiced in the other.
   I think of the hatred toward the immigrant.  Or, do we just -- as we are wont to say -- hate the sin but not the sinner? I wonder if we use such words to justify what might be considered a sin, itself. For, are we using the phrase to justify ill feelings towards others -- specifically, the migrants flowing this way across Mexico?
   We have ill feelings towards them, even angry feelings. Is that not hatred? If it were hatred just for what they are doing, the feelings would not be directed at them, themselves.
   And, what of these sins of theirs? Are we justified as calling them sins? The sin? Crossing our borders illegally. The sin? Coming to take advantage of our welfare system. The sin? Being terrorists or members of MS-13.
   I think on how it is wrong to wrongfully judge. I think of how I have been taught great harm exists in a rumor. Are there terrorists among the migrants? Or, is that just a rumor? What is the harm that swirls in the path of this rumor -- the rumor that there are terrorists among them? And, what if a terrorist or two does sneak among the whole? Does that mean the whole of them should be rejected from entering America? One bad apple . . .
   Understand that the migrants would have freedom in America. If a rumor can shut them down, the damage is freedom itself. When hurtful words come on a public stage, they shut down the refuge of a needy people. Without those words, the immigrants receive safe. But once enough people believe in the witness against them, the immigrant is stopped at the border, or turned back around if found across the border.
   "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor," says the commandment. And, if that is true, it is true that we should bear false witness against those trudging this way from Honduras. False witness? I read the definition in the dictionary: "Speaking unjustly against our neighbor, to the prejudice of his reputation." And, I think of the reputation of a whole class of people, and how they are thought ill of from what is said.
   Is it wrong to wrongfully judge? We hear stories of how these migrants join in prayer circles as they trudge on foot across the length of a nation. We hear how they tote their Bibles and call on their God. We hear that they are but fleeing poverty and oppression. Are we then to judge them to be different than that? Do we take a beggar for a terrorist? Do we so accuse them? If we take the poor and oppressed, and not only deny to let them in, but paint them as the worst of criminals in the process, wherein lies the greater sin? In them, or in us?
   What then, you may ask, of their coming here, and ending up on our welfare rolls? Well, charity comes with a price; It comes with a bill. Do we expect to provide charity without expending any money? We will help, as long as it doesn't cost any money? "Our own" -- as we call them -- also end up on charity. Is being on welfare a "sin" that they commit, as well? If we hate the sin and not the sinner, consider we must be saying it is a sin for people to be on welfare.
   And, what of their coming illegally? If a person were assaulted on his home property, and he fled to find refuge in his neighbor's yard, would that neighbor scream at him for trespassing? Would he say. "Listen, I don't mind you coming into my yard, but next time, call me up and get my permission before you come."
   Why is it so different if their lives are in jeopardy, and we are telling them they must wait years for the immigration process?
   Yes, some of these people come not to escape crime, but for economic reasons. Of them? Consider back to the scripture we started with? I will paraphrase it: When saw we thee naked, or hungry, and did not take thee in?
   The scripture doesn't lose value just because it enters on the public stage, just because it is a nation that must give the charity and not a person.

Gratitude is the attitude 

of those traveling through life at the right altitude. 


Note added 10-12-18: After I posted this, I got thinking it sounded familiar. Just googled, and it is not original. Whoever it is who said it, said it this way, “Gratitude is the attitude that sets the altitude for living,”

Until a Nation agrees on Decency, it will never agree on Compassion

   Compassion? Yes, there are calls for inserting this into our immigration policy.

   But, until a nation agrees on decency, it will never agree on compassion. Until it agrees on what is the decent and right thing to do, it will never see the need to be charitable and loving. Some believe the decent and right thing to do is to keep them out so they do not overburden our system.

   Compassion? Love of others? This love of others may depend on whether we perceive the immigrants as being worthy of our love.  If we see them as gangsters and terrorists, we will not be inclined to compassion. If we see them as spoilers of our economy, we may turn from compassion and charity. If we see them as welfare bums, we will not want to let them in. If we see them as being criminals and intruders for coming without permission and against our will, our feelings will not be those of compassion.

   So, if you can wrongfully throw a negative label on them, you can stand in the way of their freedom. The question is,  are all these negative labels justified? Of the thousands of those migrating this way, how many are terrorists, and how many are Christians -- often gathering in prayer circles as they press along their way? Should we block them all if a few MS-13ers have slipped in among them?

   Are we taught it is a vice to wrongfully judge? Do we quote scripture saying judge that ye be not judged? Our compassion will depend on how we judge these people. If we judge them wrongfully  -- and, yes, I believe classifying a beggar as a terrorist is a wrongful judgment -- we will not be inclined to compassion. 

   A wrong sense of decency and wrongful judgment of them will not translate into compassion and will not translate into letting them in. 

If it is America's Constitution, the Freedoms must come in America

   You aren't granting freedom if you say someone must go to another country to get it.
  There stands a promise in the Declaration of Independence, that all men are created equal and granted certain unalienable rights, and that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
   We tell them -- these immigrants -- we are not depriving them of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness just because we deport them back to their countries of origin. We tell them those rights are still theirs, it's just that they must go back to Honduras to enjoy them. We tell them that being removed from American soil does not take away their unalienable rights one iota.
   I would ask, America. is this so? If your Fourteenth Amendment says all people are granted life, liberty and property, then who is it granting these things to, and in what nation is it saying they are to enjoy these privileges?
   It says, "any person." That means everyone -- citizen or not.
   The Constitution governs the United States, not El Salvador, Guatemala or Honduras. If it grants life, liberty and property, it must follow that the recipient is being given those privileges in the United States, not elsewhere.
   You don't grant a freedom, and then tell that person, "Oh, but you must go elsewhere to enjoy it."

Was He Saying the U.S. had the Right to Forbid the LDS from Coming?

     Did once an honorable senator from Pennsylvania suggest people should not be expected to have to live in the same society as the Latter-day Saints?
     Did he suggest that when there are different races, different religions, and different traditions, the people already in possession of the land have the right to forbid entrance into their territory of those who are so different from them as are the LDS?
   Mind you, he was talking about immigration when he was talking. This Sen. Edgar Cowan is better remembered for his opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1866, warning it would allow women to enter contracts without the consent of their husbands.
  But, perhaps he left just as big a mark on the world with what he said on this related, but separate issue, immigration.
  Were his words echoes of attitudes already out there? Or, did some of the things he said plant seeds for what we as a nation became in regards to immigration? And, did all that was going on with the LDS people back then play a part as immigration attitudes were molded that remain in place to this day.
   The LDS had moved into such places as Missouri, where an existing populace, feeling they were there first, rejected them. The Missourians felt they were being invaded by a people more numerous, who would thus take over politically.
    Now, Cowan didn't speak to the LDS pouring into Missouri. That had come decades earlier. But, the situation he did speak to had likeness to what had happened in Missouri. Cowan spoke of California, and of the Chinese moving in there, and of them, "pouring in such an immigration as in a short time will double or treble the population of California."
  Then, Cowan unloaded the question that should ring in our souls as we consider what  the Missourians should have had the right to do when the LDS flooded their state. "I ask," Cowan said, "are the people of California powerless? . . . California has the right, if she deems it proper, to forbid the entrance into her territory of any person she chooses who is not a citizen of someone of the United States. She cannot forbid his entrance; but if she was likely to be invaded by a flood of Australians or people from Borneo -- man-eaters or cannibals, if you please -- she would have the right to say that those people should not come there. It depends on the inherent character of men. Why, sir, there are nations of people with whom theft is a virtue and falsehood a merit. There are people to whom polygamy is as natural as monogamy is with us."
   People who were as natural with polygamy as others were with monogamy? Could Sen. Cowan have been speaking of the LDS people? Many of them were pouring into America from foreign countries at the time. Should our nation have rightfully locked them out?
    Possession is nine-tenths of the law, they say. He who is here first has the right to exclude he who might come after, especially if the person coming isn't willing to homogenize with the people already in possession of the land.
   I think today of how we demand that they should speak English, among other things. The thought that they should adopt our ways if they want to live here echoes in the words of Sen. Cowan: "And, if another people of a different race, of different religion, of different manners, of different traditions, different tastes and sympathies are to come there and have the right to locate there and settle among them, and if they have opportunity of pouring in such an immigration as in a short period of time will double or treble the population of California, I ask, are the people of California powerless to protect themselves? . . . California has the right . . . to forbid the entrance . . ."
   I think of our day, of how Muslims have swept into Detroit in such numbers as to overtake the city. I think of places in Europe where we hear of similar situations. I hear the talk of how that isn't right. And, I hear the words of Sen. Cowan, echoing in my mind. "I ask, are the people of California powerless to protect themselves?"
   And, I think of the LDS people pouring into Missouri, and of the Missourians seeing the LDS as being an invasion of people who were, in the words of Sen. Cowan, "of different religion, of different manners, of different traditions, different tastes and sympathies."
   Do we, today, have the right to deny people entry into our country? Perhaps most everyone reading this would say, "Certainly -- certainly and without question."
   But, then, by the same token, should the Missourians have been allowed to lock out the LDS? For surely if they could have, they would have. You might argue that those moving into Missouri were already citizens. But I will tell you that somewhere back in the timeline of the LDS people migrating, many of them came from foreign countries.
    And, they weren't welcome. They believed differently. For one thing, they believed in polygamy.
   I am not so sure but what I believe the LDS had an inalienable right to come. And, if we believe that, then what of the preposterous thought that those coming from Mexico and from Central and South America have the inalienable right to come?
   That is a preposterous thought to some, but not to me.
    I will close with one more thought. We didn't have laws restricting immigration until along about that time. But, following a large wave of migration -- which included so much of the early LDS migration -- our nation said, enough is enough, and began to enact laws against immigration. That was the starting point.
   The backlash against immigration leading to the laws we have today was, in at least a little part, a backlash against the LDS people. Smoke this in that pipe you're not allowed to smoke: Our is a heritage of having helped to foster the immigration attitudes and laws that we have today.

Pledging to the Flag he Refuses to Pledge, His Cause Should be Ours .

   If I pledge to the flag, am I pledging to support Colin Kaepernick's cause?
   I do wonder. When I pledge, do I pledge not only to the flag, but to that for which it stands?  For, if I do, right at the end of the pledge, it says, "with liberty and justice for all." Am I not pledging to support justice for all? Is that not all that Kaepernick is advocating?
   The cause of the Cap? Frankly, I think it a just one. I believe black people do suffer more at the hands of police than do white people. The statistics are there, so why should I doubt? Do not I, too, want justice for all?
  He is not so different than us, this Colin Kaepernick. We both want that which is good and right and just. He looks at a flag not offering those things, and declines to pledge it. I can respect that. I look at that same flag, and see that it promises the very things Kaepernick is asking for, and I pledge to support it.
   So, if I pledge to a belief in justice for all, I pledge to the same cause Kaepernick advocates. We need not be enemies on this matter, but both on the same side.
   If we truly pledge to the flag he refuses to pledge, his cause should be our cause.
  (Edited he slightly revised 11/7/18)

We should judge ourselves 

by the enemies we pick.

I Will Wonder at How Good People Fight Against that which is Good

   We should judge ourselves by who we choose to battle against.
   What does it say of us, if we choose for enemies those who seek to do good, or those who are in need? Frankly, I do not know that it is a measurement of our character, for I know too many wonderful and good people who choose for enemies those who are good and that which is good. But, I still wonder, knowing our choice of enemies does say something about us.
   I think of Colin Kaepernick. What is our need to speak evil of a man who seeks but social justice? Frankly, I think his cause is just. I believe black people do suffer more pain at the hands of police than do white people. The statistics are there, so why should I doubt them? Do not I, too, want justice for all?
   I think of the immigrants, coming up from Mexico, and from Central and South America. We choose to make these our enemy? We choose people fleeing from violence and from poverty? This is the enemy of our choice? We would make opposition to them a rallying cry as we go to the election polls?
   Yes, we should judge ourselves by who we choose to battle against. If we choose to fight against good causes, it does not speak well of us. But, I will look at all the good folks I find in the camp of the oppressors and wonder. I will wonder at how good people can be led to fight against that which is good.

What is the Need to Speak Evil of Malcolm X and Colin Kaepernick?

  I thought of Malcolm X as I arrived home tonight, and then of Colin Kaepernick as I sat down to read a Facebook thread. I wondered at the hatred of them. You may say it is not hatred, and, if it is not, it is very ill feelings against them. I wonder why. I cannot see justifiable reason. A friend on Facebook said Kaepernick feigns altruism. What would be the basis for saying that? Now, if Kaepernick is a fake, then pointing it out is okay. But, before you so impugn his character, you should have good basis, and not be just making a wild accusation.
   Character assassination, you know.
   I see good in both of them -- in Malcolm X and Colin Kaepernick. I see principled men, fighting for what they believe is right. Why do we make villains out of them, then? If these were wicked men, with wicked causes, I could understand. But, they are not. They are principled people doing all they can to forward what they see as a righteous cause. What is the need for us to step in and speak evil of them?

The Differences and Parallels to This and the Last Time

   Comes a post on Facebook:
   "U.S. Military are being deployed on home soil for the first time since the Civil War. Think about that for a minute."
   I think to consider the similarities, the differences, and the parallels. I don't have much time to think, but can spot a few.
   Back then, the people in question were slaves, they or their ancestors being forced to come here against their own will. They couldn't vote. They were not considered citizens with equal rights and privileges. They were here as laborers, grooming our crops.
    Today, they people in question are not in slavery, but fleeing from oppressed conditions even as the slaves were oppressed. It is not their own will they come against, but our will. They can't vote. They are denied citizenship. They are told they have no rights and privileges in this land. Often they come as laborers, to groom our crops.
    The military back then stood for their rights. Today, it opposes them.
   Ours was a nation divided back then. The decades before had led to an increasing division. Some were with the slaves, and argued for their freedom. Others were against the slaves, and argued for their continued suppression and denial of their rights. Even so today, decades of being divided on this issue have led up to the moment of military deployment. It might be suggested that never since the Civil War has our nation been so deeply divided as it is today, albeit the immigration question is not the only cause.
    Back then, there was a war force on their side. This time, there is no war force on their side.
   It will be argued by many that back then, they belonged; This time, they don't.
    Back then, the president was their chief advocate. Today, he is their chief antagonist. A president rose to power back then in large part as a result of his support for the people in question. Today, a president has risen to power in large part because of his opposition to the people in question.

Here's the History on an Executive Order being all that's Needed

You may find this fascinating, so read on.

I am in favor of birthright citizenship. The Constitution does call for it. But, one of those involved in writing the Fourteenth Amendment believed otherwise. If he were alive today, he would stand with President Trump in saying the Fourteenth Amendment doesn't grant the children of the undocumented the right to citizenship. Now, if this is right, then an executive order is the right thing to do and is not out of order.

Sen. Jacob M. Howard, arguing for inclusion of the phrase, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," said the Fourteen Amendment, "will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."

Howard did not want American Natives -- if I can use that term -- and children of gypsies born here but who remained (perhaps in his mind) foreigners, to have citizenship. He felt inclusion of the phrase, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," achieved this. In the Senate debate on the Fourteenth Amendment, there was a long discussion about Native Americans. It was noted they didn't fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S. They didn't pay taxes, and they didn't answer to our laws, so they clearly weren't under our jurisdiction. So, Howard and others felt inclusion of the phrase, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," excluded them from birthright citizenship.

The Senate discussion on gypsies (many of whom were immigrants) was not as extensive as that of American Natives, But apparently Howard felt the same way about them. They wandered from place to place and town to town without really becoming subject to the laws of the land. They didn't vote and they didn't pay taxes. So, it appears Howard felt that by inserting the language, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," gypsies -- which were the 1866 version of "illegal aliens" -- were excluded from birthright citizenship.

So, as much as President Trump is being castigated and derided for suggesting he has the right to get rid of birthright citizenship with the stroke of his pen, what he says is not without some basis. At least one of those involved in the drafting of the Fourteenth Amendment would agree with him.

The 14th Amendment, Sans Lawyers, Doesn't Allow for Deportation

   I suggest we all are prejudiced if we cannot see the Fourteenth Amendment grants "illegal" immigrants the right to remain in the United States, and protects them against deportation.
   Words have meaning long before lawyers come along to corrupt them. Read those words, then, and just look at what they say.
    Sans a lawyer.
    And, sans your prejudice. Sans what you already believe, for you've already been prejudiced. Long before you sat down to read the Fourteenth Amendment, you were taught that we have the right to deny people entry into the United States. Fine, if you believe that we have that right, but should you be coloring the Fourteenth Amendment with these biases that have been taught to you?
   All I'm asking, is that you think for yourself.
   It is the nature of man to search for reasons -- excuses -- for why they are right. Regardless what truth exists, you can find reason to dismiss it. Now, if you have already determined to search for reasons I am wrong, you will rationalize your way to maintaining your belief.
   Dirt can be found on a pavement, but it does not mean the pavement is a dirt road. Regardless what specks you try to cover the truth with, the truth will remain.
   So, here we go. And, as we sail off on this adventure, I beg you set aside your biases and don't prosecute the words of the amendment, but view them as if for the first time, just looking at what they actually say.
    "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
   Yes, you might suggest the rights granted in the first portion of the amendment do not apply to the "illegal" immigrant. But, consider the final 31 words:
   "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
   It does not say "any citizen," it says, "any person." Does not "any person" mean everyone? Surely, then, it includes those who migrated here without our permission as quick as it does those who were born and raised here.
   And, what does it say is to become of "any person?" It says that that person is not to be deprived of life, liberty, or property, nor denied the equal protection of the laws. Equal protection does not mean you let one person stay and kick another one out. Equal doesn't work that way. If you are to protect one, you must protect them all. So, if you create a law, you create a law that applies to them all equally.
   Your law must apply to everyone -- not just those born here. It must apply to those who migrated here, just as well. So, if your Constitution says every person is to be allowed life, liberty, and property, then everyone is everyone and everyone is to have those freedoms. Now, if a lawyer gets hold of those words, he might suggest they can march right back to Mexico or South America to get their life, liberty, and property, so they aren't really being deprived those rights. But, do the words of the Fourteenth Amendment require that?  Do the words say they must go elsewhere for their freedom? Is there anything there to suggest we are talking about anywhere but here in the United States? Are there words suggesting that, yes, you can deprive them of life in the United States, and liberty in the United States, and property in the United States, as long as you chase them off to another country where they can get those freedoms?
  I don't believe so. The Constitution outlines the freedoms to be enjoyed here -- in America -- not in some foreign land. If you don't let a lawyer peer over your shoulder and shift the freedoms from this to another country, it should be clear those freedoms are to be enjoyed right here in this land.
   Before lawyers get hold of them, words already have their meanings. Lawyers might seek to twist the truth, and to insert things that are not there, but when you clear away the varnish, the truth comes forth again.
   In conclusion, I have suggested you look at this issue unbiased. You might say that is heavy-handed of me. You might ask how it is I am not the one being biased. Well, truth is truth. It only knows one master. Alternate truth is not something that exists. If one person says the sun sets at night and the other says it does not, only one of them is seeing the truth. Yes, I think I have thought this thing through. Yes, I think it is clear. If you think it through, though, and still hold to your belief, that, too, is okay. What I'm saying is, all of us think things through, best we can, and of course we think we are right, and of course we think it is ourselves who are being unbiased.
   So, yes, I think I am right and, yes, I think I am being unbiased. But, I realize well you might think it is you are right and unbiased. You might beg with me to put aside my biases, and to study it more carefully in order to know the truth. Bless us both.
 

The Words of the Fourteenth Suggest the Undocumented can Stay

   If you want the law to say those who are under the jurisdiction of the U.S. are those who have voting rights and who can be drafted, and that that will not include those who are of undocumented status, you better say that. Otherwise, "under the jurisdiction thereof," does, indeed, include anyone who is subject to the laws of the land. Say what you mean, if you want it to mean what you mean.
   So, if you can arrest them (hmm, if you suppose to have power to deport them), they are under your jurisdiction. Inserting this language into the Constitution only added to the right of the undocumented to be considered as citizens, for they are, along with the rest of us, "under the jurisdiction thereof," and therefore, along with the rest of us, qualify for citizenship as far as that criterion goes.
   The Fourteenth Amendment goes on to say that no state shall deprive "any person" of life, liberty, or property without due process, nor deny "any person within its jurisdiction" the equal protection of the laws. Even if you hold to the well-accepted belief that the undocumented are not to be considered citizens, this language gives them all the protections afforded citizens. Any person is any person, regardless their immigration status.
   Some argue this does not give them equal protection from the law, but only the equal protection of the law. But, I would suggest that no one -- whether they be an undocumented person or a citizen -- has protection from the law, in the sense that they are not answerable to it. So, what is your point? We all remain equal. What you probably are trying to suggest is that since the law says they can't be here, they can't be here, for there is no protection from the law. I would suggest, though, that equal means equal. If you are turning the phrase to suggest it does not mean equal protection from the law, you are wrong. It does mean that. If you are going to be equal in your protections from law, you cannot exclude the immigrant from your protections. Equal doesn't work that way. If the rest of us are protected from the passage of any law that would deport us, then so are the immigrants. "Any person" means any person.
  So, why does the Fourteenth Amendment not mean, then, that no person -- regardless of immigration status -- shall not be deprived of life in the United States, nor liberty in the United States, nor property in the United States?
   I do sometimes wonder that when we speak of the Constitution being inspired, we should consider on the the way the words of the Fourteenth Amendment fell together, despite debate that would have excluded these undocumented people. When all was set down and on paper, the much-vilified and so-called "illegal alien" remained with as much right to be here as the rest of us.
   Perhaps the working of A Divine Hand? I do not know, but I wonder.