In Exchange for $5.7 Billion and that Wall, Give Us Justice

  We speak of compromise. If we are to give the president his $5.7 billion for a wall, is there something we could get in return that is worth the price of the wall and worth letting him build the wall? There is: Justice. Demand that in exchange for the $5.7 billion and in exchange for building the wall, the U.S. provides a judicial system that processes the cases in a Constitutionally timely manner. If we are asking for nothing more than justice of our president, and he is getting his $5.7 billion for a wall, he will not be in position to say no. And, if the immigrants are getting a way to enter the country legally, they will not be stopped if the wall is built anyway. So build it. 

  At the San Ysidro Port of Entry, alone, only 40-100 asylum applications a day are opened. This though there have been thousands arriving at the border, just wanting to come in legally, just asking for their day in court. By comparison, maybe 100,000 people (wikipedia reports 70,000 vehicles plus 20,000 pedestrians) a day pour northward into America at that same border crossing. The funny thing is, the illegal drugs flow in with the legal crossings. Few illegal drugs come across with immigrants crossing illegally. When President Trump went to McAllen, Texas, weeks ago, they presented him with a pile of illegal drugs they had confiscated -- and the whole pile had been collected at the ports of entry.

  So, if we find the manpower to process 100,000 people passing back into the U.S. each day, why cannot we find  the manpower to process more than 40-100 asylum seekers? That's a thousand-to-one ratio! One possibility is that we do not want to process them. We do not want them here, so we circumvent the justice that would allow them to be here. We purposefully under staff the process because we purposefully want to undermine their coming here.

  These are people wanting to come legally, mind you. And, this is in a country where the Sixth Amendment calls for a speedy and fair legal system. What, do we not believe in our own Constitution? Doe our desire to keep them out exceed our desire to provide justice?  

   If we can process 100,000 people entering America at the San Ysidro Port of entry each day, it seems we should be able to start -- in some fashion -- a hundredth of that in asylum applications. Just 1000 a day. Maybe do no more than ask them the six credible fear questions. Do it in automated fashion, with computer automation translating and asking the questions in their own languages. You cannot expect to staff an office with those who speak such little-known languages as the Quiche Mayan language. Nor can you provide justice by asking those who speak primarily only Quiche to answer questions in Spanish.

  Now, in our compromise with President Trump, he will need to provide justice not just at the border with the asylum seekers, but justice will need to be instituted in all our immigration courts throughout the land. Is it justice when they go in for an initial hearing and their cases are scheduled six months down the road? No, justice deferred is justice denied. There cases can -- and do -- take years to wind their way through the courts. Why cannot we settle these cases in a matter of weeks? We speak of catch-and-release, and to avoid it, we ship them to detention centers -- prisons, if you will. Is this justice? We are going to put you in prison while we decide if you are worthy of the freedoms America offers? We are going to make that last as long as we can because we really don't want you to have those freedoms. And, if we don't have you in these detention centers, but allow you to go back into the communities, we are not going to understand that sometimes you are just so frustrated with the long and drawn out process, that you simply fade away and do not come back because that is easier than trying to get through our system.

  One of the qualifiers for asylum is that you are persecuted for your political beliefs. I do not know that the law uses any word than than persecution. Legally, then, that covers a lot of distance. If a person's vote is taken away, or if they are intimidated to vote for someone, is that not a form of persecution? I think of Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela, and how the word is that the election wasn't fair. Does that, then, qualify as persecution? Is not taking away the freedoms of a nation a form of persecution? But, if we do not concede that that is enough to qualify as a group persecuted for political beliefs, consider that some have been killed for there climate change beliefs in Honduras. If they will kill you for that belief, can they not kill you for another belief? Do you not have right and reason to fear?

  I do not say, for the moment, what level of persecution you set, but, in dealing with President Trump, do establish and agree on some level. And, in establishing that bar, make it reasonable enough that those with just fears are allowed to receive asylum.

  A wall and the $5.7 billion it takes to build it is a small price for the justice we should demand in return. 

Injustice is in public opinion, as often as it is in anything.

Mob Mentality Leads to a Hanging Immigrant-Court Judge

 Sometimes, the person is innocent, but the judge comes in and hangs him from the highest tree. However rare, there are times the judge is so biased against a people, he doesn't give them a chance. He seeks and finds the "evidence," he needs to convict.
   What I'm saying, is there are times the innocent are convicted. There are times the judge can't even see his own wickedness. He will swear he is administering nothing but justice, when in reality he is meting out nothing but injustice.
   If prejudices can exist in the hearts of men, those who have them can find their way into judgeships. However often it is, it can -- and does -- happen.
   Think on the black people, and the cases in our history in which innocents were convicted of murders they didn't commit.
   It happened. It's real.
   And, if there can be an extreme, there can be gradations. If there will be judges whose biases are complete, there will be those whose judgments are flavored.
   By public opinion.
   If you have a nation that believes the immigrants are guilty, that they have no right to be here, that influence is going to carve its weight on your judges. Just as the hanging judge picks and chooses his evidence -- disregarding and tossing out what he doesn't want, and stretching to include things that true justice would leave out -- so, today, there are times we seek to convict more than we seek to free. There are times we are looking for reason to deport, times we won't even look at reason to stay.
   You please the public. If the public demands this, there is a tendency to do so.
    Some people are fair and balanced. Even so, some immigration judges are fair and balanced. But, so long as the principle of bias is a real thing, it will exist, even in your courts. And, there is no court in America where the pressure for bias is so great as it is in our immigration courts. If we can see there were black people convicted of murders they didn't commit, we should the same type of public pressure is going to be coming down on our immigration courts today.
  Mob mentality leads to mob justice, even when it isn't the people, but rather a judge, who is meting it out.

A Cure for Cancer Announced this Past Day?

   A cure for cancer was announced this past day? A cure has been found, at last? It made the news, but well behind all the Trump news and news of everything else. The pioneering company says it expects to have a "complete cure for cancer" within a year.
  I searched in vain for a news story online in the Deseret News, so little is the attention this is receiving.
  Accelerated Evolution Biotechnologies (AEBi): Get used to that name, for if this pans out, that company might soon have all the esteem of Apple and Google. How do you cure cancer, and not become as big as Steve Jobs or Elon Musk? People having been trying for decades. People (think of Jon Huntsman) have gone to their deaths trying.
   And, a cure was announced this past day, and simply buried beneath all the other news? Stories came out noting there have been false hopes before. Perhaps, that is why this did not make a bigger splash.
   Neat the company is out of Israel. To me, conquering cancer is a little end-of-timish. With the Millennium comes living a thousand years, and you don't get there by having cancer hanging around. That a cure comes out of God's chosen Israel seem appropriate.
   Now, clinical studies could take years. I wonder if society will wait. I wonder if the demand for being cured is so great, a short-cut to having this on the market will have to be accommodated.

The Backlog of Justice Just Got a Whole Lot Worse

   I stop dead at the wording. The Salt Lake Tribune article suggests 40,000 immigration cases were canceled as of Jan. 11 as a result of the government shutdown, with an estimate that 20,000 more would be canceled each week the shutdown continued.
   The story did not say the hearings have been postponed. No, it said they were canceled. Since when do you cancel a court case? Now, consider this as you mull on that question: While the immigration courts were shuttered, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers remained on their beats. The Salt Lake Tribune article opened with a story of a man who wanted to go into the immigration court and file to reopen his case, but couldn't because the court was closed. He was then picked up by ICE -- which was still open -- and deported.
   We'll do all we can to get rid of you. And canceled any efforts to save you.
   Since when do you cancel a court case? We might as well ask, since when do you cancel justice?
   These immigrants depend on a day in court in order to obtain justice. If you are not allowed to argue your case, is that justice?
   I realize that even when canceled, a case can be reopened. But, consider that our immigration courts are clogged with cases, and that the government shutdown backlogged them only so much the worse. Will it take months to catch up? Or years? Consider that many will never be reopened. Consider that even before the government shutdown, cases already were taking years to wind their ways through. Consider that the immigrants' rights -- and often their freedoms -- are on hold.
   Consider that by canceling a case, it means it basically must be started all over. Go back to Start. And, in the mean time, stay in jail, if that is where we've got you.
   It is all as if the government is saying, Whatever we can do to thwart your justice, we'll do it. We are not concerned about giving you justice, but only in what we see as justice -- and that is that you be gone.

Our Attitudes on Immigration have not Changed

   I read the story of the MS St. Louis this past week. Refugees, fleeing Hitler. About 900 of them. Cuba rejected them first, then the U.S. was among those countries that said no. And, why did we say no to this boatload of Jews? My reading indicates part of it might have been due to a fear of how many would follow.
    We could hardly take in all the Jews of Europe, and find room for them in America, was perhaps the thinking. Consider the millions who died in the Holocaust and imagine if America had tried to save them by giving them place in our country.
   So, has our attitude of immigration changed in all these years? The plight of those coming from Central America is not so dire as that of the Jews. Still, we know that the countries they are coming from are some of the most dangerous on earth. But, we do not let them come, because we say we have no room.
   The passengers of the St. Louis were eventually sent back to Europe. After disembarking, they were scattered to various nations. Germany then came calling during the war, temporarily taking over many of those countries, and a large number of the passengers of the St. Louis ended up victims of the Holocaust.
   Even so, we say today, There are other nations where you can go. Can you not find your refuge in Mexico?
   Mexico is not a safe country. We are repeating history in the way we are treating them. Our attitudes on immigration have not changed.

Automation Might First Overtake the Working Class

   We speak of the inevitability of automation, and how the day will come when many jobs will be lost to automation, and we wonder which jobs will go first.
   I wonder if we shouldn't factor in  who is making the decisions on which jobs to automate. If you are the supervisor, and you are deciding where to automate, do you save your own job, but automate out of existence the positions below you? If so, it is the working class who are first in jeopardy.

Perhaps More Living Along the Border Favor the 'Illegal' Immigrant

   There may be more support along the border for the immigrants than what we are aware of. Who knows but what some of the landowners on the border don't even help the immigrants across, or let them in. I don't know this for fact, but I do wonder. I didn't think this way until I read a news story on Trump's visit to the border. Now, I wonder. I wonder if some are helping the immigrants in -- if they are letting them in. If they are they sure as sure are not going to be quick to let it be known, lest they get in trouble with the government for helping people cross illegally.
   When Trump visited McAllen, which has been called the epicenter of of the "crisis," the mayor spoke out, saying they don't want a wall, and noting that his city is the safest in all of Texas. There was a display of the drugs confiscated, all of which were seized from those coming through the port of entry, legally, as opposed to being seized from those sneaking across the border, illegally.
  "One of the reasons I go on TV," McAllen Mayor Jim Darling told Now This (a news outlet), " is to show our people have got a heart. I mean, people open up their arms to the people coming across. And, if you saw them . . . you could not do anything else. And, so, I think our people show that. You know, we have an area that is understanding, that has a warm heart, and that's what we are. Unfortunately, we are painted differently . . ."
   Elsewhere, I learned that of the nine U.S. representatives representing the areas along the border from California to Texas, all of them are against the wall. That speaks volumes. It would seem there is strong sentiment among the people living where the immigration is occurring who are not against them. Maybe, it is just that they favor other ways of stopping them, other than a wall, but I cannot but wonder if many of the people down there are not more open armed to the "illegal" immigrants than what we are led to believe.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLGBoL9BWQ4

Lawyers and Fingers of Blame, after Someone just Stood there, Smiling

  These days, a person could get in trouble for just standing there, smiling. It happened a week ago, and we're still talking about it.
   The point is, we're a little too sensitive. If a story is out there showing how the littlest of things can set us off, it's the Covington high story.
   Two people stand there, staring at each other, and next thing you know, it's a national controversy. We divide into sides and try to decide whose at fault? Or, is it the lack of chaperoning that caused it all? And, how out-of-control was the media, anyway? How irresponsible and herky jerky were they  -- jumping to conclusions? It's really their fault.
   Two people standing there staring at each other, and the next thing you know everybody is pointing fingers of blame every which way. Lawyers get involved. I heard a lawyer from the Native Americans being interviewed about the same time I first heard of the news story -- that quick. Then, today, I heard how Nick Sandmann's family is hiring a libel lawyer.
   There were death threats, and the school closed down to protect the students.
   Do we need to be this way? Do we need to say some teachers should be fired for not watching their kids more closely? Do we need to be figuring out who is most to blame, when really a whole lot of blaming and fault-finding doesn't need to be dibbied out?
   The long, lost words of Rodney King come to my mind -- if you will remember him and how he tried to quiet people after rioting in Los Angeles way back in 1992. "People, I just want to say, you know, can we all just get along? Can we get along? . . . Can we stop making -- making it horrible . . . ?"
   Touchy, touchy, we are, to jump each other, everyone looking for someone to blame, after a 16-year-old kid stands there -- just stands there -- smiling.
   The gall of him, anyway.
   Not that he's all so less sensitive than the rest of us, if his family has called a lawyer.
   Forgive, but does it need to come to this? Touchy, touchy, we are.

 

A mind made up is more of a wall than one of brick and stone.
-

Molehills become mountains when we find slight flaws in others and seek to bury deep the person we disfavor. We shovel dirt on them until it piles into a mountain.

The Walls of Our Minds Lock the Immigrant Out

   The greatest borders the immigrants face are the borders in our minds.  There are borders in them, you know. There are places we will not go, things we will not consider. We draw a line, and refuse entry to thoughts we do not like.
   It is these borders that keep the immigrants out, for if we did not have these borders, we would let more immigrants in.
   If a person has made up their mind on a matter, that opinion will not be easily changed. A border has been established, one that not even truth can penetrate. A wall has been thrown up.
   Draw a line in the sand, then, and cast up a wall along it, and it will be easier for a person to go over or under it than it will for that person to change our minds about whether we should let them in.     A mind made up is more of a wall than one of brick and stone.

Citizens can Take Away Rights (and do), Even as Governments can

   "Freedom of speech, freedom of religion," Mr. Matthews said, marching down one aisle of the class. "Can we take freedom of religion to include the right to hold any belief?"
   "Let's say a person is a bigot, does he have that right? What if he says, 'By letting so many Muslims in, we're jeopardizing our society.' Now, what if the person is a U.S. Congress member? What should we do? Censure him? Punish him by removing him from all committee assignments? Ask him to resign his seat?"
   Mr. Matthews stared out at his class. "Surely, we should do something. We cannot just let him get away with it. If we do, people will think it is acceptable."
   He looked around the class again. "Okay, okay, okay," he said. "I see what you're thinking. You're thinking we can't punish him, because he ought to be free to say what he wants, and free to believe what he wants. But, I mean, it's not like were throwing him in jail. Its not like were imposing a government fine on him."
  Mr. Matthews smiled. "You know, a week ago, our senator from Utah -- Mitt Romney -- called on a representative from Iowa -- Steve King -- to resign, because King questioned whether white supremacy is offensive. And, one house leader -- minority leader Kevin McCarthy -- suggested he might, as a punishment, revoke King's committee assignments.
   "Okay, let's take another one. How about this week? Seems there were some students from Covington High School who were said to have mocked a Native American as he beat on his drum. There were calls for students to be expelled, chaperones to be removed, and the people to be punished."
   Now, Mr. Matthews was talking about something the students could really relate too. They, too, were students.
   "Oh, wait, I have another one!" Mr. Matthews said. "This one will get to you! This one's been going on for more than a year now. How about those who won't stand when the National Anthem is sang? How about the NFL flag controversy? Do we tell them we are going to kick them off the team?  Do we take someone like Colin Kaepernick and blackball him from playing in the league? Do we, as fans, take out our anger by no longer watching the games?
    "And, what of all the times of late when advertisers have dropped their advertising because of something a television personality has said?
   "You know, you are just exercising your rights too, when you quit watching football, or, if you are an advertiser, when you drop your advertising.
    "Quit wearing Nike shoes -- You've got that right."
   Mr. Matthews looked up at the clock. The bell would be ringing soon. "Students, when you exercise your rights, they sometimes infringe on the rights of others. I don't know that you are doing that here. But, when you exercise your rights, they also sometimes damage, chill, and punish the rights of others. You have the right to do it, but doing it isn't always the right thing to do. Speak out against racism, if you will, and speak out against homosexuality, if you want, and speak out against whatever . . . but, be careful when you start to compel others by punishing them.
  "Did you know that you have power, just like a government has power? All punishments don't come from government. If government came along, and said, 'Mr. Kaepernick, you are going to jail for taking a knee during the National Anthem,' that would be wrong, wouldn't it?
   "So, if you take the power you have -- even though it is less than the government's -- and punish people for their beliefs, are you any better than that government?"
   The bell went off just then -- not a buzzer, but a real bell, for that is what this school used. Somehow, it seemed all so appropriate of an ending for what Mr. Matthews had said.
   Let freedom ring.

(Note: Index under stories or story)

We Rejected the Jews then, Even as we Reject the Immigrants Today

  Was it really all so different in 1939 than it is 80 years later, when it came to immigration?
  Remember, children, if you will, the story of the MS St. Louis, for the day may come when history will repeat. The ship came sailing, from Germany, more than 900 Jews aboard.
  Refugees, fleeing from Hitler.
  Cuba was the destination, but when the ship arrived there, Cuba said, No, you'll have no home here. So, the ship's captain sought other places for his immigrants. When he tried the U.S.? President Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration said, No, no, no. Do not come here. We just don't want you. The captain thought about running the ship ashore, thus allowing the immigrants to escape on land.
  But, the Coast Guard -- that noble agency known for saving people -- shadowed the St. Louis, denying Captain Gustav Schroder opportunity to ground his ship.
   Illegal entry into the United States? Nay, there would be none. Where walls and fences and might fail these days, the Coast Guard did not fail in 1939. President Trump sending troops to the border this past year? No so good an effort as the Coast Guard in 1939.
   Captain Schroder would find homes for his passengers, but not the best of homes. They were scattered through Europe in countries Nazi Germany later invaded, putting them, again, at risk.
  The Holocaust is said to have brought 254 of them to their deaths -- murdered, whereas the U.S. could have saved them.
  One must wonder on the attitude of our nation back then. Was it different?  Why would these Jews fleeing Hitler be denied? Did we not want them? Did we not fathom the danger they were in? Did we not care?
   Yes, one must wonder why the U.S. would reject them. Humanity? Vacate the term, if you do not allow them refuge.
  Then, one looks south, at the Mexican border, and wonders at the asylum seekers, fleeing from some of the most murderous countries on earth, being turned back into the mouth of a terror that awaits them. They might not be so endangered as the Jews, but they certainly are endangered.
   Humanity? Vacate the term, if we do not accept them.

(Note: Changes made in blog 1/22/19)

Self-Reliance should be Part of the Solution to the Immigration Problem

  We decry the tent cities of California, and lift our eyebrow at the injustice we see in our having to endure them and blame it all on the undocumented.
  What are we saying, that they shouldn't be allowed in, because they are poor?
  We decry that they get on our social programs and through the doors of our hospitals -- without paying for their own care.
  In reply, I post a blog, saying, "If you don't have borders on your social programs, it may cause you to think you need stronger borders on your land."
  What are we to expect? These are the poor from poor countries. If they arrive in L.A. where the rent is so high, they are hardly going to be able to get an apartment.
   So, a tent city might pop up.
   I went to church yesterday. Heard a speaker speak of the Self-Reliance Initiative of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I don't know much about it, but my understanding is that it is an effort to take those who need to acquire more skills to be self-reliant and help them obtain those skills.
   Consider this: If the Honduran laborer was just a common laborer in that country, what are his odds of getting into a skilled job here? In America, he doesn't even speak the common language. He is more handicapped than ever.
  So, what is the answer? What is the solution? Do we take up protest signs and protest their being here? Do we say, The solution is for you to go back where you came from and take care of yourself?
   There are surely immigrants among the poor The Church of Jesus Christ is working with. I see what the church is doing and consider that it is an effort to help the poor become self-reliant.
   Is that such a bad solution?
   Does the U.S. or any of our states have such a program? How about our sanctuary cities? Have any of them embarked on an effort to train and help the immigrants become self-reliant? Perhaps so, for I don't know all that is going on.
   But, I can see that if there is to be a solution, this should be part of it. Nothing taught, is nothing learned. If we don't make an effort to train them, they will be less likely to get trained. If we don't help them in their efforts to become qualified for the jobs that will keep them off welfare, they are going to remain on welfare.

Walls are for Criminals, so are the Immigrants Friends?

 Walls of a home, keep a criminal out
And, yes, walls of a prison, keep him inside
 So, before building a wall, along a long southern stretch
Who are our criminals, is a thing to decide

 We don't toss up a wall, to keep away friends
Nor to lock out those in poverty, that they can't have some food
 So, if we build this wall, and stretch it out long
It tells them they're criminals -- people to be shoo-ed

 So, build this wall, and cry how beautiful it is
But in its structure, will hide our own structure too
 For if in the needy, we see an enemy's face
In our judgment of others, we're quite off cue

(Note: I consider a few choices for the wording of verse two, line two. Among them:
"Nor to lock out the poor, that they can't earn their food"
"Nor to lock out the poor, that they can't have some good.")

(Note #2: Index this under Poems)

If you don't have borders on your social programs, it may cause you to think you need stronger borders on your land. 

  With the wind comes bad weather
With the storm comes a flood
  If we would to survive the wind gales
We must learn to trudge though mud

(Index: Poem)

America is the Embodiment of Goodness in a Nation

America is the opposition of evil. It is the embodiment of virtue in a nation. It is the courage to stand for the discouraged, the power to empower those without power. It is what is right taking its form as a nation. It is strength when strength means more than just its bombs and missiles. It is giving advantage to the disadvantaged. It is not a dance with the devil, but a curtsy to the saint. America is more than just a nation. It is an ideal.

We Should Demand Erdogan Drop Charges and End Abuses

  Yesterday's NBA news should have prompted the United States to take action, even if that action is no more than just speaking out.
   Turkish officials have issued an international arrest warrant for New York Knicks (and former Utah Jazz) player Enes Kanter, accusing him of involvement in a terrorist organization.
   Kanter now fears for his life, fearing a follower of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan might take him out. Kanter has has been vocal in his opposition to Erdogan, referring to him as "the Hitler of our century."
  "People have been killed, thousands are unjustly imprisoned, and countless lives have been ruined," Kanter said of conditions in Turkey.
   At this juncture, some kind of statement seems appropriate from the United States -- from President Trump -- condemning Erdogan and Turkey. Our president -- or leaders somewhere in Congress or the White House -- should respond. Turkey should be condemned, not only for seeking Kanter's arrest and endangering his life, but for all the civil rights abuses it is heaping upon its people.
  Where is the American leader stepping up to decry what is going on? We shouldn't be just sitting silently by. We should be coming to the defense of Kanter, who is an adopted member of American society. We should honor Kanter for the courage he has had in defying Erdogan and we should back him up in his claims of abuses in Turkey.
   We should list the offenses against humanity, spelling them out clearly and condemning them.
   We should demand that Turkey drop charges against Kanter, and express outrage at the way Turkey is treating its people. We should demand an end to those abuses and call on Erdogan to tell us how he is going to do to rectify what he has done.

If We would Lower Medical Expenses, We must Simplify

   That which is easy is that which we do. The difficult does not get done. There is a lesson in this for those who would have lower medical prices. 
   A comment is posted on Facebook, by one Raymond Ward, saying, in part, "My two cents in this: pharmaceutical prices will never come down appreciably until the FDA process for getting generics (especially biologics) onto the market is made much easier and transparent."
   Seeing much wisdom in what Raymond Ward says, I write back: "Wisdom there. That which is simple is that which we do. If the generics process is not easy to understand, no one will follow it. If it is easy, though, it will be a door everyone rushes through. The same could probably be said of our whole medical establishment. If we made it easy to compete, we would have more competition."
  So, perhaps the best proposal of all on what we should do to bring down our medical bills is hidden in the comment from Raymond Ward.
   What is the old quote -- "Keep it simple, stupid"? While we spin our heads out of control trying to come up with ways to lower costs, we are perhaps being a little bit stupid by not seeing that the answer is simply to simplify the processes.
 

Victories only come to those who have had defeats. If we don't learn how to lose, we will never learn how to win.

Is Border Security Overlooked When it Comes to Spies and Operatives?

   We speak of terrorists and never of spies. We concern ourselves with those who blow up buildings and neglect agents of death who would never have us know they are killing anyone.
   We worry of terrorists and gangsters slipping across out borders, but not of the spies. Back in my day, it would have been the spies we feared infiltrating into America. Why no word these days about what we are doing to protect our borders against them sneaking in?
   Now, here we have a major investigation in the news each day about Russian interference, and we don't stop to wonder if their agents are here? We don't say, Gotta keep 'em out, same as we do of the terrorists?
   Russia has been at this game a long time. They are undoubtedly good at it. Perhaps, China also. If they are concerned about influencing our elections, that might be no more than a sign they have taken their spy-and-influence game to a higher level. It would hardly mean they have abandoned their old game, but, rather, they have polished and refined it. If they had operatives in America in the '60s, they might well have even more and better trained ones today.
   They may well have stepped up their game, while we slept.
   Communist operatives? Communist agitators? That Russia is no longer considered a communist nation, does not mean their operatives have gone away. Nor does it mean they no longer are harmful.

The Canadian Border Perhaps is Weak

 The smart terrorist picks the northern border. If he comes across the south, he finds it heavily guarded. But, if he comes across the north, he faces one-tenth the manpower along a border stretching almost three times the length.
   A border, you say? In places, houses straddle the two countries. From what I'm reading, I wonder if in places, you can't walk across like a walk in the park. In 2007, workers from the Government Accountability Office crossed with a duffel bag made to look like it had radioactive material in it.
   Your weakest point is the place to attack. The weakest link is where enemies should be feared. Protect your southern border with a wall, but don't give much attention to the northern border?
   We might be so foolish.
   Yes, getting into Canada, in the first place, might be harder than getting into Mexico. But, that says nothing of what we are doing to protect our own border, as opposed to letting Canada protect it. And, it might also be true that lacking as much manpower as there is at the southern border, agents at the northern border do rely on a lot of cameras, sensors and other electronic devices.
   But, the northern border -- the largest border between two countries in the world -- still appears to be a somewhat weak one.
 

America's freedoms are only for Americans?

  Just a thought. We offer freedom of speech, and of religion, and so forth. Are we saying, you can't have these freedoms. No, America's freedoms are not for you?

  I think it would be argued there is a difference between having the right to freedom and having the right to come to America. They don't come as a set. They are two separate things. We are not taking away your freedom of speech, nor your freedom of religion. We are only taking away away your right to come to America.

  Check: We aren't even taking away that. You don't have the right to come to America, so it isn't something we are taking away.

  I will wonder, though. If people did have the right to come to America, that would, indeed, make it a freedom.

  A freedom is only a freedom if you allow it to be one.

  So, rather than suggesting there is no such thing as freedom to come to America, we should perhaps say it is not a freedom we allow.

  It's a freedom that is against the law. Not for everyone, but for some.

  Now, not all freedoms are inherent, not all are unalienable. I do think it just that we should consider on whether coming to America fits in as a freedom that is inherent in the word "freedom" or whether it is a freedom we are justified in preventing them from having. 

Do We Want Justice, or are We Just Trying to Blackball it?

    Speak of scandal, what if we had 800,000 criminal cases the government was just refusing to bring to trial in timely fashion? What if our government was limiting how many judges there were just so the cases could be backlogged -- a purpose?
   Well, then we've got a scandal.
   Supposing the number cited in the media is accurate, there are 800,000 people in America waiting for asylum and immigration hearings. That's the better part of a million. Compare that to the 12 million said to be living here illegally, and wonder about the two numbers. I would guess the 800,000 are not considered to be here illegally, for they are going through the process legally. But, wonder on this: Immigration justice can be so drawn out that you have to suppose some of them just give up on justice and go into hiding from ICE.
   They become "illegal" not because they don't want to be here legally, but because they become frustrated with the system's refusal to just give them a yes or a no. Maybe most of the "illegals" don't fall in this category, but surely some do.
  And, think of those in the detention centers. Detention center is a sanitized term for prison. The dictionary defines prison as a place where people are held while awaiting trial. Bingo, then.
  Oh, forgive, but it does seem a little hypocritical. What are we saying to them? "We are going to hold you in prison while we decide if you are worthy of the freedoms America offers."
   Consider on just one small corner where our "justice" is being doled out. Go to San Ysidro, down near Tijuana, where all the migrants congregated. Learn that 60 asylum applications a day are being opened. Think of the thousands who came. Wonder why the government just doesn't hire a few more judges and try to process their applications a little quicker.
   Justice deferred is justice denied, it is said. Do we want justice, or are we trying to blackball it? 

We are going to put you in prison until we decide if you are worthy of the freedoms America offers.

(Note: Post reworded just a titch 1/15/19)

Immigrant detention center is a sanitized term for prison

Seeing Parellels between the Life of Christ and the Lives of Immigrants

I consider the parallels between the life of Christ and the lives of the immigrants.
Christ was born in the land of Judea, which was in southwestern Palestine. Warned of God to flee, He was taken to Egypt to escape Herod's killing him, then he returned across the border of that southern country into the southwestern part of Palestine. Many of the immigrants we now have coming up from the southern countries have Native American blood in them, making them Israelites, even as Christ descended from Jacob. I do not know where Lehi's colony landed. I've heard some say it was in California. I do not know. Early on, they were, like Christ's parents, warned to flee from their original spot, as the Lamanites were seeking to kill them. Did they move south? I do not know. But, I do know they are coming into the southwestern portion of the United States, which is considered God's land. Even so, Christ returned to the southwestern portion of God's land.

Christ was rejected all the time after he returned to Israel, even as the immigrants are rejected once they arrive in America. Elisabeth, the mother of John the Baptist, spoke of having her reproach taken away. Mary, the mother of our Savior, spoke of how the Father had "regarded the low esteem of his handmaiden." Even so, we hold these immigrants in low regard. I think of how Christ was chased much of his life by the scribes and the Pharisees, so chased that he was forced into hiding, and "therefore walked no more openly." Even so, the immigrants are forced into hiding. One scripture tells us, speaking of Christ, "If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation." Even so, we are told that if we leave the immigrants alone and do not do something, they will become more numerous than us, and we will lose our place and our nation. They will destroy our country. Jesus once cast unclean spirits out of a man called Legion, and cast them into a herd of swine, and the swine ran over a cliff and were killed. And, when the people saw the man who had had the devils, and that he was with Christ, they became very afraid. Even so, we are afraid of the criminals among the immigrants today. Consider also that the swine running over the cliff must have been an economic loss for the people, even as we speak of the damage to our economy that the immigrants cause. And, consider that Christ was performing an act of charity and healing toward this man, Legion, even as we provide charitable care to the immigrants as they enter our hospitals and use our social net.. And, when the people heard the story of the man named Legion, and of the swine, "they began to pray him (Christ) to depart out of their coasts." Even so, for fear of the criminals among them, and for their obtaining our social services, and for their damaging us economically, we ask them to depart out of our land. Christ was eventually tried for his crimes, and found guilty of claiming to be that which they supposed He was not. It was considered blasphemy for Him to think He was the Son of God. The scripture reads, "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God." Even so, we somewhat think it blasphemy for them to think they belong here in America, that they are equal to the Americans who are already here.

• Attach a photo or video

n

   The spirit of hope is the spirit of life 

  With old age comes the fading of dreams, the fading of hope. Nary an old person has a dream for their future. Nary a one is still throwing open the window each morning, greeting the crow of the rooster with a shout of excitement for the day ahead. 

   No, dreams flee from the aged. They no longer speak of how some day, some way, they are going to do this or that. They no longer await the next horizon, but instead await the setting of the sun. 

   We cease to seize the moment, and instead we seize up.

   We lose our passions, and then we lose our lives. With the demise of hope, comes the demise of life. With no promising future, we soon cease to have a future at all.

   Death is the letting go of life. I will wonder, then, if it is not also the letting go of dreams. So, if you would live a long life, never quit dreaming.

  

Bravery 

makes for change. It is the fearful who cling to the status quo.

If you believe in America, you believe in letting them into America.

If you believe in justice, you believe in helping these people -- you believe in letting them into America.

If We Live by the Rules, Every Honduran Qualifies for Asylum

   What should give us pause, is that if we live by the rules, every Honduran qualifies for asylum in the United States.
   Oh, it is just my opinion -- yes -- but tell me if I am not right. Read one sentence from an entry in Wikipedia: "The country is the most deadly in the world for environmental activists."
 There are five categories, one of which a person must belong to to qualify for asylum: Race, religion, nationality, political beliefs, and social group.
   Political beliefs, you say?
   If Honduras is the most deadly place in the world for those who are environmentalists, then there is no country on earth from which environmentalists are more qualified for asylum.
   Why would not any environmentalist from Honduras not qualify for asylum, supposing asylum law is adjudicated in a fair and American way?
   And, do not think being an environmentalist is the only begging point. Not at all. In Honduras, the government has long been associated with crime. Now, pick up a current social media advertisement encouraging the people to flee to America:  "We're looking for refuge," it says. "In Honduras, we are being killed."
  Honduras is one of the deadliest places on earth.
  Now, if criminal rings are killing the people, and if the government is associated with the criminal rings, then why would it not be that you are fleeing political persecution? Why would not U.S. law mean hat you qualify for asylum in the U.S.?
  I pick up an online article from 2017 from Al Jazeera. "The life of Honduran people is at play in this election because we're in an economic crisis (and) the human rights violations by the government are increasing evident," says Kevin Ramos of the Association for Democracy and Human Rights.
   Simply put, if there is such a thing as a political refugee, how does anyone from Honduras not qualify? If they will kill you for disagreement over the environment, they can kill you for other political beliefs.
   The nation is one of the most dangerous in the Americas for journalists. Its indigenous people, its human rights defenders, and its social leaders have been attacked. There are assassinations and criminalization for political beliefs. Anyone who has a political belief running counter to that of one of the government or crime rulers is in danger.
   So, which will it be -- or both? Will we let them into America because of our compassion? Or will we let them in because our laws clearly qualify them as refugees?
   If we believe in our laws, and if we are a land of justice -- one that stands behind its laws -- we must let them in.

Let's Make a Movie Out of This

  "So, you can't get a job, I take it?" the owner of the hotel asked. "And, why might that be?"
   "I'm an illegal," the immigrant answered. "I am not an American. I'm from Mexico. I came here just to get a job -- thinking I surely could -- but now that I'm here, I find no one will let me work -- no one."
   The owner frowned.
  The immigrant looked up, desperation in his eyes. "Sir, I have no money. I cannot feed my family. Will you not please help me? Please, I beg of you!"
   The owner frowned some more.
   "Please, sir, please!"
   The owner's frown faded into pursed lips. His hands went up to his cheeks and he dragged them down his face. "No, I cannot give you a job," he said. "I've done it in the past -- I've given people like you jobs -- but, I can no longer do that."
   A tear dropped from the immigrant's eye.
   "I got caught," the owner said. "They fined me for hiring an illegal. They told me, if I do it again, the fine will be double."
  "But, please sir!" the immigrant cried. "You are my only hope! No one else will hire me! My family -- my children and my wife -- will you not help us?"
   "I cannot! I cannot!" the owner replied.
   Just then, a siren was heard. The flashing lights of a police car were seen. Two officers jumped out of a patrol car and entered the hotel. "You are both under arrest!" the first officer yelled.
   "You --you piece of filth -- for being in America illegally," said the other officer, and he pointed at the immigrant.
    "And, you?" he looked at the businessman. "I think we will arrest you for aiding and abetting a criminal. Oh, you are lucky you didn't go ahead and give him a job -- the fine would have been plenty. But, we aren't going to let you off the hook so easily. No, not after all the scum you've helped in the past and got away with. You are under arrest! You are under arrest! You are under arrest! How long have you known this man? He's a criminal, you know, and you didn't turn him in? That's harboring a refugee -- I mean, a fugitive."
   They proceeded to cuff the two men, being sure the cuffs were tight enough to scrape skin off their wrists.
   As they hauled the pair out to the car, the two officers broke into a laugh. "Okay, okay -- Just joking," said the first, looking directly into a camera. "It's all just a play -- just a movie. What, you thought we would really treat people like this?"
   The second officer looked at him, then at the camera. "Yeah?" he said. "Well, sometimes I think we come pretty close. I'm not so sure we don't."

Compromise? Use the Shutdown to Provide Leverage for Justice

  If we would end the government shutdown, offer this compromise:
  Give President Trump his $5.7 billion for a fence. In exchange, make him promise to give justice to the migrants. He must promise to provide all the immigration judges necessary to process the refugees applications. No more holding it to 60 applications a day at a border entry where 100,000 other people are processed across on a daily basis.
   Justice deferred is justice denied, it is said. If President Trump sees it as a crisis that people are coming across the border without permission, then direct him to the thought that it is also a crisis when our country cannot provide timely court cases as are called for in our Constitution.
   If he wants his $5.7 billion, and since asking for justice is not a thing you should  reject, anyway, he will have to agree to grant the migrants their right to have their cases processed in due fashion. If he is honest in wanting to allow legal migration, he will agree to this compromise. And if, per chance, the truth is he is designing to subvert their ability to come by limiting how many of them are processed, he will not be able to publicly admit it. He cannot reject a compromise such as this and save face.
  So, pledge him to man the ports of entry with all the officers and judges necessary to process the applications as quickly as they can be processed.
  No more having the initial hearing being only an excuse to schedule a hearing six months down the road. If you do not like it that the immigrants leave the hearing and disappear into society, don't think you have to wait the hearing for six months. Instead of avoiding their disappearing into the communities by placing them in detention centers, simply process their applications right then. Have the court's decision at the earliest possible juncture. Justice and fair play demand no less.
  And, place in this compromise a commitment to accept all refugees who qualify. If they are being persecuted in their home countries due to belonging to a social group not in favor with government or crime or societal elements there, grant them entry into our land. That is what our law calls for, and we believe in rule of law. 
   This government shutdown impasse should be used as leverage to provide that which we should be providing, anyway: justice for the immigrant.

We look 
into the eyes of beggars 
and see the faces 
of terrorists.

  
  Sometimes, I think we've gone a little bit crazy, as a nation. Insanity is when you see monsters lurking in the shadows. Truly for give me for the thought, but is that not what we are doing? The poor and afflicted flee to America, and we see only monsters crossing the border.
   Beggars come calling, and we see an invasion of 'aliens' -- our own word -- and consider calling a national state of emergency.

Solving the Problem is More Important than Saving Face

  When it comes to what to do at the border, do we make a wise decision or do we seek to protect our image?
   My thought is, the drugs are for the most part not coming with those sneaking across the border. No, they are pouring thru the main gate, hidden on the vehicles of those coming legally through our ports of entry.
   So, if the idea is to not worry about our image, but to do the right thing, then what do we do? Do we build the wall just to save face? Do we build it just because we said we would even though we can see it isn't the wisest way to solve the problem?
   Or, do we do what Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer are suggesting and spend the money on high-tech devices? I do not know what exactly they have in mind when they suggest high-tech stuff.  Surely, at least part of that is high-tech stuff to stop the undocumented from sneaking across. But, I can see that high-tech devices to detect the drugs from coming through the ports of entry would be a wise course of action. Couple that with more drug-sniffing dogs.
   If the major part of the problem is at the ports of entry with the vehicles entering legally, then spend the money where the money is wisest spent.

Doesn't this Mean 'Illegal Aliens' have the Right to not be Deported?

  Does an old Supreme Court Case from back in 1982 give those we call "illegal aliens" the right to remain in the United States? 

  Plyler vs. Doe was about education rights for the undocumented, and it has only been applied to K-12 schooling.

  But, if the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution extends to children the right to go to school, why does it stop there? There is nothing in that clause that specifies it is speaking only of K-12 education. There isn't anything in it saying, "We're only talking education here." If it applies to education, then it gives "illegal aliens" all other protections, as well. 

   Says the syllabus to Plyler vs. Doe:

   "The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall 'deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.' Whatever his status under immigration laws, an alien is a 'person' in any ordinary sense of that term."

   Yes, he (or she) is. So, if the highest court in the land says this, why don't we see that -- like it or not, agree that it should be so or not -- the Constitution gives "illegal aliens" all the protections it gives to citizens.

   All of them.

   One can only wonder why that doesn't include protection against being deported. 

The Jungle is for Listening

  The jungle is for listening to
And the paws you may not hear
  But in the footsteps of the lion
Is the death of which you fear

  We live not in solitude
But with wild beasts of prey
  And they'll feast upon us surely
If we do not keep them at bay

(Poem)

Life screams, and death answers

Goodness can Guide Us to Truth

  Goodness seeks the truth. And, in pursuing it, it is slow to use the weapons of anger and belittlement. But, it is fast to use that which is not a weapon but rather is the strongest force of all -- love.
  Goodness seeks the truth. It does not run from it. It does not hide from it. It does not say, "I will not discuss this with you any further." When there are disagreements, it welcomes discussion. But, it does not conduct its side with hate. It does not make false accusations, such as, "You are of the devil." Nor is it quick to fear-mongering, pronouncing false warnings. Yes, it may warn of dangers, but it weighs their truth before speaking of them.
  Goodness does not only seek the truth, it is aligned with it. Which comes first might be hard to say, but one leads to the other.
  Goodness does not only seek the truth, it brings it. Once it has found it, it shares it. And, it uses reasoning for its persuasion. It says, "Let's hear both sides and reason together, and then make our decision."
  And, when the other side says something Goodness has not considered, it considers it.
  I have suggested that before it uses a weapon, it will use a loving word. But, there are times it must use anger. When justice is at sake, Goodness must judge when it is time to endure, and when it is time to insist on justice.
   Goodness protects others; it is not all about itself. In dispensing truth, it dispenses not only those truths that favor itself, but those which protect others. And, Goodness seeks out those in need of help, so it seeks the knowledge that will help their cause. If someone speaks ill of others -- especially when it is wrongly -- Goodness might be quick to their defense. 
   Goodness seeks not division, but unity. It does not seek to divide, by suggesting one group should be favored above another.
   If we would learn what the truths are in this society of which we are part -- if we would know where to stand on the issues of our time -- we must know what Goodness is, for it will guide us those truths.

If You don't have Truth on Your Side, just Kill the Messenger

   You can enter a discussion with them, or you can yell at them, calling them liars, and tell no one to even listen to them.
   Which is President Trump doing in his fight with the media?
   If they aren't telling the truth, and you know it, you can counter it. In such a situation, you itch to tell your side of the story. You want a public debate. You want to expose what they are saying as false.
   Bring it on. I'm not afraid.
   But, if you fear what they say, if you know what they say has truth in it, you are better off if you shut them down. And, if you can't shut them down, at least call on people to not listen to them. Try to get it to where people won't even consider what they say.
   If don't have a good defense against the message, kill them messenger. Shout it loud enough, and people will listen. Tell them, you can't trust the media. Kill the messenger.
   You can't trust the media. You can't trust the media. Don't, don't listen to them.

In a Democracy, is this as Close as it gets to Shutting Down the Press?

    A dictator shuts down the press. In a democracy, though, you cannot outlaw a free press.  But, you can seek to discredit it. You can lobby with the public to not listen to it. You can shout that it is full of lies.
    "Don't listen to them. Listen only to me."
   I have long had a saying: Truth doesn't run from knowledge. I think of President Trump, and how he fights against the press, and how this amounts to running from knowledge.
   The mass media has many members. I do not doubt they influence each other. I do not doubt there can be a pack mentality. But, they remain many voices. And, I see in them people who seek the truth, who want to tell the truth. Would we silence the mass of their voices to listen only to the few who remain in good favor with government?
   If you say, "Don't belief in the mass media," what are you saying? Those in the media strive for honesty and integrity. Why the crusade against them? What is it about the press, that prompts Donald Trump to campaign against it?
   Now, if the media members are saying good things about you, you aren't going to try to shut them down. But, if they dare say something bad? Should you then lobby the people not to believe them?
   It should not go unnoticed on us, then, that Trump is fighting a press that is not saying all warm and fuzzy things about him.
   If a nation is ruled by a king, no voice of criticism is allowed. "Hail the king," is the only voice. In America, though, it doesn't work that way. So, in America, if you are to try to silence the press, how far can you go?
     This might be about as close as you can get.
 

Mr. Merrill's History Lesson

  "Today, one of the most important lessons in all of history," Mr. Merrill announced to the class.
  They looked back at him, waiting to hear what such a marvelous lesson would be.
   "The story of the Revolution? The story of the Civil War? Or any of the other wars?" Mr. Merrill said. "Or, am I going to tell you the story of George Washington, or of John F. Kennedy? Or, maybe it isn't about wars and presidents, at all. Maybe it is about inventors and scientists -- the stories of Edison and Einstein."
  The class waited, wondering what Mr. Merrill was going to say was equal to all those stories.
  "The Salem Witch Trials," the middle-aged teacher said. He paused a moment, then continued. "Before, I get started, I want to explain why the Salem Witch Trials are perhaps as important of a history lesson as you will ever get from me. There is a saying. Perhaps you've heard it. 'Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.' "
   He looked around the class, seeing he had everyone's attention.
   "And, the reason the Salem Witch Trials make for such an important lesson?" Again, he paused, then sighed. "I confess, as a teacher, I find I like to give lessons you can learn from -- lessons that society should be learning from. Oh, it is wonderful to read about the great events. But, the really wonderful lessons are the ones we can rip right out of the history books and apply in our lives."
   He smiled. He picked up the history book, and turned to pages 21-23. Carefully, he ripped the pages right out of the book, and threw them like a Frisbee at the class. "I want these pages to leave the book, and join you in your everyday lives. I want you to take the story of the witch trials, and place it right in your lives -- as real as if right in this room with you."
   Another pause.
   "Students, I want you to consider all the news of the day, consider on all the issues, all that is happening . . .
   "And, tell me if, in some ways, we are not the same as the same as those who hanged "witches" back in 1692 and 1693. Now, we don't like to think of ourselves as being as bad as those folks back then. We can see that what they did was clearly wrong, and we don't begin to imagine ourselves as being anything like them.  . . .
    "But, are we?"
     His eyes swept the room.
    "Is there anything in today's newspapers that hints of hysteria towards some people?" He picked a newspaper off his desk and held it up. Are there any stories about the populace being worked up in a frenzy against others? Now, I don't know if any of the 'witches' they executed were harmful, but I'm thinking they weren't. The folks of Salem and the towns there about, took normal-enough and harmless-enough people . . . and decided they were harmful.
    "Can we pick up the today's newspapers, and read of any place where some people are being ruled as being harmful to others? Because, if we can, we better be making sure those people really are harmful -- or, we are no better than the people of Salem and its surrounding towns.
   "Cut from the same cloth."
    Mr. Merrill looked around the class, this time, his pause even longer. He sighed, closed his eyes so tight that tears almost squeezed out, then looked back up at his class. "If you look close enough, you will see this playing out again and again in our own modern society. We still take people, and falsely accuse them. We still work up a hysteria of hate against them. We still say there is so much evidence against them -- when, there isn't. We still make monsters out of people when they are not.
   "Now, have you ever heard of a hanging judge? Those who convicted the 'witches' back in 1692 and 1693 were surely that. They got it in their minds that these 'witches' were guilty -- and they hanged them.
     "Are you any better? Are you a handing judge? If you get it in your mind that someone is harmful or wicked -- when they are not -- if you let the hysteria of society whip you up in judgment against someone else . . . "
    Mr. Merrill walked down an aisle and picked up the pages he had ripped from the history book. He took some tape and taped them back in his book. He would need them for future lessons. He closed the book and put it on the shelve.
     "Then," he said, "the pages of this history book remain closed to you. It's as if you haven't even opened the book."

If you cannot see where the shadow of the past crosses into your own day, you will continue to live under the same shadow.

If you can't see through the shadows, you can't see through the day.

Salem, Circa 1693, has a Message for America, Circa 2019

 If history is to be learned from, it must be applied to the things we are living through today. So, take the Salem Witch Trials, and how a group of people were accused of being that which they weren't, and how the populace then got rid of them. Could we find any parallel in America today?
   If those who were executed were, indeed, witches and warlocks, by chance, I only propose they were not so dangerous as everyone imagined.
   Yes, think of it: The populace back then got worked into a hysteria about these people, calling them all witches and warlocks, and got rid of them. I believe something like 200 were accused and 19 killed in those Salem Witch Trials.
   To make it safer for the rest of society, of course.
   That was America, circa 1693. Now, take American, circa 2019: Is there any place where the populace is being whipped into frenzy against a group of people who are made out to be a threat to society? You don't find any news stories fitting that description, do you? Any place where, say, common-to-poor people just wanting to make better lives for themselves are being painted as gangsters and terrorists and murderers?
  Of course we should learn from history. But, if we are not willing to see where the lesson applies -- where it is playing out in modern events -- we will not learn from our past. We will end up getting rid of people who are not so scary as they are made out to be.
   History is never learned from if you are too blind to see how its shadow crosses into your own day.
 

Help me, if you can

Help me, if you will

Searching for the Deep State

Searching for it still

Just tell me where you find it

Tell me what you know

Any friend can tell me

I'm searching high and low

Point to evidence

Point to points of fact

Tell me what the truth is

And how I should react

Whatever is this Deep State?

Should I fear it for my life?

Is it the cause or freedom lost?

Or just all the nation's strife?

Tell me, tell me, tell me

I guess I need to know

If there is a Deep State

And how it came to grow

Witch Hunts and Chasing Ghosts are Going on in America Today

   If you chase demons where demons don't exist, you chase ghosts. I have considered America, and the hatred of Hillary Clinton and of Barack Obama. I have considered on how George Soros is said to be the Anti-Christ.
   I called up a video of Soros. Watched it. Was convinced he is someone who seeks good. Let him be an atheist or agnostic -- that does not make him evil. I read of his creating the Open Societies Foundations and how those foundations oppose authoritarian government. I consider this a better life's cause than what most of the rest of us have.
   And, in a man like this, we find our Anti-Christ?  If we chase him as the Anti-Christ, we chase a ghost. If we disagree with him for funding marijuana initiatives, that's fine -- that's living in reality -- but, if we suggest he is the Anti-Christ?
  I must wondered at such myths of hatred, and how society arrives at them. How can we believe such -- well -- nonsense?
   Consider this: If we knew a person who looked into the shadows of the night and saw monsters coming after him, would we want that person for our next president or congress member? Well, if we see Soros as the Anti-Christ, we are seeing a ghost, we are seeing a monster where a monster doesn't exist.
   One, we are falsely judging another person. Two, we are bearing false witness. Three, if we pass along such a belief and persuade others it is true, we are helping drive this nation insane.
   Insanity can exist as much in a nation as it can in a person. If a nation believes in ghosts, why is that not insanity?
   And, if it believes in things that are unreal, it will govern out of a fear for them. Its monsters will dictate its policies. It will govern out of a sense of fear. Just as a child afraid of the dark reacts to those fears, so will a government afraid of a different type of ghosts run from them.
   Remember the days of burning witches at the stake? I do not know whether some of them were actual ghosts, but I am certain there were some witches who were harmless and were burned in vain.
   The society that burned them was a society insane. So, yes, I would suggest communities and nations can go insane, same as individuals. The witch-burning community looked into the shadows and saw monsters and ghosts. It governed out of a sense of fear, fear of its monsters and ghosts,  and got rid of them.
  I will wonder at America. I will wonder if it hasn't become such a nation. Look down at our southern border. Look at the poor and impoverished coming from Central America. We look into the dark of the border, into the shadows of night, and we see ISIS and monsters.
   Now, I do not know but what some of those coming from Central America will surely turn out to be criminals. Indeed, to suppose thousands would come and none be a criminal is a little much. But, to look into the faces of all these common poor people, fleeing from bad situations in life and see only ISIS and MS-13ers?
 That's to see monsters and ghosts.
  President Trump has made much of the investigation against him being a witch hunt. I cannot but think of how in the early colonization of America, we got rid of some people because they were witches and warlocks.
   A witch hunt? Where, then? Is it down on our southern border? Think of the early days in our colonization, and how we got rid of people accused of being witches and warlocks. Today, we get rid of people accused of being ISIS and MS-13. Where is the witch hunt today?
   Just as those colonizers governed out of a sense of fear  -- fear of witches and warlocks -- so we are governing out of a fear for those who are immigrants.
   If it is ghosts who chase you, it will be ghosts you run from.